< October 28	October 30 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Those arguing delete have made a policy-based case. Star Mississippi 01:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dwiragaman[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:TVSERIES. At least half of the citations come from broadcasters. This has been redirected and back a few times so I think an AfD is needed to determine consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This serial is very popular serial of Zee Bangla channel. The source I added to this page passes WP:GNG. Nilpriyo (talk) 9:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Notable television series in Zee Bangla channel. Xegma(talk) 08:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:TVSERIES.

Source eval:

Promo/primary "Full Episode Watch Online"	1. "Dwiragomon 7th January 2015 Full Episode Watch Online". Watch Live. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
Promo/primary "Bengali TV Show Watch Online""	2. ^ "Watch Dwiragomon (Zee Bangla) Bengali TV Show Watch Online". ibollytv.com. Archived from the original on 26 February 2015. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
Database style listing, fails WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV	3. ^ "Dwiragaman-Zee Bangla Serials". SerialZone. 19 August 2014.
Database style listing, fails WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV	4. ^ "Dwiragaman".
Promo "Diragamon goes on air on August 18 on Zee Bangla at the 9 pm slot."	5. ^ "Small screen explores tu-tu-main-main with sis-in-laws in Diragomon". The Times of India. 15 August 2014.
Primary/promo	6. ^ Anonymous (20 February 2015). "Dwiragomon Launch On ground Event Pics". Zee Bangla. Archived from the original on 24 April 2015. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
Primary/promo	7. ^ "Dwiragaman". Zee Bangla. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
Primary/promo	8. ^ "Zee Bangla breaks free from the usual 'saas-bahu' saga with – 'Dwiragaman'!". Zee.
TV channel promo	9. ^ "Bijaylakshmi Chatterjee: বিরতি কাটিয়ে আবারও ধারাবাহিকের মুখ হয়ে ফিরছেন বিজয়লক্ষ্মী". TV9 Bangla. 3 February 2022.

Subject does not meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found plenty of promo, database style listings, nothing that meets SIGCOV from WP:IS. Fails WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 23:53, 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 redirect‎ to List of Democratic Republic of the Congo women's international footballers. RL0919 (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sarrive Badiambila[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Democratic Republic of the Congo women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least one cap for the aforementioned national team. I am unable to find sufficient coverage, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. JTtheOG (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Democratic Republic of the Congo women's international footballers. BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. BLPs require strong sourcing from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 00:00, 5 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TheaterWeek[edit]

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

Virtually unsourced. My own searching only finds the Playbill article already cited^[1] plus some passing mentions ^[2]^[3]. Given that they ceased publication almost 30 years ago, unlikely there will be any more coverage. This is not enough to establish WP:N. RoySmith (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "TheaterWeek Ceases Publication". Playbill. Retrieved 29 October 2023.
^ "David Wheeler and the Theater Company of Boston Remembered - The Faster Times". The Faster Times. Retrieved 12 February 2015.
^ "With Sparkling Eye, Caricaturist Captures an Epoch in the Theater (Published 1995)". nytimes.com. Retrieved 29 October 2023. Theaterweek

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and New York. RoySmith (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, Twinkle seems to have made a hash of the citations. If anybody knows a good way to fix that, please do so. RoySmith (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It would appear that ((subst:!)) apparently wasn't working as intended. It might not work in other templates at all (thereby causing even the would-be host template to not transclude at all). I've fixed the refs to manually do what ((subst:!)) is supposed to do, which is implement the "|" character, and out of an abdudnace of caution apologize for technically editing others' comments (though I think this falls under the allowance for fixing formatting errors). (I have no opinion on the article at this time.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep You get several mentions of it in period newspapers [1], [2], [3] and some book discussions [4]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oaktree b, would you kindly add your sources to the article? I've added a few others. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At least a couple of sources with substantial coverage. Obviously, article needs some TLC. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssilvers could you go into more detail about which sources other than Playbill have "significant coverage"? RoySmith (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added cites to Variety and Backstage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that it's a weak !keep, with the Playbill and the literal hundreds of mentions in newspapers from the period. It was a rather important thing (judging by the number of mentions) and I'd hate to be too hung up on the rules here (we need TWO sources!) to delete it. This is a little more clear cut then the one-liners for sports players we get, that are only sourced to databases. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's a mention from a DC theater-themed digital newspaper, mentioning how the rather notable columnist used to write for the Week [5]. This magazine describes how an and in Week was used early in the AIDS crisis to promote a rather controversial play about the issue, spread over about 5 or 6 paragraphs [6]. I'd argue that's also an important piece of history, at time when the gay community was shunned for being HIV positive, showing how important the magazine was. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They also attracted controversy when they "blasted" a respected NYC theater critic: [7]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please add that? BTW, is this worth citing? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It helps. If the article is kept I can possibly update it (no point doing so if it's going to get deleted). Might not be right away, Wiki Loves Asia month is starting... Trying to up my translation skills there first. Oaktree b (talk) 18:52, 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. No evidence of notability for term, routine coverage only. Does not meet WP:GNG. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wuhan Derbies[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for over 1 year, fails WP:GNG. The teams literally played each other only 2 times and the sources are just routine match reports and nothing more, there is nothing in this article that would indicate why is this a rivalry and why is it notable, its just a random list of two local clubs playing against each other, not every "rivalry" needs a Wikipedia article. Snowflake91 (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Notability is debated and no WP:RS to be seen yet. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A search online does find several articles, but as nominator says they seem to be routine match reports, at least as I've read them through Google Translate.

StereoFolic (talk) 13:39, 5 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 23:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qingdao Derbies[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, the sources are just routine match reports and nothing more, there is nothing in this article that would indicate why is this a rivalry and why is it notable, its just a random list of two local lower division clubs playing against each other, not every "rivalry" needs a Wikipedia article. Snowflake91 (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, Lists, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:47, 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 no consensus‎. The redirect target does not appear to exist. While there's no one advocating deletion aside from the nom, there isn't really anyone arguing for keep given what Piotrus' longer comment was. I don't see re-spinning it as helping when this redirect can be handled editorially when/if the target is created. Star Mississippi 01:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Góra, Kętrzyn County[edit]

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

Mass-created article created by Kotbot, a bot operated by Kotniski.

The location given in the article is empty terrain without evidence of ever having been inhabited.

Briefly, there is no evidence that an inhabited settlement by the name Góra (literally just hill/mountain) ever existed at the site. Whilst German-era military maps show a place called Annahöhe near that location, this is obviously a different name and also not evidence of legal recognition of Annahöhe. The Polish GUS/BDL database, which includes census data, does not hold any data for a place called Góra in Kętrzyn County so this is not a place where the Polish government has collected census data in decades if ever. Whilst the TERYT database describes a "settlement" at this location, this classification was given to many different types of location include forestry offices, state farms, railway facilities etc. and is not evidence of an actual community by this name at this location.

It appears entirely possible that this place was abandoned at the end of WW2 and has never been inhabited under Polish rule, and so there never was any kind of legally-recognised settlement by this name at this location.

Happy to accept a redirect to Glitajny, which this is listed as being a locality within according to the PL wiki article. FOARP (talk) 11:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 11:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Annahöhe" was at the same location, but the name on the map is "Vro. Annahöhe" which means it was a folwark. Peter James (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge and redirect. Former, no claim of historical significance, very generic name. I don't feel like browsking through 10+ pages at TERYT to see if it is indexed there as a hamlet (osada) or whatever, but I am willing to AGF it is there per footnote given. I am fine with redirecting this to Glitajny, where we should add a sentence about former settlments in the region.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:11, 22 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!} 22:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate, I am OK with redirecting to Glitajny, which also appears acceptable to Piotrus. FOARP (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only Glitajny with an English Wikipedia article is Glitajny, Bartoszyce County which looks like a different place. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:27, 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 redirect‎ to List of programmes broadcast by StarPlus. Should subsequent cleanup at the target render this not present, this can be handled at RfD. At the moment, it's the viable solution. Star Mississippi 01:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kesar[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG Chris Troutman (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 3 years broadcast on Star Plus. A WP essay reminds us that "Television series, game shows, and talk shows broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept. An exception is if a program was short-lived and/or aired in a market where reliable source coverage is scant." Or at the very least redirect to List of programmes broadcast by StarPlus, where it is obviously mentioned.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citing OUTCOMES is circular reasoning. If we don't have sufficient sources we cannot have a sufficient article. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this comment but I don"t think citing that essay implies circular reasoning. It is just standard practice based on common sense (a series broadcast for 4 years on a major network received exposure, hence probable notability). As for sources, if deemed insufficient for a standalone article, I can only repeat that I suggest redirect exactly for that reason. I'll leave it at that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I reverted the redirect few days ago citing the above mentioned essay as Essays and information pages are not policy or guidelines that must be followed, but they are likely worthy of consideration. (WP:MEANING) But I was not able to find enough reliable independent sources required for a good article and Redirect to List of programmes broadcast by StarPlus looks like a better option . Sid95Q (talk) 19:59, 22 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!} 22:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject fails GNG and WP:NTV/WP:RPRGM, nothing from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. The suggested redirect already needs cleanup per WP:NOTTVGUIDE and adding another non-notable entry will just result in more needed cleanup. Lists have guidelines such as WP:NOTTVGUIDE, and adding this will violate this guideline. // Timothy :: talk 00:20, 5 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 Husson University#Campus. Selectively, what is sourced Star Mississippi 01:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Winkin Sports Complex[edit]

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG. The citations are either the related university or an un-reliable blog. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Maine. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've added several more news stories about the complex. It's a borderline case of meeting GNG, IMO. I'd lean towards keep and if not then merge to Husson University#Athletics.--User:Namiba 21:03, 23 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!} 22:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article isn't particularly interesting per se, and in its current state is indeed probably borderline. Maybe WP:NVENUE? The Bangor press might just get it over the line, however, we have many, many stubs about ~~less~~ not particularly significant places and structures (e.g., Pickford, Michigan, University of Belgrade Faculty of Civil Engineering, Taiwan Design Museum, Kiroli Park, or River Cur – all of which need better refs and some general improvement, but should be kept in my view). I'm mostly for keeping and improving things if they aren't rubbish or worse (i.e., I lean "inclusionsist"), so I'd also lean keep or merge (the latter only if it's not salvageable). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Husson University#Campus if, as at present, sources lack sufficient independent coverage to pass the GNG and no further sources contributing towards notability are found. Rupples (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge properly sourced content to Husson University#Campus. Target article will be improved and a material from this article will find a home. // Timothy :: talk 05:01, 5 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 23:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bheja Fry (film series)[edit]

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

Only two films released. Was going to redirect to Bheja Fry (film). DareshMohan (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 22 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!} 22:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. Sources in article are 4 promo refs about individual films, not the series, BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found promo and database style listings, interviews that mention the subject but nothing with SIGCOV. Bheja Fry (film) looks to also fail GNG and NFILM, I don't think the redirect will last long, but that is another discussion. // Timothy :: talk 08:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to echoing TimothyBlue's concerns above, the article's current subject is WP:SYNTH; sourcing does not appear to treat these films as some sort of extended series. For this reason, it should be deleted for WP:DEL-REASONs #6 and #8. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quannnic[edit]

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

Nothing written in-depth about this musican in reliable sources. Instead there are Spotify primary sources and this Wordpress article which doesn't add to notability. Binksternet (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to update the article with better sources tomorrow, consider it "in progress" as of now. If I don't follow through with this plan tomorrow then there can be further discussion on deleting the article, and you can hold me to that BigChungusOnVinyl (talk) 02:15, 23 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!} 22:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Other than music streaming websites, there are no sources discussing about them even passing mentions. AllNotAll (talk) 10:36, 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!} 04:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Chin (sport shooter)[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NOLY, and ANYBIO. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Malaysia. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:14, 22 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!} 22:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; fails GNG. No reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of the subject in a BEFORE search. Tails Wx 01:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:18, 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 delete‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boston 8-Bit[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable, long defunct music group that fails the WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. The only sources listed in the article do not appear to be valid significant coverage in reliable sources, being things like interviews in local news sources and blog/myspace entries. Doing my own searches did not turn up any coverage on this group in reliable sources at all. Rorshacma (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Massachusetts. Rorshacma (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep according to this here they were still going in 2022. References in the article are a newspaper article and a newspaper-blog article. Newspaper blogs are the kind that are acceptable as reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even if the newspaper blog were to be considered a reliable source, it is from the same Boston paper (the Boston Phoenix) as the article, and per the WP:GNG, multiple publications from the same organization should be considered a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Rorshacma (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Video games, Organizations, and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm seeing very little beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. Beyond Rorshacma's accurate comment about the GNG requiring two different sources, one of the two Phoenix cites is of a performance sponsored by the subject, almost all of it talks about other acts performing, and could not be considered in any way shape or form to be significant coverage of the subject. Ravenswing 04:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2 of the three artists described are members of the Boston 8-Bit which is a collective of artists not a group or band, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:43, 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. There is a concern that the event is not covered in the sources. From reading this discussion, there appears to be an unresolved verifiability issue. That mandates deletion in this instance.

I am not taking action on the other articles listed by Reaper Eternal, since they were not nominated in this discussion. Editors need to be given a chance to weigh in before actions like deletion are taken. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eshera assault[edit]

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

This article isn't mentioned in the source Sönmez, M: Abkhazia: 1992-2022: Georgian-Abkhazian Conflict & War Annwfwn (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This and Battle of Achadara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) share a problem. They are both by Shnorakalutsyun (talk · contribs) who isn't an extended-confirmed editor, they both fall within Project:Contentious topics/Balkans or Eastern Europe and thus under the Wikipedia:Contentious topics rules, and all three of Annwfwn (talk · contribs), Alaexis (talk · contribs), and I have looked at the Sonmez and Zurcher books and not found anything like what the content here says, in the books cited as supposed sources, on the page numbers that the article creator has stated, where xe has even stated a page number at all. By my reading this is not within the scope of the unilateral standard page restrictions, but I think that the outcome of AFD definitely should be that we rid the encyclopaedia of these entire edit histories, erring on the side of caution when an article on an Eastern European war subject seems to have dishonest sourcing. Uncle G (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It was a small skirmish, not sure if it's notable or not, but the article in its current form with the falsified sources should not be on Wikipedia. Alaexis_¿question? 06:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect we have the same problem with the Yassin Zelimkhanov article created by the same user. I've been unable to find anything about him and my request for quotations remains unanswered. Alaexis_¿question? 06:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Georgia (country). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Russian article on the War in Abkhazia mentions Eshera only in passing a couple of times. However there is very little in the way of sources about the fighting in the war, so I think keping this article or Integrating it into the article about the war itself would be the right move. F.Alexsandr (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your proposal. What exactly do you propose to integrate into the main article? Alaexis_¿question? 06:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to integrate the text from "Assault" part of the article into the main body of the War in Abkhazia (1992–1993) article F.Alexsandr (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The English language article does already mention Eshera. I’m not sure what we could add beyond what is already there. Annwfwn (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The text in the Assault section is not supported by the provided sources. Alaexis_¿question? 07:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I declined the speedy deletion as it wasn't a blatant and obvious hoax. If it is determined that this article is deleted for misrepresenting or falsifying sources, the other articles by the author should also be deleted:

Battle of Gulripshi
Battle of Kamani
Battle of Shroma
Yassin Zelimkhanov
Battle of Achadara
Battle of Akhalsheni
Battle of Guma

I also note that the author wrote five of these articles in only an hour and thirty minutes combined (see here). I and Alaexis share concerns that some of the content may be machine-written, hence the nonsensical and incorrect citations. Unfortunately, I don't have the book to verify for myself, so I can't vote in this AFD. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all of the above to War in Abkhazia (1992–1993): No objection to deletes. There not hoaxes, but a mole hills made into a mountains. Unless non-English sources that can be WP:V exist, I don't believe any of these has SIGCOV from NPOV sources, even if WP:RS are found I don't see anything here that doesn't merit TNT to make room for an encyclopedic article. Ping me if NPOV sources with SIGCOV are added to the articles.

Yassin Zelimkhanov fails GNG and NBIO, there is nothing from WP:IS WP:RS that shows this individual is notable.

I don't think "Gothic Image Publications" meets WP:RS guideline for sources on the War in Abkhazia. // Timothy :: talk 09:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rusdiansyah[edit]

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

Footballer of questionable notability. Does not pass the current incarnation of WP:NSPORT. I have found a couple mentions of his coaching ([8][9]), but searching his name brings up only mentions and blog posts. Mbdfar (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:47, 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. An editor can create redirects from page titles should you wish to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mac (It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia)[edit]

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

The Always Sunny character articles are entirely WP:FANCRUFT. Discussed at a previous AFD. No notability outside of the show itself. I'm including the following articles in this nomination:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete all nn outside the fictional universe. - Altenmann >talk 21:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The vast majority of the article is WP:FANCRUFT. The language is also unencyclopedic. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only hesitation is that these articles are rich with information about the show, albeit questionably edited at times. For deleting nonetheless because indexing by character does not feel encyclopedic. Rather, imo the per-season articles seem more fit for any notable information about each character, as their tables describe each episode. - HeDisconnected 23:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Dennis Reynolds and Deandra Reynolds as reasonable search targets. The other two are less likely to be search targets due to the disambiguators so I would consider redirect or delete for those. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:11, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian–Yugoslav conflict[edit]

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

Hello. I was able to review some of the sources, especially the ones in the lead section, but also others. They do not confirm that there was a secret Yugoslav paramilitary operation in Albania, or that there was any military conflict between the two countries. Considering that most of the sources do not have any page numbers, it is hard to know what to seek. If there are editors who claim that the content is supported by the sources, they should give relevant page numbers and quotes. Right now though, this article seems to be WP:OR and WP:POVFORK of the article Operation Valuable. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Europe, Albania, Serbia and Yugoslavia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.245.46.14 (talk) 07:57, 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 Keble College, Oxford. Please be sure that the Merge/Redirect targets you suggest are not themselves Redirects. There is a useful script that shows all Redirects in a green font that is very handy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

O'Reilly Theatre[edit]

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

This is a theatre space within a realtively new building of Keble College, Oxford University. Since clean-up tags were added 11 years ago, there has been no improvement to the article. At best, the article should be redirected to the college article. Sionk (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Education, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
merge nn venue - Altenmann >talk 21:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if any sources can be found. Might just be OR, in which case, delete. I see refs that state that shows were performed there, but they don't say much about the theatre. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I agree with the above. Bduke (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I am working on expanding the article with reliable sources. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you have not added any WP:Reliable sources. Only more student newspaper articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cherwell is a reliable source: the real problem is that these articles only make passing mention of the theatre as the location where the performance (which is the real subject of the articles) is occurring, rather than discussing the theatre itself. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Keble College as there's no independent notability of the theatre. I thought there would be something about the construction in the UK papers but I couldn't find anything on Newspapers Extended. Cheers! BBQboffin^{grill me} 00:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the opening lead paragraphs to Keble College#Buildings where the theatre is mentioned under the Modern heading. No need to merge the Performances as non notable. Sources tell us only a little about the theatre or are about the plays performed there. Insufficient, independent coverage to pass the GNG. Rupples (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – enough references for WP:GNG now with updates. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – this is an award-winning project – information with references now included. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The article suggests the awards are for the building as a whole, not the theatre specifically. Rupples (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One Life Crew[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:BAND due to lack of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. A BEFORE search found the usual social media accounts/sites, forums/Reddit, retail/e-commerce, and plenty of music sites with no professional reviews (Last.fm, Rate Your Music, etc.). The only actual reliable sources I could find were this Vice article with remarkably little information about the band itself, and another Vice article that only mentions the band in passing—so no SIGCOV. Woodroar (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They come kind of close to notability, but I agree with the nominator on how their media coverage is not entirely encyclopedic or informative for our purposes. The first Vice article found by the nominator is actually about a fan dwelling on his years as a scenester, the second Vice article is about one band member's later activities. I also found this: [10], which explains a few things about the band but is actually a protest against one of their bookings. Also like the nominator, beyond these I can find nothing but the usual social media and directory listings. Per WP:SIGCOV, they're close but no cigar. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In addition to lack of SIGCOV, they only released one album on a major label and I can find no evidence that it charted. I'm sure some pre-internet sources exist concerning their first album and the events at the 1996 Cleveland Hardcore Festival, but that is speculation. Mbdfar (talk) 19:37, 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. Just a reminder, Wikipedia:Fancruft is an essay, not a policy or even a notability guideline. But I see a consensus to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto universe[edit]

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

This article is Ninja World and Jutsu (Naruto) combined, both were redirected to Naruto after an AfD discussion in 2018. 1989 (talk) 15:43, 29 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, Anime and manga, and Martial arts. 1989 (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article "Naruto Universe" likely provides quality information about the creative process behind the Naruto, Naruto Shippuden, and Boruto series due to its in-depth exploration of the development, storytelling, characters, world-building, and the creative team's insights. It might offer details on the thematic elements, and the evolution of the franchise, making it a valuable resource for understanding the intricacies of the fictional universe. It is definitely not just a combination of other articles, as it has its own distinctiveness, and lots of different references in French, English and Japanese. All of this should be definitely considered. Carlos Eduardo Wester Pérez (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlos Eduardo Wester Pérez: Why can't this just be summed up in Naruto#Development? Also, do we really need to go into the origins of Chakra, and Jutsu when we already have articles on the subjects? Just say the series was inspired by them without going into extensive detail. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per WP:WAX as no actual deletion argument for this article in particular has been presented. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tintor2 made a note on the creator's talk page it may fail WP:GNG and WP:FANCRUFT. That and the previous AfDs I linked above is what made me bring it here. 1989 (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing a rationale, I struck my keep opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:FANCRUFT (as nom indicated). Looking through this article I only see links to primary sources, and works that were done by the company involved. This doesn't establish real world notability unless independent input from those in the industry are involved. Has the "Naruto universe" had an impact outside of its fan base? I get the feeling all of this can covered better at Wikia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; pure WP:FANCRUFT material and the article only contains primary sources. Xexerss (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I agree with Xexerss. Every source in this page is a primary source (being a volune of the series or interview) and no good secondary have been found. While this article is a GA in French, this article is almost an exact translation of the French article, which makes me wonder how this is a GA in French. I would say merge or redirect but I'm not sure where it should be redirected to and I can't see anything worth merging. Link20XX (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Almost the entirety of this article is in-universe plot information. The only bits that don't fall into this is the "Creation and design" section at the top, and the main Naruto article already has a much better "Production" section that covers the development. There does not appear to be a single non-primary source being used here, so there is nothing that would need to be merged or preserved. Rorshacma (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The 'Creation and design' is interesting, but sadly, it is referenced 99% to an artbook (WP:PRIMARY). Nothing else here suggests this meets WP:SIGCOV. My BEFORE doesn't show any great sources, although the term is used in a few scholarly works, so at minimum, we should have a redirect here. Maybe one day someone will find sufficient soruces to estabilish how this meets WP:GNG, but for now, yes, this is WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough reliable independent sources to support WP:GNG. it's possible that such a long-running series has a notable universe, but this would still be a case of WP:TNT. The article would need to be rebuilt from proper sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is pure FANDOM content and is much better off in the Naruto Wiki than on Wikipedia, as it is of little interest to a non-fan of the series. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG as far as I can tell. WP:FANCRUFT is an essay so I don't think it should be cited here. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:38, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Kurabi[edit]

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

The subject has earned at least two caps for the Papua New Guinea women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sources found online along with newspapers. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 01:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment national football team members have to be notable. --VertyBerty (talk) 08:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. Per WP:NSPORTS2022, a national team cap no longer makes an article exempt from having to meet WP:GNG. See also WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:NSPORTS in general for further guidelines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - best source I can find is Loop, which is a trivial mention Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:43, 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 speedy keep‎. Procedural close, for WRONGFORUM. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where's that damn fourth Chaos Emerald?[edit]

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

Soft redirect to Wikiquote.

Non-notable quotation, no specific page on Wikiquote, no inbound wiki-links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was originally a redirect to Shadow the Hedgehog (video game) where this phrase is mentioned in one of the footnotes as being a memorable line in the game. Should this just be reverted back to its original state? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural speedy close Per WP:WRONGFORUM. This is not an article, redirects go to WP:RFD to be discussed, not here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close: Per WP:WRONGFORUM and Zxcvbnm. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 12:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close and send to RfD as a WP:WRONGFORUM. – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 22:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close Per WP:WRONGFORUM, send to WP:RFDQuestions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:23, 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. Withdrawn by nominator and unanimous agreement is to keep. (non-admin closure) — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scion (organisation)[edit]

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

~~No third-party independent sources GnocchiFan (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New Zealand. GnocchiFan (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Environment, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a significant government research organisation in New Zealand. Regularly gets coverage in New Zealand media, e.g. New Zealand Herald, Farmers Weekly, Radio New Zealand, and Stuff. NZ Herald, Stuff and RNZ are the most prominent news sites in New Zealand; Farmers Weekly would probably be the most relevant special-interest news site.-gadfium 18:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article is poorly sourced in its current form, sources exist. In addition to those noted by Gadfium, several entries ([11], [12], [13]. [14]) in Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand detail the contribution of Scion (including under its former name of the Forest Research Institute) to forestry research in New Zealand. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your contributions to the article! I would like to withdraw this request, clearly it was in error. Thank you again!

GnocchiFan (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all, I can totally see why it looked non-notable based on what the article looked like before. :) Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable after Chocmilk03's good work on the article. Thanks, Chocmilk03!

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep yep, passes notability guidelines for organizations, per article expansion by Chocmilk03. Seconding A. B., good work! Tails Wx 02:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suggest that a Crown Research Institute has inherent notability. Schwede 66 14:37, 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. ✗plicit 14:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seshadripuram Public School[edit]

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

Created by a single purpose editor. Only a primary source provided. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Karnataka. LibStar (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
del nn. - Altenmann >talk 21:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - online search pulls up some passing mentions and database listings, but no SIGCOV. StereoFolic (talk) 13:22, 5 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 14:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Najiballah Karimi[edit]

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

Despite being capped at international level, I can't find even one source that pushes this anywhere near WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I found Shahidvaez1384, but the coverage is not significant and it's an official website for a sports club, so it won't be WP:RS or independent in any case. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Afghanistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:19, 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. ✗plicit 14:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 Nottingham Forest Women F.C. season[edit]

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

Unfortunately, the third tier FA Women's National League North does not tend to get anywhere near as much coverage as the Women's Super League or the Women's Championship (England) hence why we tend not to have season articles for its clubs nor player articles for its players. For this to be kept, it would need to meet WP:GNG in its own right but I can't see anything about this season so far that has received significant coverage from WP:RS that are independent of the subject (see WP:IS). Currently, there is no evidence of GNG being met whatsoever.

Top tier seasons like 2023–24 Manchester United W.F.C. season are generally notable because the events are covered in detail by RS like the BBC. I can't see Nottingham Forest Women getting the same level of coverage. If season articles at this level are decided to be inherently notable following this AfD, this would then mean we potentially should have such articles on all Championship teams as well as National League Premier teams - but I would like to see evidence of notability first before we plunge into mass creation. Currently, we only have season articles for WSL teams. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, on the basis it appears to be an WP:UNDUE level of detail about football results, teams and team changes, for this semi-professional football team, based solely on the club website. I can't find any news coverage online about this season's matches. Sionk (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I should declare an interest as a fan and contributor (who has made a huge effort to improve the quality of the main club page, see the update history), FA Full-Time is a decent source of information for match information at this level of the women’s game. I also plan to introduce a transfers section to improve the page quality. On a general note, I object to the idea that creation of articles at this level of the women’s game to lack notability. Information about the game is improving and gatekeeping that knowledge is a barrier to growth. Hailnolly (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FA Full Time is not significant coverage, it's just a collection of statistics about the league nor do I see any special attention being given to Nottingham Forest over other teams in the division. Per WP:IS, it is also not independent of the subject as the FA manages the league in question. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I totally accept the point about WP:IS. Hailnolly (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there doesn't look to be significant enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:39, 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. Consensus is it's now a viable DAB. I leave moving to the editorial process. However please ping me if an admin action is needed there. Star Mississippi 01:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peak Mountain (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use. Pinging @Boleyn: who removed PROD in good faith. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Disambiguations. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This one is very difficult to research. But some careful adjustments led to a 19th century publication Guy's Pocket Cyclopaedia that referred to the hill into which Peak Cavern extends as Peak Mountain. I cannot find evidence that this is a 21st century name, however. There's a 19th century Cyclists' Touring Club guidebook that also refers to a Peak Mountain in the same area, although on modern on-line maps accessible to me, to the north of Eldon Hill is merely Peakshill. James Montgomery wrote a poem called The Peak Mountain. Other than those, everything else seems to have something in front of "Peak". Uncle G (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep; added two mo items found in Wikipedia. - Altenmann >talk 21:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Goodonyer! I did try to find some other Peak Mountains in … well … countries more likely to have actual mountains. ☺ No success. Too many false positives for "Something Peak Mountain" or repetitions of the two that we already had. Both of the gazetteers that I consulted (a modern one and an old Lippincott's) didn't even list the Peak Mountains that we started with. Uncle G (talk) 09:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now a valid dab page.Pam D 07:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but reorganize. I don't think this is a case where there is a right or wrong answer. There is no primary topic and I think there are probably other "Peak Mountains" that meet NGEO. So I think we should:

Move Peak Mountain to Peak Mountain (Connecticut)
Move Peak Mountain (disambiguation) to Peak Mountain

So that the main article is the dab, and the other Peak Mountains are parenthetically dabed and included. // Timothy :: talk 08:21, 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 14:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Fleming[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous 2 AfDs resulted in clear consensus to delete. My rationale for this 3rd AfD will be basically the same as what User:Dougal18 said in the previous one. Fleming does not seem to meet WP:GNG and articles from clubs that she plays for or used to play for are not independent of the subject so do not confer notability. FA WSL Full Time is the only source that I can find that might contribute towards GNG but, on its own, is not enough.

Source analysis will follow shortly. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://web.archive.org/web/20211119201940/https://www.londoncitylionesses.com/charlottefleming	Her employer at the time		Basic profile page on club website	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20210122063203/https://shekicks.net/leicester-city-women-sign-chelsea-midfielder/			Basic transfer announcement with minimal biographical info followed by a quote from Fleming herself	✘ No
https://www.lcfc.com/news/1982241?lang=en	Her employer at the time		Basic transfer announcement	✘ No
https://www.londoncitylionesses.com/post/charlotte-fleming-commits-to-the-pride	Her employer at the time		Basic transfer announcement followed by a quote from the manager and then Fleming herself	✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57664281			Announcement of release from Leicester, several players are mentioned but Fleming is not addressed in any detail	✘ No
https://www.football.london/womens-football/london-city-lionesses-fleming-injury-24879982			This is the closest to WP:SIGCOV of all of the sources currently in the article. As you would expect, since an ambulance was called, her injury is mentioned in the match report. That said, the article contains no detailed info about Fleming herself and so this is no better than a match report mentioning her scoring a goal or getting sent off.	✘ No
https://www.lcfc.com/news/1982439?lang=en	Her employer at the time		Mostly just long quotes from Fleming herself	✘ No
https://fawslfulltime.co.uk/2022/09/05/london-city-lionesses-midfielder-fleming-sidelined-with-long-term-injury/		RS as far as I am aware	~ Goes further than the Football London match report now that we know more info about her ACL and MCL injury. The article also contains very brief background info on her career but not enough to be clear SIGCOV in my view.	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Still fails GNG. She now plays for Watford but that doesn't seem to have generated any sigcov. Dougal18 (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing I find is all to the football club's website, agree with the source table, just not enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with WP:SALT. I can't think of a time when it's been applied to a female footballer but the fact that this has been recreated so many times against consensus is deeply concerning. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT Subject does not meet the GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV as it stands. User:Let'srun 19:54, 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 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 14:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Afonso Caetano[edit]

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

Played a number of games for Braga's B team a few years ago but seems to lack the significant coverage for WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. The best sources that I can find are Maisfutebol, which is a basic transfer announcement with only the bare minimum of details, and Record, which confirms his age, length of contract and briefly summarises his previous teams. It provides no more info than a database source would and, on its own, is not enough to pass GNG or SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:18, 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 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 14:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul van Rietvelde[edit]

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

Fails GNG as no SIGCOV can be found. Fails NBAD, BASIC and ANYBIO too. Cannot find a single RS which mentions "Paul van Rietvelde" more than once except this and this, which are only promotions for a new sponsorship, and some local news/interviews like this (maybe the best source but still doesn't help the article achieve BASIC) and this (routine charity event that doesn't provide coverage for the subject except for some feelings from him). 1E might also be applicable as these two sources exist just because he was going to participate at the Commonwealth Games; ("preparing for the Commonwealth Games", "I'm definitely going for a medal", "competing at a home Games is always important", "hoping to take part in the Commonwealth Games") no similar coverage could be found after the Games. Timothytyy (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Badminton and Scotland. Timothytyy (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:45, 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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 04:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jijo Antony[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP Fails GNG and BIO. Lots of promo, interviews, nothing that meets WP:IS, RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Completely fails BLP as was indicated multiple times at AfC.

Rejected twice at AfC [15], [16]. Author then copy paste moved the article to mainspace which was then deleted as sock creation [17] Author blocked as a sock User talk:Godjo J#Blocked for sockpuppetry. Rejected draft now moved unimproved into mainspace.

Editors have basically been edit warring this into mainspace. // Timothy :: talk 17:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that in the variously drafts and moves, the original AfD wasn't closed for this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jijo Antony but the currect article in mainspace does not have the tags any longer. // Timothy :: talk 17:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Very Very Strong Keep for both procedural and guideline-based reasons, at least. The first Afd was not even closed! Then the page was draftified in the middle of the process. Then the draft proposed for Speedy deletion (which was obviously declined (same nominator for both Afd and CSd, fwiw)). Most of all, this director is notable according to Wikipedia:NDIRECTOR:

"People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards (..)The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);" That is very very clearly the case here and that is not going to change, after 2, 3, 4 Afds, closed or not. He is director of 4 notable films, all having received substantial coverage, and the last in date having won an important award. According to the guideline, he is clearly notable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above is a reason for a speedy keep, all of the above is opinion. // Timothy :: talk 17:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you opened 2 Afds for the same article at the same time? Well, it should! But I'll change the wording if that it is the only problem. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

reply to your additional comment all of the above is opinion. If you think guidelines and facts of the history of your edits are all opinion, it’s disconcerting and so is your total lack of response to the issue of this double Afd., or the fact that you don’t seem to accept any responsibility for it at all. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are well aware of the DE around the copy and paste moves of drafts for this article and the reason the AfD tags are misplaced. // Timothy :: talk 17:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DE by whom, if I may ask? And is it not your responsibility as nominator to check all of this and to withdraw if you see something is clearly wrong? Surely you understand that 2 Afds for the same page at the same time is not correct. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments 1)The creator of the page was blocked after creation of the page so that it shouldn't interfere with what we think of the page. 2)I am inviting the nominator to withdraw at least this nomination and to reboot the 1st one, or the other way around, as they wish. Or at least to leave a note there. But clearly 2 Afds on the same page is not a good idea.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Editors should look at the sock info. // Timothy :: talk 01:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source eval: Mushy Yank conveniently forgot to include this:

Source eval:

Comments	Source
"Book my show" promo	1. "Jijo Antony". Book My Show. Retrieved 2014-03-14.
Subject one sentence mentioned. About a film	2. ^ "'Adithattu' Box Office Collection: See how much Shine Tom Chacko's deep-sea thriller earned in three days". Times of India. Retrieved 2022-07-01.
Promo interview	3. ^ "The evolution of Jijo Antony". Gulf News. Retrieved 2016-04-05.
Promo interview	4. ^ "Prithvi's Darwin is no 'Pokkiri'". On Manorama. Retrieved 2016-03-16.
Promo interview	5. ^ "Jijo Antony talks about the risks of shooting the film entirely at sea". OTTplay. Retrieved 2021-08-02.
Subject not mentioned. About a film	6. ^ "53rd Kerala State Film Awards: Complete list of winners". The Indian Express. 2023-07-21. Retrieved 2023-07-24.
404 page	7. ^ "ഓരോ സിനിമയും ഓരോ പോരാട്ടങ്ങളാണ്". Reporter Live. Retrieved 2022-07-05.
Database entry	8. ^ "Jijo Antony". FiLMiBEAT. Retrieved 2022-07-02.

// Timothy :: talk 01:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mushy Yank also forgot to move over the Delete !vote from @Siroχo: [18], found on the the dup AfD. Mushy Yank, if you're going to "fix" this duplicate AfD, you should include all the information, not just the points that agree with yours. // Timothy :: talk 01:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What? Such inapproriate comments! I forgot to fix your double Afd? When I invited you to dot it? You still did not address the double part, by the way.

And conveniently? meaning in bad faith, you realise that? When I mentioned here that that double venue exists!

And no, I would not move other people's votes (let alone your rationale) to a discussion that I think is procedurally null and that I did not start! How could one even know what you wanted to do after you had proposed the page for Csd and it was declined? These are very disconcerting reproaches.

You could have, as I did, talked to the user who draftified it and asked her to undo it. You did not. I did. You preferred to CSd the draft. Sure. Your choice.

I made it clear I wanted to move the page to the main then.

The key to this may be when we talked on the talk page of the draft where I said that drafitifying in the middle of an Afd was wrong but your only reply to that was " They are a sock". You could have said "Ah, yeah, right, I'll talk to that user and restore the page and Afd" No. You did not. You preferred to ignore my remark on that point. Your choice.

I mentioned it twice on the TP of the user who had draftified it. I thought the Afd was "nullified" in the process and was surprised you had not added anything to the page of the 1st Afd at least for information; it was very easy to fix or at least to TRY, and I invited you repeatedly to do it after I saw you wanted to follow this path, but apparently you prefer to blame everything on me for some reason. Sure.

And if you want to ping @Siroxo:, do it with their correct user name, or they won't be notified. I am also pinging @Liz:, who had relisted the Afd, before you accuse me of not having done it, conveniently of course. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jijo Antony to let this one run. I was the admin who initially p-blocked the article creator, but as this is just clerking I do not see it as an issue. I will not !vote on content/merit. Star Mississippi 15:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and apologies for briefly leaving the article without an AfD tag. It has been restored. Would someone please feed the gremlins Star Mississippi 15:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current version. I am still not sure why an old rejected draft was moved into article space by User:Mushy Yank. There is a better version available but we need to get rid of this one first. Deb (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand. @DebYou do remember you are the one who directed me to the draft when I was asking you to undelete a better version, don't you? Which better version are you talking about? Available where? If that is the case, is it not simpler to modify the page so that the better version is the one users can !vote about? At the very least, please identify it so that we can make up our mind. I never thought Afds were about deletion of versions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Deb's talk page, where she identified the better version as that of October, 6. Thanks. I will check. For the record, I incorrectly assumed that Deb had moved the page to draft during the 1st Afd. She just speedy deleted it yesterday, leaving only the original draft behind if I am not mistaken. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not able to follow the histories and versions, but if someone needs to close this in lieu of an alternate version to be discussed, feel free. If there isn't a version to be considered, it's my opinion that this should run so that consensus may be established. Star Mississippi 23:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I speedy deleted it because there was already a version in draft that had been rejected and that you had just left there when you created a new one in mainspace. The older versions are not visible to you because they have been deleted. That's why moving the draft into mainspace wasn't the right thing to do. The discussion on this page now centres on the present version - the rejected draft that you moved to mainspace without correcting it. What you actually asked me to do was to undo "your" draftification - which had absolutely nothing to do with me. If you hadn't decided to argue the toss without checking the facts, I could have moved an old version into draftspace for review. But I'm not getting any further involved. If another admin wants to help you out, that's fine with me. Deb (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Deb I am afraid this last comment of yours is quite misleading. Take the time to check the timeline. I moved the page to Main from the draft (17:53, 7 October 2023‎ GMT) , AFTER you had speedy deleed the article in the middle of an ongoing Afd (October 7, 16: 17 GMT), which is almost two hours before I moved it. And I used the Draft as YOU had told me if I wanted to work on the article to move it to the main. And I am sorry but, yes, I did spend time correcting the draft and checking the facts (again, what you say is not true and this is still verifiable). Saying that I asked you to "undo MY draftification" is simply not true and does not make sense. I asked you to undo your speedy deletion and restore the version that was discussed (and the Afd for that matter, should you think your speedy deletion had not nullified it). Your refused and YOU sent me to the draft version. Everyone can verify that.

If there is a better version, not visible to most users, then, by all means, provide it, please (but I understand that you still do not wish to do so, for reasons that are not clear to me). Did I move the page once to Main space before October 7? Possible, I honestly cannot remember and cannot see it in the page history; I only remember trying to improve the page. But then, if you say my (or is it not mine but simply better? well, if my improvements were not enough, at least someone else's were to your liking) version of October 6 was better than the current one, why speedy delete it (in the middle of an Afd)? Best,

PS1- On your talk page you mentioned this was a G6 Csd. How did "G6: technical deletions, only if the deletion is temporary, or if no actual content will be removed" apply to an article like this, especially during an Afd, if I may ask?

PS2- do ping me if you wish me to know you replied. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid your comments are quite misleading. But as you say, anyone can verify what actually happened. Deb (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They surely can. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close. It's pretty clear that something has gone wrong here. I don't think there's a lot of benefit to casting blame for the variety of mistakes and misunderstandings in good faith. Let's close this and take some time away from the topic. Wikipedia won't crumble because one AfD goes wrong. —siro χ o 22:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't just let BLPs exist because persistent DE. Its been rejected at AfC twice, speedy deleted once, and the author blocked as a sock. It needs to run its course and be evaluated based on sources, guidelines and policy (WP:BLPs require WP:V strong sourcing - this is non-negotiable policy). Thats a lot of editors !voting that should be deleted, and a DE shouldn't derail this AfD.

A simple look at sources (such as was done at AfC) shows this BLP needs deleting.

Closer: Please look at the AfC comments regarding BLP sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 23:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. The creator knows better than to insist on a declined draft going into article space. Deb (talk) 06:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, but leaning move to draft. It appears uncontested that the article subject has the substantial roles identified (writer, director, producer) with respect to the works listed in the article, and that these works are individually notable to the extent that no one has challenged the existence of these articles. I would restore this to draft, give it some time for additional sources to be produced, and allow for it to be resubmitted through the usual WP:AFC process. BD2412 T 03:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Source 3 is a RS, the rest are iffy per sourcebot, but are confirmation of the works this individual has been involved with. There would likely be more in native language sources; plenty of films directed have reviews published about them, showing some evidence of notability for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft seems fine as well if this goes that way. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first sources mention his last name Anthony four times and gives notability for being an international (non-Indian) newspaper Gulf News. The other sources are just brief mentions. A source in the native language ജിജോ അന്തോണി yields close to nothing ([19]) but the Kerala State Award gives him notability. DareshMohan (talk) 06:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AFD is a mess. My instinct is to Draftify this article but I'd like to see if there is more support for that option. Right now, there is no overwhelming consensus for any particular closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article needs work but there seems to be evidence of notability from various reliable sources. DCsansei (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify is the kindest outcome, though I wouldn't oppose deletion. The sources are really not great. The Gulf News article reeks of press-release, almost certainly triggered by a publicist. The Indian Express piece is again routine publicity released before the film was shown. The On Manorama bit is mostly interview. The Times of India pieces are both sponsored content, I think? The Economic Times bit mentions Antony once in connection with his film getting the Kerala state award for the best second film. I'm not really convinced this award is, on its own, enough to confer notability. Unless there is something truly independent, a genuine review published after a film's showing, by someone who wasn't prompted to do so by someone connected with the film, we cannot have an article in main-space. Elemimele (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No idea about the article history, subjects probably meets notability requirements though. Referencing on the other hand is a bit weak. Oppose deletion, either keep or recommend moving to draft. - Indefensible (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Constructive comments are starting to appear but there is still no strong consensus on whether keeping or draftifying (or deleting).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While draftify is a good WP:ATD, it was declined three times at AfC before creator moved it on their own to the mainspace so no sense sending it back. Four of the seven references (1, 2, 3, 4) fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The Gulf News seems to be the strongest source; however, I question it being actually written by Gulf News staff. The byline author has a note of "special to the tabloid" indicating they are not a staff writer. The title is also "the evolution of Jijo Antony" yet the article is brief and doesn't go in-depth about his career (where is the "evolution"?). Everything else I find online is mention of him along with the films or other references falling under NEWSORGINDIA. If anything, redirect to Konthayum Poonoolum where we can at least verify he was part of. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi'ed to stop the sock disruption. I don't think my prior actions make me Involved, but if an admin disagrees, feel free. Star Mississippi 14:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CNMall41; if it's been declined repeatedly at AFC then draftifying it is a cop-out. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Croatia women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karla Šabašov[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Croatia women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least seven caps for the aforementioned national team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Croatia. JTtheOG (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:20, 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 no consensus‎. After several relists, I can't see a general consensus from those who have discussed their views here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of police stations in the West Midlands[edit]

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

I haven't been able to find any reliable sources discussing police stations in the West Midlands as a group or set, as required by WP:LISTN. The entries that are sourced cite incredibly insubstantial passing mentions in local news stories: the source cited for the existence of Dudley Road police station, for example, notes that a building "apparently used to be the local police station" and is uncertain what century it was built in. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, awareness of which thankfully has led us to mostly avoid lists like this (our only other lists of police stations being List of [notable] police stations and List of district police stations in Hong Kong). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, Police, Lists, and England. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources exist, not all of which are online. Here is another source for the building in Dudley Road, with pictures of it in use as a police station; though the original source's "Built in the late 19th or early 20th century" is hardly a deletion rationale. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'd keep it. Many West Midlands Police stations have closed, been sold or demolished. And most of our sources are from the Birmingham Mail, our local newspaper. Sparkhill Police Station is now a Bosnian community centre. Flags up. Maybe references in the Pevsner books. Ellrbrown (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sources for individual stations are immaterial. They need to be discussed as a group. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a place for indiscriminate information. The list may be suitable for historians to study at a relevant museum or archive, it is not suitable for en.wiki as it is not noted nor notable. JMWt (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a well-defined, perfectly acceptable list. Plenty of sources. Of course stations in a single force area are discussed as a defined group. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By independent sources? If so, produce them. Because all that's there now is single-station ones. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you and the nominator probably need to reread WP:LISTN and tell us exactly where it says it is a requirement that they must have been discussed as a group or set. Because that's actually not what it says at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Describing this as a list of stations in a single force area is anachronistic at best, plain wrong at worst, given that many of these stations closed decades before West Midlands Police came into being. Saying that the aforementioned Dudley Road station, for example, was in the WMP force area is like saying Catherine the Great lived in the Soviet Union. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The West Midlands is a county - a perfectly standard sub-division of the country. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of nom reasons and Necrothesp ("Of course stations in a single force area are discussed as a defined group." "then produce these sources" "But but but, it's not a requirement to have such sources"). Really... Fram (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There clearly are sources. Maybe you should look at the article and read the appropriate guideline, which doesn't say what several people here seem to think it says. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's take WP:CSC: "Every entry meets the notability criteria"? No, clearly not. "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria."? No, we already have articles for some entries. "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. "? It's not short, and we don't know if it is complete or not. And that's after discounting the basic WP:LISTN because that only gives again and again strong suggestions but not 100% binding requirements. Agreeing that a list may be deleted because it fails those strong suggestions is not the heinous crime you believe it to be. Fram (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - The third criterion seems applicable to me. It's hardly a long list. All LISTN says is One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources.... One, not the only! A list doesn't automatically fail notability criteria if it doesn't meet this, nobody should be claiming it does, and no closer should be deleting based on those who do. Of the delete votes so far, four (including the nominator) rely on this spurious claim and one merely expresses an opinion that it's "indiscriminate information", which it clearly is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is a standard criterion it clearly fails, and people !voting delete see no good other reason to keep it. A closer would be hard-pressed to disregard these when the keeps don't have a stronger argument, as is the case here. Fram (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        This is the crux of it in my view – the guideline is somewhat fuzzy, but that fuzziness obviously doesn't mean that we default to keep in the absence of good arguments. The claim that sources exist for individual entries, as well as being very questionable given the current state of the article, is obviously one that could be used to justify keeping all manner of trivia, so plainly isn't a good argument. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTN. Most of these police stations are completely non notable. Ajf773 (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. West Midlands Police station closures are talked about as a group see: [20] and [21] and [22]. Rupples (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal. Closures are not stations. This is not a List of West Midlands police stations that were closed. Furthermore, I could easily find sources for other things that were closed, e.g. Kmart store closings 2022: Just three Kmarts remain after new round of closures. Things routinely close; schools, coal-fueled power plants, etc. etc. They don't merit standalone lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because its closed doesn't mean it never existed. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 03:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which has no bearing on the notability of this list whatsoever. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we review whether the sources showing station closures have discussed as a group change the calculus, which is currently to delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - for me the issue is whether we can take police station closures in a snapshot of time to show that the location of police stations is notable for all time. Clearly police stations have been noted. Clearly as a group they've been written about. For me that doesn't change the metric of a page that contains essentially esoteric information. For me this is a list that may well belong in a museum. It's not suitable for en.wiki. JMWt (talk) 08:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably, by "esoteric information", you actually mean "information I'm not interested in"? What is esoteric to one person is vital historical information to another. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here's a report on custody suites in West Midland police stations.[23]. More on closures [24]. Historic England commissioned a report on police stations which shows they are considered as a group for architecture and historic importance (four from West Midlands listed towards end of the report).[25]. Rupples (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first two of these are primary sources; notability requires coverage in secondary sources. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged, but do you accept the Historic England report as contributing to NLIST? Rupples (talk) 05:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As these police stations close it seems some are being reevaluated and are notable for historic and architectural reasons as witnessed by their listing in recent years by Historic England. I've annotated two (Acocks Green and Darlaston). What about changing the article title and restricting entries to those locally or nationally Listed? Rupples (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NLIST and WP:CLN, there are no WP:IS WP:RS that provide direct and indepth sourcing that discusses this as a group and it serves no navigation purpose. for CLN. // Timothy :: talk 12:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although this book is about London Police stations and so doesn't cover the West Midlands, its coverage is not restricted to listed buildings and is illustrative of police stations being covered as a group.[26]. Rupples (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The problem I see with this list and why I've refrained from !voting is its scope. What are the criteria for inclusion? It includes current and former police station buildings, but there are likely many former ones missing such as those that closed pre-1974. An example is the former Stechford police station in operation until the present one was built in around 1970. Surely, West Bromwich had an older police station? What about police houses? Is the article restricted to police buildings extant or recently in existence? It's not clear. There was an AfD a few months back Articles for deletion/Fire stations in Columbus. The article being discussed appears to cover all fire stations that ever existed in that city, totalling about 65. I count about 70 police stations in this article and likely many more that could be included, making the list overly long. I think the list is potentially encyclopedic, but needs a reconsideration of its scope. Rupples (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reason is WP:LISTN. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above, WP:LISTN. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ or more specifically there is a consensus against deleting the article but there is no consensus as between keeping as is, merging, or redirecting. That aspect of things isn't a discussion which needs to take place at AFD; it can be taken forward on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daenerys (given name)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am nominating this page for essentially the same reasons as Khaleesi (given name). The subject is not notable enough to be featured as a stand-alone article on the encyclopedia. At best, a blurb can be added to the page Daenerys Targaryen if necessary regarding its popularity as a baby name in the aftermath of the series. Due to notability concerns, ~~I am proposing Deletion of this article. TNstingray (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

To amend my original suggestion, this article is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. I am proposing a Redirect of this article and Khaleesi (given name) to Daenerys Targaryen, using the information and sourcing to strengthen an existing article rather than diluting valuable information across three pages. Neither name is notable in and of itself: they are intrinsically tied to the character, and such information should be listed on the character article. I should note that the opposition is not rooted in policy beyond establishing that it is a notable fact that these are popular baby names; this does not warrant the existence of stand-alone articles in violation of WP:BADFORK and WP:CRYSTAL as established in the discussion below. TNstingray (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It is referenced and is clearly notable. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject appears to contain enough WP:SIGCOV with which to pass the WP:GNG, such as from New York Magazine and the NYT. Nothing has seemed to change from the last AfD. User:Let'srun 02:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Also meets SUSTAINED with various pieces of coverage over many years ranging from 2014 to 2023. —siro χ o 03:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG easily met and a proper stub. Nate • (chatter) 03:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fictional elements, and Science fiction and fantasy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep contain enough WP:SIGCOV --Tumbuka Arch^★_★^★ 12:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why does the subject warrant its own unencyclopedic stub article rather than redirecting to a section under Daenerys Targaryen? That would greatly increase the value and conciseness of both subjects. I honestly should have boldly converted the page to a redirect rather than nominate the article here. TNstingray (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about usage of the name, not about the character, and it is referenced and notable. I would also object to a redirect. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The usage of the name is exclusively derived from the popularity of the character. All of this would better serve the article and the encyclopedia to add a sentence or two to the Daenerys article. I think it is notable to say that the popularity of the character resulted in parents naming their kids after her. But Wikipedia does not need a stand-alone article to accomplish this. A redirect is a perfect compromise between unchecked inclusionist and deletionist tendencies. TNstingray (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree and I am opposed to a redirect. It is referenced and it is notable. Thus far, yours is the only vote in favor of deletion. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that the information itself is notable, but this is a WP:BADFORK, specifically a WP:REDUNDANTFORK that should never have been separated from Daenerys Targaryen. The value of the encyclopedia would objectively strengthen if the minuscule amount of relevant information included in Khaleesi (given name) and Daenerys (given name) were added back to Daenerys Targaryen. The subjects are 100% exclusively tied to the character, and should never have been separated into their own articles. While I must assume good faith, it is possible that the voting majority just saw the sourcing without considering the subject material, part of a larger recurring problem with Wikipedia bureaucracy.

Imagine creating a separate page for "Frodo (given name)", diluting the encyclopedia rather than simply adding a sentence to Frodo Baggins to describe the character's cultural legacy, strengthening an existing article.

WP:NOPAGE At times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic) TNstingray (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still don't agree. The article is about the name and its usage, not the character. There are several thousand girls named either Khaleesi or Daenerys. As they come of age, some of them will undoubtedly have Wikipedia articles about them and be listed with the article as examples of people with the name. If and when there are several thousand boys named Frodo and the name receives significanr mainstream coverage, the article !Frodo (name) can be created. i oppose deletion of both articles and also oppose redirects. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you want to defend an article that you created. But the names Daenerys, Khaleesi, and Frodo currently have absolutely no stand-alone value that warrants separation from the characters who inspired parents to name their children after them. The argument you are using now is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. In these cases, the usage of a name is 100% entirely, exclusively, intrinsically tied to the character. Such information should be used to strengthen the existing character articles. Currently, the only worthwhile, policy-based argument for keeping these articles is that they have sourcing, which I am completely fine with using to support and strengthen an individual point in the Daenerys Targaryen article. TNstingray (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree not because I created the articles but because the article is about the history and usage of the names, not the character. Articles about names have merit in and of themselves. i continue to oppose deletion or redirection for both. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having both a Daenerys (given name) article and a Khaleesi (given name) article seems like a rather misguided approach to covering this topic on Wikipedia. It is to my eye a pretty clear WP:NOPAGE situation. I would suggest consolidating the information at a single page, whether that be the Daenerys Targaryen character article, an article about given names from A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones (or even popular culture more broadly), or some other article altogether. It is uncontroversial that popular culture influences what names parents choose for their children, and creating separate articles for each individual example is not exactly a good idea. I don't know that this is the best venue for discussing the issue, but insisting that a poorly-conceived article should be kept (as opposed to merged, or some other solution) because of notability is not particularly helpful and doesn't lead to the encyclopaedia improving. TompaDompa (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to a broader name article that discusses the general popularity of the names from Game of Thrones, since several of the referenced articles mention more than one name that increased in use because of the books or TV series. i don't think deletion or redirection to the character article would be appropriate. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied text and sourcing from Daenerys (given name), which is virtually the exact same text from Khaleesi (given name), and pasted it into Daenerys Targaryen#Recognition and awards, visualizing what this approach would look like as a compromise between unchecked inclusionist and deletionist tendencies. I should also comment that Khaleesi by itself already redirects to Daenerys Targaryen. Consensus here demonstrates that the information itself is notable and should be kept, and as such I have amended my position. I understand wanting to defend one's article, but one of our priorities as editors on Wikipedia is considering how best to help the readers understand it, per WP:NOPAGE. It is clear to me that in this case, the way to do so is strengthening one article rather than separating out redundant information into two incredibly weak paragraphs.

To condense these conversations and respond to your last statement in the thread above, this article about a name does not have merit in and of itself; as I have already mentioned, any "history and usage of the names" entirely involves the character. There is absolutely zero notability outside of the character, and as such, it should be listed there and redirect there. TNstingray (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I still cannot agree to redirect it to the character article. A stand alone article about all the Game of Thrones names that rose in popularity and is categorized with appropriate Game of Thrones and name categories, maybe. Arya also rose in use and, to a lesser degree, so did names like Tyrion, Theon, Sansa, Brienne, etc., as mentioned in some of the references. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't warrant unique articles for the given names Tyrion, Arya, etc. If such a naming trend is observed and reported by reliable sourcing, that blurb of information can be added to the legacy sections of existing character articles. A stand-alone article about names does not exist yet (nor am I aware of one for any other fictional series, but I must respect WP:WHATABOUT), so the best place from my outlined policy perspective for both Daenerys (given name) and Khaleesi (given name) is to redirect and strengthen the article for Daenerys Targaryen. After my recent edit at the latter, I must emphasize that the information from your articles are still present on the encyclopedia. TNstingray (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I still oppose deletion and redirection toban article about the character because these are articles about names. The reason I created these particular articles and not an article about Tyrion (name) or Sansa (name), etc., is because of notability. Daenerys (given name) and Khaleesi (given name) both have significant usage. Khaleesi has ranked among the top 1,000 names given to American girls since 2014 and use has continued after the show ended. This is also why that particular name has had media coverage. The top 1,000 names list is one indication of notability. The other character names increased in use but are not in the top 1,000 and remain rare, except Arya (name), which has other origins as well. These articles both pass general notability guidelines and are sourced. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are going to keep talking in circles. I'm trying to explain the disconnect between what you think the articles are versus what the articles actually are. These are not articles about names. These are articles about the legacy of the character, and as such are WP:BADFORKs. The name "Arya" warrants its own article because of the stand-alone historical/cultural significance outside of the fictional character. Neither Daenerys or Khaleesi are in the same category in the slightest. They were invented by G.R.R.M. and at the moment are entirely tied to the legacy of that character and universe. Neither are acceptable content forks. I am agreeing with you that the information is generally notable and sourced enough to include at Daenerys Targaryen, as I have already done. But the fact that 100 babies were named "Daenerys" in 2021 and 2022 (out of over a million baby girls born each year in the US) absolutely does not warrant its own article. I have provided numerous pages of policy and guidelines, none of which have been addressed. Your only rebuttal has been that the information is sourced and notable, which I have acquiesced and made the necessary changes to compromise between our opinions. TNstingray (talk) 12:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are going in circles. I simply don't agree with your stance and I am not going to. if you want to discuss a separate article covering all the Game of Thrones names under a Game of Thrones category, I am open to that Not to deleting these articles or redirecting them. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have moved past the deletion option. You have yet to respond to any of my points derived from Wikipedia guidelines, particularly WP:BADFORK. Consensus here is to not delete the information, which I have respected and added to Daenerys Targaryen. I am open to discussing such an article, but in the meantime, the best option for both articles is to redirect, as they are both redundant forks. TNstingray (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am answering; we just don't agree. I don't agree the appropriate option is to redirect it because the articles are about the usage of the names, including statistics, not the character. They're certainly related, whuch is why it's aporopriate to include them under the Game of Thrones category and a link to the article about the character and to other articles. The usage stats for each name are distinct, for one thing, and Khaleesi has greater use. There is an argument to be made for an article about the use of all the Game of Thrones names with redirections to that article frm the current Daenerys and Khaleesi articles. That had originally been suggested but never got done, for some reason. My main issue is that itshould be a separate article about the nams. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per nomination. the name's notability is inseparable from the fictional character. Llajwa (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Daenerys Targaryen#Recognition and awards per WP:NOPAGE: "Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article". No compelling reason has been given to fork this content into its own article, especially two different ones. --Mika1h (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Daenerys Targaryen as above. Mbdfar (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For what it's worth, I tend to agree that real people's given names are a fundamentally different topic than fictional characters that inspired the name, and don't think WP:NOPAGE applies in such situations. A good comparison here is Jessica (given name) vs Jessica (The Merchant of Venice). Despite the brevity of the prose at Jessica (given name), I don't think we would seriously consider a merge. —siroχo 16:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's self-evidently not an apples-to-apples comparison. I'm not sure if you're suggesting that the real-world use of the name "Jessica" today is inherently a reference to the fictional character or that the real-world use of the name "Daenerys" today is not. TompaDompa (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - How so, pray tell? It's a name that is in use for thousands of real people, some of whom were named simply because their parents liked the name and not in reference to Game of Thrones. I've talked to some of the parents who chose the name on that basis, by the way, though I wouldn't include it in the article. The statustics are in reference to the name, not the character per se, and it's been in use for 15 years or thereabouts. Jessica originated as a Shakespearean invention based on Iscah but it clearly should have a separate article. Neither of these articles should be deleted or merged with the character article. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - A fairly simple reason it's not an apples-to-apples comparison is that Jessica (given name) is a list article whereas Daenerys (given name) is not. The number of articles about notable real-world people with the given name "Daenerys" is at present 0, whereas the number of articles about notable real-world people with the given name "Jessica" is substantial. TompaDompa (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - The number of people named Daenerys or Khaleesi under the age of 16 probably accounts for that but I continue to argue that a name article is notable in and of itself and the references listed show it is notable because one ranks among the top 1,000 names and because there is a great deal of independent coverage about the use, history, image, etc. of the name. Statistics about how many people were named Daenerys or Khaleesi would be out of place in the main character article. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Irrespective of the merits of this article, the comparison is a poor one as the situations are entirely dissimilar. TompaDompa (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, not. They are both articles about the meaning, history and usage of a name, written in exactly the same format and including references to articles or books that mention them, just like hundreds of other existing name articles on Wikipedia. Eventually there will likely be notable people named Khaleesi or Daenerys who will be mentioned in a list linking to articles about them. Right now there are not but the number of articles written about people with the name makes it notable and warrants separate articles. They should not be deleted or merged with the character article.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        In other words, you acknowledge that the situations are currently dissimilar, but you expect that they will not be in the future. TompaDompa (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        
        That argument violates WP:FUTURE. Sure, there could be notable individuals years or decades from now named Daenerys or Khaleesi, but right now, there are not. The sourcing about people with the name makes the fact notable, not the presence of the article. The sourcing is derived from the popularity of the books, the show, and the character therein. As such, it would not be out of place to list this on the character's article as an extension of their legacy and impact on culture. That is a very different situation than Shakespeare originating Jessica five-hundred years ago. TNstingray (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I do not. I think both merit articles based on the notability of the topic — popularity, usage, and references discussing meaning, history, and usage. The name Jessica would also merit an article without a list of people with the name. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        If Wikipedia existed in 1598, it wouldn't have. The name Iscah would have had an article, as well as Jessica (The Merchant of Venice). TNstingray (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge outside of its connection to the main topic, isn't much to say about this topic, per WP:NOTDICT. I don't see enough separate coverage to justify an article. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Daenerys Targaryen, as it does not contain any unique insights and is entirely a WP:OVERLAP, a valid reason for merging. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Someone closed this as keep and one of the editors involved in the discussion above, TompaDompa, just reverted the keep move. I'm going to reiterate that all of the arguments that applied in the discussion about Khaleesi (given name) also apply to this one. This is a separate, referenced article about usage of the name for thousands of existing people. It is related to but distinct from the article about the character. Statistics about real world usage of the name would be inappropriate and out of place in the article about the fictional character. In this case, some of the redirect arguments donappear to amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This should not be merged or redirected. Keep. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) @Bookworm857158367: I don't particularly appreciate the insinuation on your part, and if you're going to levy implicit accusations of that nature against me you should at least ping me properly rather than adding it in a second edit so I don't get pinged. On the issue at hand, the "someone" who closed the discussion was 96.246.158.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but they signed it fraudulently as dunny830, who has been indeffed for years. This was one of several such closes by that IP, the rest of which have also been reverted by me or HJ Mitchell. The IP has also been blocked by HJ Mitchell. The reason I reverted the close was clearly outlined in my edit summary: "Revert apparent vandalism (close with fraudulent signature)." Kindly retract your implicit accusation of wrongdoing. TompaDompa (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC) Amendment after edit conflict underlined.[reply]
  I don't know that it is appropriate to keep or revert an AFD in which you have been involved in discussion. If nothing else, it gives the appearance of impropriety. I pointed out that you had done so but did not say you should face sanctions or had necessarily been wrong to do it. If it was a fraudulent account, someone did need to revert the keep move. In the future, perhaps it would be more appropriate for administrators or editors to only keep or delete or close AFD discussions that they have not been involved in. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Consider the revert done by me. It was done by an editor evading a block who did not have the standing to close an AfD anyway. The AfD should proceed (or not) as though the "close" never happened. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  There is only the appearance of impropriety if you happen to see the revert in the edit history and don't look at the edit summary. I fail to see what reason you could possibly have to summarize the events as you did, without mentioning the edit summary that clearly explained that it was a case of vandalism being reverted, other than to imply some kind of wrongdoing. TompaDompa (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Not to belabor the point, but I'd still say it's probably not appropriate to revert a keep in a discussion in which you have been involved, even under those circumstances. You certainly could have called it to the attention of someone else and asked him or her to revert it. It does perhaps give the appearance of impropriety. It's maybe something to be aware of in the future. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, maybe. That still doesn't explain why you felt the need to call attention to it, nor why you would omit the explanation that you should have been aware of and thus give a misleading account of what happened. You had the perfectly cromulent option of leaving a message on my user talk page noting that you saw that I reverted the improper close and that you don't think it was quite appropriate for me to revert it even taking the circumstances into account. Why would you instead choose to misrepresent the situation by such a conspicuous omission at this much more public venue? TompaDompa (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Because I do think it was inappropriate but not something that warranted sanctions. I pointed out you had been involved in the discussion and reverted it. I didn't say anything else. But it's probably not worth further discussion. Regarding this one, I'd probably prefer redirecting it to Khaleesi (given name) over Daenerys Targaryen and improving on that article if the vote is to redirect. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Precisely, you didn't say anything else. That is to say, you neglected to mention why I had reverted it, even though I made it perfectly clear. Was that an oversight or was it intentional? TompaDompa (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  As anyone who cared to look would see the edit history, I don't think that is necessary. It wasn't appropriate, regardless of why you did it, because you participated in the discussion. But it's also not worth further discussion. I've explained and so have you. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm not buying it. If anyone who cared to look would see the edit history, why would it be necessary to bring attention to it in the first place? We can agree to disagree about whether it is appropriate to revert obvious vandalism in a discussion where one is involved (even in higher-stakes cases involving the use of admin tools, WP:INVOLVED notes that In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion.), but what I take issue with is that you took the time to call attention to it but didn't bother to accurately represent what actually happened. By your own admission, you were aware of why I did it and deliberately omitted those details. Surely you see how that is actively misrepresenting the situation when you bring it up in a public forum like this? Stop avoiding the question and explain why you thought it appropriate for you to bring up obvious vandalism being reverted by an involved editor while only mentioning the "involved editor" part and deliberately omitting the "obvious vandalism" part, and doing so in a public forum rather than e.g. on the user talk page. TompaDompa (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm not going to keep discussing this. I explained above and you've also given your thoughts on the matter. I still think it was inappropriate for you to revert when you have been involved in the discussion, regardless of why you did it. I don't think the reason is all that relevant, which is why I didn't include it. Anyone who wants to can look at the editing history and draw their own conclusions that I'm mistaken or you are, etc. It also wasn't worth a complaint or sanctions, etc. I still suggest you and anyone else avoid closing any topic you've taken a stance on or taken part in the discussion on for all the reasons I gave above. This is the last time I'm going to respond on this particular topic. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Very well. You either (1) don't understand that (A) the merits of my edit undoing an improper close tantamount to vandalism is a separate issue to (B) your initial comment on the matter misrepresenting the situation by conspicuous omission, or (2) don't care to attempt to justify your own actions. I suppose we'll leave it at that. TompaDompa (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  HJ Mitchell needs to know that Wikipedia is a public internet website that invites anyone on the internet to edit. The site and information is free. No editor has the right to treat another editor as an intruder trespassing on private property. If you’re dissatisfied with the AFD close don’t react by trying to WP:EW since such back-and-forth editing gets this discussion nowhere. —Anonymous 21:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.89.215.238 (talk) WP:SOCKSTRIKE, see block log. TompaDompa (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As I said above, let's redirect it to Khaleesi (given name), which survived the AFD vote and is in the process of being improved. The two subjects are related and Khaleesi (given name) is the better of the two. Put an end to this with a Redirect and end the ridiculous vandalism on this page. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Democratic Republic of the Congo women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tantine Mushiya[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Democratic Republic of the Congo women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least one cap for the aforementioned national team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. JTtheOG (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:20, 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 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!} 00:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Bytčánková[edit]

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

The subject has earned at least six caps for the Slovakia women's national football team, with five of the six coming in friendlies. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Slovakia. JTtheOG (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:18, 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. David Gerard (talk) 11:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mykola Udianskyi[edit]

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

Note: This article was nominated for speedy deletion by Vanderwaalforces as a recreation of the article Nikolai Udianskyi, which had been deleted as the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikolai Udianskyi (Speedy deletion criterion G4). I agreed with the nomination, and deleted the article. However, the creator of the article then contested the deletion. Many years ago I decided that there is so much variation in different editors' ideas as to how similar a new page has to be to a deleted one to justify G4, that arguing about it is usually futile, so I follow a policy of setting a very low bar for restoring a G4 deleted article, and taking it to a new AfD, rather than defending the original deletion.

Different sources refer to "Mykola Udyanskyi" or to "Nikolai Udyansky", but everything indicates that they are the same person. At least the difference in the surname seems to be a matter of whether it is transcribes from Russian or from Ukrainian. The previous deletion discussion was started by David Gerard, who wrote "Promotional bio for cryptocurrency entrepreneur. No evidence of passing en:wp notability. ... The Ukrainian version of the article uses the same bad sources as the English version. WP:BEFORE shows press releases and crypto sites.", and the same pretty well summarises the current article. Scarcely any of the cited sources give substantial coverage of Udyansky, and many of them are not reliable and independent sources either. At present there are 20 references in the article. I have had a look at them all, most of them in either Russian or Ukrainian, and I have relied on Google translation. (Incidentally, the Forbes article offers its own English version, but it is so incoherent as to be largely incomprehensible.) I offer a description of the first seven cited sources, but the other 13 are similar.

https://bits.media/predprinimatel-nikolay-udyanskiy-prodal-birzhu-localtrade-i-razrabatyvaet-dve-reguliruemye-birzhi-v-/ News announcement (possibly press release) that Udyansky has sold "the LocalTrade exchange", and is working on two more exchanges. A couple of pragraphs about the work of his company: not substantial coverage of Udyansky himself. (The web site's "about us" page describes itself as a "platform for enthusiasts, developers, miners, traders, creators of cryptocurrency services and startup founders". (Google translation.)

https://dev.ua/ru/news/made-in-ukraine-crypto-exchanges-wallets-tokens A listing of numerous cryptoexchanges in Ukraine, including a couple of sentences about an exchanged jointly developed by Udyansky and another businessman. One sentence mentions his name.

https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/press-release/863354.html No mention of Udianskyi at all.

https://forklog.com/news/direktor-kriptobirzhi-coinsbit-nikolaj-udyanskij-prodal-dolyu-v-kompanii A news announcement (very likely a press release) that Udyansky had "sold a stake in a company". A few statements about his company and about work he is planning to do. Actually more about him than any other cited source yet, but still not by any stretch substantial coverage of him.

https://daily.rbc.ua/ukr/show/it-rynok-ukrainy-rabotaet-samoy-dinamichno-1614070059.html A listing of a very large number of IT companies active in Ukraine, with brief details about each. A few sentences about Udianskyi's company. The only mentions of Udianskyi himself are "Founders: Mykola Udyanskyi and Bohdan Prilepa" and "At the end of 2019, Mykola Udyansky sold his stake in Coinsbit".

https://elita.org.ua/mykola-udians-kyy-ukrains-kyy-it-pidpryiemets-hromads-kyy-diiach-i-naukovets/ This is the first of the sources I have mentioned which is essentially about Udianskyi, but it is substantially just a timeline, with dates of his birth, his various career moves, and so on. Not substantial coverage of him. It is published on a website which invites user-submitted material for publication.

https://forbes.ua/ru/profile/mikola-udyanskiy-475 This is perhaps the cited source with the nearest there is to substantial coverage of Udyansky, but even it is not really substantial. It includes information such as "Trading volumes on the Udyansky crypto exchange Coinsbit have fallen significantly", "The businessman's assets in Ukrainian real estate also suffered losses", etc. Also consensus in past discussions has been that "Most content on Forbes.com is written by Senior Contributors or Contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable". (Quoted from Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Forbes) The cited source also describes itself as "Nikolai Udyansky /from personal archive"; I am not sure what that means, but it may mean that it is from Udyansky's own material. JBW (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I want clarify that he included in top 100 ukrainians by networth by Forbes magazine on 59th place in 2021 and Forbes profile is'nt an article by some Author/Contributor. According to WP:SIRS one good reliable source is enough. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found another one bio here and here. Pls evaluate them too Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Top 59th in Forbes ranking here and here, Why should I prove his notability anymore? If reason of deletion not notability, but quality of the page, so let's consider make tag ((expert needed)) and wait someone who can help me develop it. Or you expect I can built from scratch A-class page? No, Start-class is enough. Thx for attention. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that notability isn't conferred just by having a certain wealth or net worth ranking, we need RS that mention it; see WP:NPERSON and WP:GNG. The person is not a company; SIRS hence doesn't apply. Fermiboson (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, and Ukraine. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with the G4, but here we are. Oaktree b (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
from CSD guide:
G4: recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion
The Page Curation tool will highlight pages that were previously deleted. You can also check the history.

G4 only applies to sufficiently identical copies; this is hard to assess without access to the former page, but if in doubt nominate and the patrolling admin will compare the current version to the deleted history.
Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 05:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing for notability, most sources used aren't even picked up by sourcebot, those are are, marked as orange, so iffy. I can't find notable sources for this individual, I do agree it could have been G4'd, but it's here now anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: to acomplish WP:NPERSON and WP:GNG page was extended by adding a few reliable links as well to Forbes and Militarnyi UA Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at all of the new references you have added. I am not going to put in the time and effort it took to comment on each one individually, as I did with the previous ones, but what you have added is more of the same; none of them give substantial coverage of him, and many of them are not independent of him. I'm afraid it looks as though you may be making a mistake which is very common among new editors of Wikipedia, namely thinking that the answer to being told that an article is inadequately sourced is to add a larger number of sources similar to the existing ones, but it isn't. Three references which are substantial coverage of the subject from reliable and independent sources are fine; 50 references which fail one or more of those three criteria do nothing at all towards showing notability, and 100 are no better than 50. JBW (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: to acomplish WP:NPERSON and WP:GNG page was extended by adding a few reliable links such as RBC-Ukraine, Ukranians Govt sources, Forbes Ukraine and Militarnyi UA, dev.ua Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I learned a lot past week and want mention JBW, Vanderwaalforces, Fermiboson, Oaktree b on double standarts which I found. Take a look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oleksandr_Yaroslavskyi and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleksandr_Yaroslavskyi . Looks like a joke - mocking me because of Forbes is not enough, while "unsourced" article still exist even after AfD Oleksandr Yaroslavskyi. They are both from Kharkiv to comparison. Both on Forbes-based dossier. So then please start AfD again. Btw, I'll add "In exile" paragraph to the page to improve. Regarding Mykola - very friendly environment - blaming for G4 while ignoring the conclusions of JBW, who explicitly said that g4 doesn't apply here. From CSD guide: "G4 only applies to sufficiently identical copies;".Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 10:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We only vote on deletion here, I'm not responsible for improving the articles after they get kept. No sourcing is an issue, that's what we're concerned about. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and "no consensus" means just that, we didn't decide to delete or to keep, so it stays as is; you are free to re-nominate that article again so we can discuss it further. That's not a double standard, it's just the nature of these discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of conversation, but no consensus yet
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't intend to participate, but now that you've pinged me I want to. Congratulations.

First off, please read WP:CITEBOMB and WP:BLUDGEON. Repeated behaviour matching those described in these two essays may be considered disruptive or cast doubt on your good faith.

Secondly, I've went to the trouble of making the venerated source comparison table, which you can see below: Fermiboson (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the source tables you can see below, I !vote delete. That we may have other biographies equally deserving of deletion is irrelevant; this one is not clear cut or obvious fluff, but I still see little evidence of genuine significant coverage. I would also point out to the defending editor that if you believed the Forbes source was genuinely good enough, there would be no need to proceed to citebomb with obvious WP:NCRYPTO sources. Fermiboson (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Fermiboson
[27]	?	WP:NCRYPTO	The article is about the subject in its entirety	✘ No
[28]		dev.ua appears to be a reliable source on cursory google search	Passing mention as co-founder of a platform which is itself mentioned in passing	✘ No
[29]		The source is a major newspaper	The article does not mention Udianskyi by name at all.	✘ No
[30]	?	WP:BLOG	~ The article dedicates one paragraph to a brief biography of the subject.	✘ No
[31]	?	WP:NCRYPTO	~ The article details a singular action done by the subject. On its own, this would not be enough, although it may be able to help strengthen the case in the presence of another GNG source.	✘ No
[32]	?	WP:BLOG, same source as 4	~	✘ No
[33]	No evidence to the contrary, and for the sake of discussion let's give the benefit of doubt.	~ No author is listed and hence it is impossible to tell if this is a blog or contributor post	The article is about the subject in its entirety.	~ Partial
[34]	?	WP:NCRYPTO	~ The article is more or less a rewriting of a press release about the subject.	✘ No
[35]	Seems to be a significant finance website with editorial control.	~ See Forbes source.	One mention in list form.	✘ No
[36]	per 7.	~ See Forbes source.	One mention in list form.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Second table because space has run out:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Fermiboson
[37]	TSN is a major news network in Ukraine without apparent links to the subject.	Information is cited from the governmental department responsible for the licensing.	The article is about the organisation which the subject belongs to, not the subject himself.	✘ No
[38]	? It is not clear if the author is affiliated; the author has written only one article.	Considering the lack of credentials of the author and the format of the website, smells WP:BLOG.	An article about the subject.	✘ No
[39]	RBC is a major news source and there is no reason to doubt independence.		The article is about the organisation the subject belongs to and the subject is mentioned only as the co-founder of said organisation.	✘ No
[40]	?	WP:NCRYPTO	The article is about the subject.	✘ No
[41]	?	WP:NCRYPTO	~ The article is about an action taken by the subject.	✘ No
[42]		WP:SOCIALMEDIA	~ See source 15.	✘ No
[43]	The publisher appears to be an NGO concerned with foreign affairs, no clear COI present.	?	The article is about the organisations the subject belongs to, not the subject himself; and a very brief one at that.	✘ No
[44]	WP:INTERVIEW	?		✘ No
[45]	Official government announcement.		~ The subject receives a title but no detail is otherwise given. Could potentially be used in conjunction with other good sources, if those existed.	~ Partial
[46]	Ukrainian military announcement.		Article is about the vehicles donated by subject, not the subject himself.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

And table 3, because it is apparently necessary for us to waste all this time:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Fermiboson
[47]			See source 20.	✘ No
[48]			See sources 20 and 21.	✘ No
[49]	WP:INTERVIEW	?		✘ No
[50]			~ Article describes subject receiving an apparently non-notable award.	~ Partial
[51]	Parliamentary dossier information likely submitted by subject himself.	?	Effectively an entry in a list.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Delete per Fermiboson's source assessment.-KH-1 (talk) 04:16, 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.