< January 11	January 13 >

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Water Weather Telephone Service[edit]

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

Article on a local call-in weather service operated by a law firm does not appear to satisfy WP:N. A routine Google search yields little independent/significant coverage. The only apparent coverage is a single brief article from the local newspaper, the Port Huron Times Herald, providing little independent detail other than that the service exists (aside from reiterating information from the law firm itself). The WP article asserts that this service is a continuation of a phone service run by radio station WSAQ, but thus far in searching for independent sourcing I have not been able to verify this connection, and neither the current service nor the former WSAQ phone service appear to have received significant coverage. TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 23:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every city with a radio station or television station used to have a weatherline like this; we simply don't have many of them left due to the Internet making it easy to find a forecast, and because that radio/TV staff is down to three people who don't have any time to record a weather forecast, or it's been outsourced long ago to a company out of the region. There's nothing outstanding about this weatherline compared to many that are just now memories. Nate • (chatter) 01:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Radio, Law, Products, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. The article fails any form of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and appears to be advertisement. Could not find any significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Only found two primary sources, bluewater weather and a facebook page. When the name of a living person is used the article is considered BLP related. According to the source the unsourced two sentence paragraph: "In 2016, the firm re-released the service as the new Blue Water Weather Telephone Service as a community service. The firm sells no advertisement on the service and our main sponsor, The Heisler Law Group, was named one of the best of the best attorneys in the Blue Water Area and does not profit directly from providing the weather telephone service to the community. bluewaterweather.net states: Our main sponsor, The Heisler Law Group, was named one of the best of the best attorneys in the Blue Water Area. Thank you for your support of our sponsor. To become a sponsor, call 810.985.2700 and follow the prompts. The Heisler Law Group has a banner in the center of the page, and under that banner, "Sponsor". I am not implying the service isn't/wasn't a good community thing. It seems that the person that wrote the above either 1)- looked at different sites than I did, or 2)- has a loose understanding of the words "profit directly". When comparing the article to the couple of sources it could be interpreted that there might be some sort of ruse or other wily subterfuge. There might be a reason why the enterprise was not listed as a non-profit. The sponsorship link states: "We have up to six fifteen rotating spots available. Each caller hears the fifteen second spot just before the day is announced." At any rate, the "firm" does derive benefit from the telephone service and vice versa. -- Otr500 (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2024 (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!} 23:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Ravin[edit]

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

Non-notable radio host, also WP:COI. SergioM32 (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Magic, Radio, Television, and Singapore. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources found are all promos, interviews, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. If I missed something, post the best WP:THREE IS RS with SIGCOV and ping me.

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Per WP:SPEEDYKEEP#1. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other rationale for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Phoenix (novel)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK criteria, based on searches in English and (elementary) German, though editors with fluency in German may be better positioned to uncover anything I missed. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 23:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator in light of the sources identified by other editors below. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 21:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Germany. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 23:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It looks like Publishers Weekly reviewed it, here, and the New York Times did, here. The NYT review is very short, though, so I am not ready to say that the book passes point 1 of WP:NBOOK without a bit more being found. Rorshacma (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to this article in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the novel was an "international success" that been published in thirteen countries and became a bestseller in Italy and the United States. Universal Studios had even once secured the film rights to the novel for a film adaptation. Οἶδα (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also found a review in Die Welt [1], as well as an interview with the author's father in Der Spiegel [2], which touches on the book. Οἶδα (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sajin Ahmed Babu[edit]

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

The subject does not meet WP:NACTOR. Lack of WP:SIGCOV. Macbeejack ☎ 17:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Bangladesh. Macbeejack ☎ 17:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Created very recently so would prefer not to soft-delete. Relisting to form consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No WP:SIGCOV. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fail s WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG no WP:SIGCOV. Seawolf35 ^T--C 23:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLPs, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources found are all promos, interviews, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Name on page, no content	1. "Sajin Ahmed Babu" . December 29, 2023.
Promo, interview	2. ^ "Mosharraf-Mamar Drama High Love" . December 29, 2023.
Promo name mention	3. ^ "New series 'Corporate Love' and 'Google Village' coming up"". December 29, 2023.
Interview, fails WP:IS	4. ^ "Writing novels now" . December 28, 2023.
Interview, fails WP:IS	5. ^ "Plays have to be written within constraints: Babu" . December 28, 2023.
Promo name mention	6. ^ "Padshi-Yash's romance in Eid special drama" . December 29, 2023.
Promo name mention	7. ^ "Sajin Ahmed Babu's 'Corporate Love' Begins Today" . December 29, 2023.

BLPs require strong sourcing. If I missed something, post the best WP:THREE IS RS with SIGCOV and ping me.

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Magnolia677 (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk, Kentucky[edit]

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

I cannot find RS for this place. It does not appear on a map and the only non-GNIS source talks about Kirk Germany, and seems to reveal that this was a railroad whistle-stop. Also: The coordinates in this article lead elsewhere Lightburst (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kentucky. Lightburst (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, considering someone has added more sources. Though there may not be much left of Kirk, it certainly existed. Generally we keep articles about populated places. Sionk (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Firsfron and Sionk: Have you gone through the sources? I am not seeing anything we can use to write an article - one source is The Attorneys List? Another is a name drop, two others are offline. If I can see this was a notable place with one in depth source I will withdraw. My before has not uncovered what Firsfron has called, "significant coverage" and I did not find any information in newspapers. Lightburst (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the sources don't support some content. I also searched The Attorneys List and found nothing. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This can be filled in, given a week or so. Kirk was an "important town", according to one 1908 source, and there is significant coverage of the community in a 1971 history of the county. I haven't really even begun to check sources, but there's a lot to go through, here. Newspapers.com is showing many results, some of which will have relevant info. Contrary to the nomination, the words "whistle stop" were not used in the sole source this article used; instead, "village" and "community" are. This one is easily sourced. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Establishing notability requires proof this was a populated place (not just a commercial location), per WP:GEOLAND. This was not easy. However, here, on page 143, it lists Kirk's population at 25 in 1902. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw, I see this article from 1900 calling it a village/town. Still nothing in depth but based on WP:GEOLAND we can say this existed as a village. I am disappointed in the ref bombing - some of the references are carelessly added or say nothing about the village. For instance, two maps are used to show that Kirk exists but the village does not appear on the maps, like this one from the refs in which Kirk is a road "Kirk loop". Lightburst (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Carrasquedo Jr.[edit]

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

An article full of stats for this very young racing driver, but he's only had a few starts in Formula 4. I can't find any substantial (or any) independent reliable news coverage about him. Fails WP:NMOTORSPORT. Time for the article to go. Sionk (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lots of coverage for Carrasudo Sr, none for this person. This is about all in a RS I could find, basically saying he's joined a racing team [3]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Extremely wealthy underage driver with little to no relevant results. There's some coverage online in Spanish ([4], [5], [6]) but it seems to stem from the fact that Sergio Pérez and Telcel back him. Most read like press releases (therefore not independent) or paid promotion. Fails WP:NSPORT, his move to FRECA doesn't warrant a page. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDATABASE so I wouldn't consider draftifying. MSport1005 (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2024 (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 Lloyd Austin. Daniel (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Austin hospitalization controversy[edit]

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

Seems to tick most of the boxes in WP:NOTNEWS. At this moment I don't see any reason for this to have its own article, when a few lines in the main Lloyd Austin article should more than suffice. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 21:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait — Premature nomination. Information about Austin's ongoing hospitalization is still regularly coming in. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is not premature; the creation of this article is. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 12:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What Kingoflettuce said. Not sure why it's so hard for you to let content grow in the main article before making a new one. Reywas92^Talk 05:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~:KEEP I agree. 209.6.153.165 (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Lloyd Austin. Crazy, moment by moment levels of detail about a hospitalization that may have broken 'procedural law'. As the nominator says, this is WP:NOTNEWS. Sionk (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - WP:NOTSCANDAL - Certainly not worthy of a stand-alone article. A big uproar so both major parties could get some news coverage for their complaining. There is Deputy Secretary of Defense to fill in during any secretary's absence. The government has checks and balances to keep it going if someone is temporarily sidelined.— Maile (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my Delete to Merge, based on the majority of the input here. — Maile (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is fine. "Guy goes to hospital and doesn't tell people about it" isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is likely to be just a few lines in Secretary Austin's personal life section in the end; right now it's yet another overheated story about a telephone game-like failure to communicate because it's Washington and political journalists refuse to just let someone heal from life-threatening surgery, nor not make a news cycle about it (and incredibly wrongly described; how can it be the secretary's fault when he's bedridden and his PAs don't communicate that well?). Nate • (chatter) 01:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your last sentence is irrelevant to this discussion, but this is not a fair characterization of the issue; Austin had several instances in which he could have brought up his planned prostatectomy but failed to. Austin is notoriously secretive. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This is very important. Every day since the hospitalization was announced, it has been mentioned on every news channel in the U.S. every single hour. This is clearly important. 209.6.153.165 (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingoflettuce KEEPwhich boxes? I see a wonderful article. 209.6.153.165 (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Duplicate vote! struck. Nate • (chatter) 02:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly an important topic, but depending on the outcome if some people believe that it may not be independently notable then merging should be an option rather than deleting it. Keivan.f^Talk 06:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly, but I don't see this meriting anything more than a merger. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 12:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think anything here could be merged into the existing section on Austin's page; so far, it seems like a news cycle doing its thing. Nothing wrong with that, but it can be better summarised for readers in a smaller, less intensely detailed section. Gazamp (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge/delete Once again we see this user racing to create an article about a current event before it's needed. Sure it's an important topic – one that can be (and is) covered at Lloyd Austin. Countless cabinet secretaries have had major and minor scandals that hit the news cycle, but that does not mean they need separate duplicative articles. Reywas92^Talk 05:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I had "raced" to create the article, it would have been created days prior. The breadth of reactions and inquiries suggested to me that this was not going to be a one-off event. Keep your differences in opinion to differences in opinion. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This is a major issue; note that anyone under Austin's command when he was a general could be court-martialed for dereliction of duty, i.e. being AWOL (absent without leave) for three days. MERGE might be appropriate once time passes, as this is still a developing current event.--FeralOink (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm shocked that the US Armed Forces do not, in your opinion, recognise medical leave even for what appears to have been a medical emergency! Shame on them! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Hi @Necrothesp,
  
  Please do not use the discussion as a soapbox for the topic (see WP:SOAP).
  
  Best,
  
  @Avishai11
  
  Avishai11 (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Good grief, it's called sarcasm! A response to a clearly daft comment. I really don't give a monkey's about what Lloyd Austin may or may not have done. It's a proverbial storm in a teacup. Which was my point. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Hardly worth a full-scale article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lloyd Austin. This feels like WP:NOTNEWS and if this becomes a more significant issue, it will likely be under another title. --Enos733 (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Definitely does not need it's own article, this could be a paragraph in the Lloyd Austin article, maybe a new section there at most. Mighty Midas (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP very important as people may be court-martialed. Avishai11 (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely spurious rationale... KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 13:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are hearing new revelations each day about the situation, so I believe we should keep and wait. Avishai11 (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Not notable on its own. Intothat darkness 19:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a properly sourced summary to Lloyd Austin. This is NOTNEWS as a stand alone article and an unneeded CFORK from the main article. // Timothy :: talk 10:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angelina Ignatjeva[edit]

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

Poorly sourced BLP of a Latvian women's footballer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were passing mentions of the subject (2009, 2011, 2013, 2017, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Latvia. JTtheOG (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it’s not notable bio not meeting Anybio or Basic. 185.104.138.35 (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2024 (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 Ennio Doris. Daniel (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doris family[edit]

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

This doesn’t seem like a notable subject to me, unless it’s some sort of abandoned draft. It’s a mix of info already in Ennio Doris, a bit of stuff that isn’t in that article but could be, and some random maps. I’ve no objection to draftification if someone thinks there’s a genuinely notable topic here and wants to work on it, but this is just a scrapbook of stuff and not an encyclopedia article. Mccapra (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Italy. Mccapra (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more maps than prose, and this doesn't say much. If it was a longer article perhaps it could be notable, there just isn't enough for an article now. Oaktree b (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't really find any sources about the family itself. (I did not try looking for Italian sources as I don't know the language, but there is also no article for the family on the Italian Wikipedia.) Only one member is apparently notable enough to have his own article. There's really no indication that the family is notable as a whole. Aintabli (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ennio Doris per WP:ATD. --Broc (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2024 (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 delete per A7 by Bbb23.(non-admin closure)‎ Shellwood (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Cash[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. This article was declined at AfC on 8 January for failing GNG, but the editor has gone and published the article directly with no changes. This man was the father of Cliff Cash and Wiley Cash, but there is nothing in his own existence that makes him notable. Checks of Internet Archive, Google Scholar, and Google Books, bring up nothing. A basic Google search locates his obituary, which provides nothing to suggest why Cash should have his own Wikipedia article. Being the father of two notable people does not make you notable as well. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Eligible under criterion A7 and tagged accordingly. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:54, 12 January 2024 (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. WP:SNOW keep, withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Popplio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:POKEMON, many more notable Pokemon that do not have a page, easily the least notable article that is not a good article. Toketaa^talk 20:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 20:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nominator's argument is inherently flawed. What is POKEMON meant to prove here? And even then, that is an essay, not a proper policy of any kind. Also "many more notable Pokemon" not having a page does not immediately rule out an article for being notable. Popplio, while I agree is one of the worse off articles among the Pokemon lineup, does have a pretty large amount of significant coverage discussing it in depth that many other characters in the series do not have. There is no rationale in this argument that communicates to me a valid reason to delete this article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, nominator makes no arguments based on policy or guidelines, and is merely WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, which is considered an invalid argument for deletion. The nominator doesn't explain why it is "the least notable article," and their arguments about the quality of the article both lack foundation and are irrelevant to this discussion. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Idk how to close this page but yeah this should of been articles for creation for more notable pokemon, this is my first AFD so I will just remove the AFD notice on the article for now. Toketaa^talk 20:45, 12 January 2024 (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!} 22:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HotHead Productions[edit]

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

Doubtful notability. Only source is WP:PRIMARY. PepperBeast (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York. PepperBeast (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing appeared in my searches. Geeraarts (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All I could find were YouTube videos and social media posts. Non-notable company = delete. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 19:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TLA (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 04:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Houghton International[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Little indication of notability. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and United Kingdom. PepperBeast (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP. Sources found are mill business news, nothing meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 08:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – sources seem to be based solely on press releases, not fully WP:INDEPENDENT. TLA (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:PROMO. LibStar (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CCgroup[edit]

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

Non-notable PR firm. PepperBeast (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not locate much about this company beyond its website and social media accounts. With all due to respect to CCgroup, it is not notable enough yet to merit a Wikipedia article. TH1980 (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources. TLA (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2024 (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!} 22:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh King (soldier)[edit]

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

This article is about a non-notable British Army soldier. There are no sources that denote this person's individual notability; he is mentioned as a relatively minor part in the Eureka Rebellion, and is relevant only because of this part. The content in this biography is entirely copied in both Eureka Jack Mystery and Eureka Flag, which are both more suitable locations for the information to be placed. This person participated in a notable event, but are not themselves notable. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He's notable for testifying about a flag he saw? That's what I'm reading in the article now... Not seeing how this is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Australia. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:41, 12 January 2024 (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} 01:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International knifetropolis[edit]

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

Repeatedly recreated (by same editor) neologism, not in use outside Wikipedia[7]. Fram (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Hong Kong. Fram (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article is recreated but I think it didn't have the same problem (too little refs) as the previous one. СлаваУкраїні 14:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some results[8], СлаваУкраїні 15:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Anecdotal mentions in some blog sources are all I find. Nothing for GNG Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? СлаваУкраїні 16:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could only find mentions of the term in what we consider non-reliable sources, such as blogs. Oaktree b (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[9] СлаваУкраїні 01:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using the word once isn't what we're looking for. Oaktree b (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said it’s only found in unreliable sources at first and I have proved you wrong and now you are saying about the mentions of the term? СлаваУкраїні 08:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

even though there is a dispute on the title, I do not think it should be deleted since there are already two existing corresponding articles in Canto (zh-yue:國際大刀會) and Chinese (zh:國際大刀會) Wikipedias. Also, couldn’t the title be temporary? I do not think deletions should be working like this. СлаваУкраїні 08:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, couldn't find any sources of note and given the article has been draftified multiple times with no improvement to notability let's not have it again. CoconutOctopus talk 18:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[10] This article has been drafted before because of the lacking of sources, I do not know what do you mean with "no improvement". СлаваУкраїні 01:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Delete, not a noted nickname. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but consider renaming and/or making some redirects for alternative titles. The phenomenon is real and notable as is the existence of a nickname, 國際大刀會, which may or may not be best translated as “international knifetropolis”. Note that our article also says those same characters are the Chinese term.

There are multiple usable references in our corresponding Chinese article, zh:國際大刀會, however, depending on the translation software you use, some of the news articles may refer to the “international sword fighting club” or some variant. In common, the articles refer to a decrease in perceived safety, an inadequate government response, and the horrific, widely viewed knife attack on two women captured on video. These news articles say this has resulted in a new Hong Kong nickname, 國際大刀會, (which can be translated several different ways into English). —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you are arguing for seems to be a redirect from some better title to an article about the crime and unrest in Hong Kong, where this nickname deserves one or two lines. Not a,full article at some unused neologism, a poor translation of the original. Fram (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not popular in English doesn't mean it is "unused", then why To bomb Voronezh is not deleted? СлаваУкраїні 08:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, there are several different ways to handle this. One is the approach you’ve just mentioned, another is my recommendation above. There may be others, too. As I see it, there’s currently an identifiable wave of concern about crime with the knife murders in a shopping mall at the center of this. It may or may not be coupled with general dissatisfaction with the new direction government is taking. This perceived crime wave has this variously translated name associated with it. This is all notable and I’m open to the best way to incorporate this story into Wikipedia. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence this meets GNG. // Timothy :: talk 09:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is there "no evidence"? СлаваУкраїні 12:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using the word, once, in an otherwise reliable source is a trivial mention. Outside of the link shared above, I still find nothing else we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you may take a look and maybe give a another comment first in our discussion above. It is an existing term in Chinese which already proves this term isn't comes from nowhere. I admit there is not enough sources in English for the name but I think it could be a temporary name since it is a valid translation of the Chinese name 國際大刀會. СлаваУкраїні 05:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, as I noted above, "國際大刀會" appears in not just one but multiple news reports. See our two other Wikipedia articles, zh:國際大刀會#參考文獻 and zh-yue:國際大刀會#參考, for additional citations. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEO, which is policy. Cullen328 (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erjon Beu[edit]

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject, a Maltese men's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were transactional announcements (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) and trivial coverage in match reports (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Malta. JTtheOG (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It fails GNG. Though there are a few sources on the web from a selected number of reliable media but most of the sources are just trivial mentions. Cruzdoze (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @GiantSnowman: Note that a user has added this source to the article, which does include four or five sentences of independent coverage on the subject. JTtheOG (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One source of that nature is insufficient. Giant Snowman 22:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – The article itself tends to be deleted, but the athlete in question is the record holder for games in the Malta league. Is there really nothing else about him? An athlete with so many matches in a league (even if it is a minor league) tends to have an inherent notability at least. Svartner (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. @Svartner, it's the goalscoring record in Malta's second highest league. Now this is a tiny league. In 2015–16 the total attendance was given as 25,200 spread across 183 matches, yielding a crowd of 137 per match. Geschichte (talk) 10:08, 18 January 2024 (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. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One Economy Corporation[edit]

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

Only seeing in-depth coverage in one reliable source (NYTimes) - found a few other passing mentions (such as Foreign Policy), but nothing that indicates that WP:GNG or WP:NCORP are met. A number of PR sources online, which are not useful. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Technology, and United States of America. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Finding the same, brief mentions and press releases with most mentions back in 2008 through around 2010 and it appears they ceased in 2012 (press release about founders). S0091 (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2024 (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. Timothy's view is the most persuasive relative to our P&G's, and is supported by a majority (nominator + one other). Consensus exists to delete. Daniel (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uladzislau Pramau[edit]

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

After searches with English name, and both Belarusian names, Unable to find sufficient independent SIGCOV outside of databases or promotional material made by the Belarusian Olympic Committee. Not enough SIGCOV to justify inclusion in Wikipedia, so a GNG fail. The Belarusian Wikipedia's article doesn't provide sufficient SIGCOV either. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Belarus. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thank you for nominating the article because it motivates us to improve it. Pramau is a multi-time national champion and winner of major road races, and there are many sources significantly covering him. Here are just a few I found on the first page of the web search for just his name:

"Belarusian wins Gutenberg marathon" (plus [11] [12]), article is all about Pramau with life details
"Bright start and emotional finish: more than 5 thousand people took part in the Magilev International Marathon", Pramau won this marathon and there's a brief interview with him

It seems like maybe you were searching using his full native name in the article Уладзіслаў Дзмітрыевіч Прамаў rather than just his first and last name, "Уладзіслаў Прамаў"? --Habst (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A few sentences announcing that he won a particular marathon, repeated almost verbatim in several papers, is not enough for GNG. Nor are one or two sentences stating he won a marathon in a government publication.

JoelleJay (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources found are all routine mill news, name mentions/listings, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Database record, nothing meeting SIGCOV	1. "Uladzislau Pramau". Rio 2016. Archived from the original on 23 August 2016. Retrieved 21 August 2016.
Stats page, name mentioned	2. ^ Jump up to:a b "Marathon Men − Final − Results" (PDF). IAAF. 5 October 2019. Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 June 2020. Retrieved 6 October 2019.
Database	3. ^ Uladzislau Pramau at Tilastopaja (registration required)
Name mention	4. ^ "Яркі старт і эмацыйны фініш: больш за 5 тыс. чалавек сабраў Магілёўскі міжнародны марафон" (in Belarusian).
Event recap,name mentioned	5. ^ "Беларус выйграў Гутэнбергскі марафон". Наша Ніва (in Belarusian). Retrieved 13 January 2024.
	Above
Event recap, nothing SIGCOV about the subject	https://nashaniva.com/316221
Same as above	https://www.nslowa.by/2023/05/11/naviny-germanii-belarus-vyjgrau-gutenbergski-marafon/
Event recap, nothing SIGCOV about the subject	https://by.tribuna.com/be/athletics/1112961217-uchastnik-oi2016-pryamov-vyigral-gutenbergskij-marafon/
Event recap, nothing SIGCOV about the subject	https://mogilev-region.gov.by/be/news/yarki-start-i-emacyyny-finish-bolsh-za-5-tys-chalavek-sabrau-magilyouski-mizhnarodny-marafon

BLPs require strong sourcing. If I missed something, post the best WP:THREE IS RS with SIGCOV and ping me. // Timothy :: talk 13:25, 19 January 2024 (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. WP:SNOW close and withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy S24[edit]

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL. Samsung Galaxy S24 hasn’t been announced yet. Hajoon0102 💬 15:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Products, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't consider Forbes, Engaget, TechRadar, CNET, and many other reliable, independent sources to be "a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions". Samsung has already leaked a fair amount of information about the model, and coverage has been both reliable and significant. Not everything that discusses the future is "WP:CRYSTAL". Owen× ☎ 18:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and WP:DRAFTIFY. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft article was already created Draft:Samsung Galaxy S24. Hajoon0102 💬 02:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for not checking for a draft article. In that case delete the mainspace article. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete the mainspace article, and move the draft to mainspace when the phone is released. Pinging @Ghostofakina to leave his opinion. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 05:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under which WP:CSD criterion are you suggesting we speedy-delete the article, TechGeek105? I can't see any under which it could qualify for speedy deletion. Owen× ☎ 19:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say merge the mainspace article with the draft, now that the phone has been announced today. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 20:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't merge articles from main namespace into draft namespace. We don't even leave redirects from main to draft. Draftification is a move from main to draft that doesn't involve merging or redirecting. Your views in AfD will carry more weight if you familiarize yourself with both the process and the terminology. Owen× ☎ 20:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OwenX, I have changed my decision to history-merge the draft into the main-space article, now that the phone has been released. Do you agree with a history merge? Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 23:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added a history merge tag from Draft:Samsung Galaxy S24 just now. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 23:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the phone has been announced by now and the article just needs to be cleaned up of any eventual information that turned out to be incorrect. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, they have been announced now, we just have to clean the article up which shouldn't be that hard. Randomdudewithinternet (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This phone was announced today. So, I cancel this AFD. Hajoon0102 💬 03:29, 18 January 2024 (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 15:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LoLiWin[edit]

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

I couldn't find any sources with significant coverage of the subject. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only source provided is primary. Unable to find anything significant or more than a brief mention. I checked French and English Google. This seems to be a running problem with software articles here. --StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2024 (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. Consensus is sourcing does not meet depth for N:MUSIC. A redirect can be created as a matter of editorial discretion if desired. Star Mississippi 16:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Different for Girls: Women Artists and Female-Fronted Bands Cover Joe Jackson[edit]

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

No evidence release is notable. Very little/no notable coverage. As far as I can tell, it didn't chart, get certified, etc or meet any criteria of WP:NALBUM DeputyBeagle (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's an AllMusic review, but that's all I could find. Doesn't appear to have a suitable redirect target, unless there's room for a tribute albums section of Joe Jackson discography. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the previous voter. The album was fortunate to snag an AllMusic review, but even that accomplishes little more than a list of who's on it. Otherwise it went unnoticed by the press and public. Most of the contributing artists are themselves non-notable. No place to redirect because Jackson himself was uninvolved. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my view, at the very least a redirect (to a new section in the article about JJ (Joe Jackson (musician)#Legacy, for example) should be considered, anyway. I dPd the page and added sources including.

Trouser Press review that states:"Whether by accident or intent, Jackson has written a lot of his songs from a non-gender-specific viewpoint. This makes them remarkably open to interpretation, just as his melodic gifts make his work appeal to artists from a wide range of genres. (As of early 2010, Jackson’s songs have been covered by artists as diverse as Tori Amos, Anthrax, Buck-o-Nine, Goldfinger, Guttermouth, Mandy Moore and Sugar Ray.) The 14 female artists and female-fronted bands that perform on the 2004 tribute disc Different for Girls uncover layers of woman-sympathetic insight that many of Jackson’s fans may never have apprehended in his tunes. Elaine K underscores the loneliness and rejection implicit in “Is She Really Going Out with Him?” with a solo folk approach. Fabulous Disaster rocks out faithfully on “Got the Time”; Beth Thornley strips the same song down, singing the lyric over acoustic guitar and funky keyboard underpinnings, emphasizing the weariness that waits at the end of the busy day. Essra Mohawk recasts “Steppin’ Out” with a light, frisky ska rhythm; Whitney McCray performs “Breakin’ Us in Two” as a sad waltz. Maxine Young turns “It’s Different for Girls” into blissful dream-pop. Idle Mirth brings the guitar noise to “Another World” while turning the melody inside out; the result is something that My Bloody Valentine fans would admire. (“I stepped into another world,” indeed.) Alice Lee’s rendition of “Sea of Secrets” makes it sound like the best hit single Sheryl Crow never had. darkblueworld has the last word with its version of “Take It Like a Man,” alternating trip-hop verses with a guitar-heavy chorus. Track after track, Different for Girls shows that when it comes to writing songs with an unforced yet intuitive grasp of the feminine point of view, Joe Jackson is the man."
A brief presentation of what is the 1st tribute album to JJ indicates: "Mr. Jackson himself has said: "I LOVE the idea of an all-female tribute album! Let them know I can`t wait to hear it." Also noted there is the presence of "Joy Askew, whose album credits include Jackson`s "Big World," "Live 1980/86," "Blaze of Glory," "Laughter & Lust," and "Heaven & Hell."
And to which one can add indeed an All Music review stating: "Over the years, the lyrics of Joe Jackson's songs often appeared to be sung from a female point of view, the best example being "It's Different for Girls." So it's only fitting that an all-female tribute to Jackson was assembled in 2004, Different for Girls: Women Artists and Female-Fronted Bands Cover Joe Jackson. Now before you get all excited with thoughts of Fiona Apple, Chrissie Hynde, and Joni Mitchell covering Jackson classics, the 14 artists that appear on the album aren't exactly household names. As with most tribute albums, some of the artists stick close to the originals (Lisa Mychols' "Look Sharp!," Fabulous Disaster's "Got the Time," Fiona Lehn's "On Your Radio"), while others try new approaches (Elaine K's "Is She Really Going out with Him?," Idle Mirth's "Another World," Maxine Young's "It's Different for Girls"). Also included is an appearance by Mary Lee's Corvette ("Home Town"), who is a favorite of Jackson (and has opened shows for him on numerous occasions). Of course there's nothing like the classic original versions, but for longtime fans who are looking for something to spice up their extensive Jackson CD collections, Different for Girls: Women Artists and Female-Fronted Bands Cover Joe Jackson may just do the trick."

-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure any of that makes the album more notable as such. It's had a handful of reviews, sure, but it's not significant coverage.

Maybe the album is great, but it could be the greatest album ever and it really wouldn't matter, it's just not notable. DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already voted above, but just wanted to concur that those sources mention the album and provide lists of who's on it, but don't really provide much insight with which to build an encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... I am sorry but I am really surprised by your comments and have to respectfully disagree with both of them. It's had a handful of reviews, sure, but it's not significant coverage. sounds a bit self-contradictory, doesn't it? It is significant according to what WP defines as such and the album (not great, according to the reviews, but that is not the point) seems therefore notable enough. And those sources mention the album and provide lists of who's on it, but don't really provide much insight with which to build an encyclopaedic article is in my view simply not true, at all. They don't only mention the album and who's on it!!!! That is exactly to avoid this kind of generic comments that I quoted them verbatim although they were inserted in the page....Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A handful of reviews does not make it significant. Most any album out there has some reviews. Those were not from major publications, which is an important part of it being significant coverage.

Besides, an album should be notable beyond having reviews. It didn't chart, it hasn't been certified, it's barely even been mentioned anywhere.

It just simply isn't a notable album DeputyBeagle (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is not true. An album does not need to appear in the charts to be considered notable on WP. Just read the guidelines, please. What it needs is significant coverage in reliable sources. You keep repeating the album is not notable and I understood such was your opinion. But saying it's barely even been mentioned anywhere is in contradiction with the existing sources I presented and even with what you say yourself when you claim that A handful of reviews does not make it significant, which is not the consensus here. A handful of reviews is considered significant on Wikipedia. I will leave it at that now, thank you, even if you reply one more time that "this album is not notable". I disagree, and explained why by presenting sources. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the criteria. It has to fulfil at least one of the criteria and it doesn't.

It should be the "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works" - those works are trivial. They're reviews that, as Doomsdayer mentioned, mention that the album exists and who's on it and not much else.

I mentioned the charts and certs as a means of saying it doesn't meet the other criteria either.

Also, if you read the last paragraph in the notability guidelines it says "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", which this doesn't fulfil DeputyBeagle (talk) 10:00, 17 January 2024 (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 15:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown, Agoura Hills, California[edit]

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

Unsourced, no independent notability from main city article. Broc (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Broc (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Agoura_Hills, California#Geography, where this neighborhood is briefly mentioned, and appears on a map, and per the previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Agoura, Agoura Hills, California. Someone could write a sourced article about these neighborhoods, but there is no need for a half a dozen unsourced articles on neighborhoods. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Agoura_Hills, California#Geography Delete these places aren't real. Something stinks here. Normally when a city has well recognized districts or neighborhoods you can easily find them mentioned the newspapers. Even it just irrelevant stuff. It feels like somebody has just conjured these up in effort to will them into existence.James.folsom (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would appear that I am correct: User_talk:Arspickles17#Agoura_Hills_Neigborhoods They are just made up.James.folsom (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable neighborhood. Lightburst (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of coverage in reliable sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2024 (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. While there's a clear consensus this is a notable topic in and of itself, there's no present consensus on a move; this can, however, be continued at the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eid-ul-Milad-un-Nabi[edit]

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

~~Redundant content fork of Mawlid. The term Eid-ul-Milad-un-Nabi is just a subcontinetal term for Mawlid, refers to the same thing. Kermanshehi (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)~~ Sockstrike ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT This event or festival is indeed a BIG EVENT for Barelvi branch of Islam and is celebrated in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Deobandi and some other branches of Islam don't agree with celebrating it. Differences within Islamic branches aside, due consideration and respect should be given to a huge number of Barelvi population within Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and already allows a huge number of articles on different points of views for different religious branches for all religions including Barelvi point of view, I am hoping that this deletion nomination is not taken lightly on this AfD forum...Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That this festival is prominent for Barelvis is not the point I am making. The point is that this festival and Mawlid are the same thing. Either this article is deleted for becomes a redirect to Mawlid. Eid Milad an-Nabi is just a Bengali/Hindi/Urdu name for the Arabic term Mawlid. The introduction of Mawlid literally goes :Mawlid (Arabic: مَولِد), also known as Eid-e-Milad an-Nabi (Arabic: عید ميلاد النبي, romanized: ʿīd mīlad an-nabī, lit. 'feast of the birth of the prophet'), is an...... Kermanshehi (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Sockstrike ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mawlid as a plausible search term. It is indeed a content fork and I don’t see anything to merge but any content about the Barelvi celebration should be included in the Mawlid article. Mccapra (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Was a WP:BEFORE done by the nominator as required before bringing it here?...Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Yes and this article clearly violates WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Kermanshehi (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)~~ Sockstrike ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Mawlid is a process of remembering the Prophet, it can be celebrated in any day of a year. While this subject is for a particular day which is 12 Rabial Awal. I wasn’t notified for this deletion, this is a day in which the Mawlid (remembering of Prophet Muhammad) is done. Barelvi and Sufi muslims celebrate this festival on a particular day. I don’t know why you all can’t understand this. — Quadrimobile(T · C 06:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While, in Kanpur Jamiat Ulema e Hind, a non-Barelvi organisation also joins to celebrate the Milad. The nominator being only 4 days old account, if the nominator is an South Asian so he/she can easily understand the differences between Mawlid and this subject. — Quadrimobile(T · C 06:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Mawlid is a "process of remembering the Prophet, it can be celebrated in any day of a year" is just a simple incorrect statement. It is celebrated usually on 12th Rabi' al-Awwal (sometimes 17th) per the Mawlid article itself. Yes, the Sufis especially Barelvis, widely celebrate the Mawlid and so does the Jamiat Ulema e Hind. But how is that relevant, so is my account being 4 days old? The Mawlid article has a whole sub-heading on "Sufi festival"; if you want to add Barelvi/Sufi stuff, you can add in this sub-heading on Mawlid. Also, the sources on this article are clearly not WP:RS, just some poor news channels and trivia type sites. The point is that the Mawlid and Milad-un-Nabi is the same festival. "If the nominator is an South Asian so he/she can easily understand the differences between Mawlid and this subject". As a South Asian, I know that Mawlid and Eid Milad-un-Nabi are literally the same thing. Mawlid is the Arabic term for this festival while Milad is the Urdu/Hindi/Bengali term. Kermanshehi (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC) Sockstrike ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Tolerance and showing respect to different religions and different points of views is the key part of Islam. The fact that the different term Eid-ul-Milad-un-Nabi was developed by the entire Indian subcontinent (India, Pakistan and Bangladseh), for many generations now, has survived. It shows the verdict of the masses of people. WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT should not apply here. People adopted and formed a TRADITION OF THEIR OWN in their local languages to celebrate this same festival. There are many reasons – they are all non-Arab countries and wanted to develop things in their own local languages so it's easier for masses of people to follow and easily understand the Islamic practices. I'm sure all Muslims realize that they are encouraged to learn Arabic and they already do because it's the language of their holy book, the Quran. For practical reasons though, Islamic religious speeches and sermons are delivered in local people's languages all over the Islamic world every day. References used at the existing article – Zee TV and NDTV are huge TV networks watched all over the Indian subcontinent. They are clearly WP:RS...Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, what is your argument? I never advocated WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Nor have I said anything against celebrating the festival of Mawlid al-Nabi/Eid Milad-un-Nabi. The thing is that this festival, Milad-un-Nabi is the same as Mawlid al-Nabi. Kermanshehi (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Sockstrike ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it's the same festival, but neither you nor I adopted the non-Arabic DIFFERENT LOCALIZED NAME in the Indian subcontinent for it which has managed to survive over many many generations. I am convinced that there are ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCES in local languages and the local practices that people of the Indian subcontinent themselves still CHOOSE to continue using a different localized name. I personally don't have any problems understanding and accepting their choice, even though I fully agree with you that the intent and purpose of this festival is the same. Frankly, I am afraid if we Redirect or Merge the two articles, it will surely pop up again under the non-Arabic name. This is my reason to vote KEEP...Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename - The title of this article 'Eid-ul-Milad-un-Nabi' is indeed one of the Arabic names for mawlid (another is Mīlād al-Nabī). It's as if there would be an article on Christmas in Ireland called Dies Natalis Christi (Latin for 'Christmas'). We don't have that article, but we surely do have Christmas in Ireland (as we have Christmas in Italy, etc. etc.). It seems beyond doubt that there should be enough reliable sources on Mawlid in South Asia to write an article on it? See for example the excellent Brill source Malik 2023: it's open access and pretty comprehensive, so should make an excellent starting point for writing an article. Parvez 2014 and perhaps Weinrich 2022 should also be helpful in writing the article.
Such an article could for example explain (as Ngrewal wrote above) in detail how some currents of Islam in South Asia such as the Barelvi movement still celebrate the festival, while others such as the Deobandi movement came to reject it in the late 19th century. No doubt specific rituals and celebrations also differ from other parts of the Islamic world. There is very likely something of encyclopedic value here, it just still needs to be written.
Now according to WP:PAGEDECIDE, an article may be a stub even though many sources exist, but simply have not been included yet. Such a short page is better expanded than merged into a larger page. So move to Mawlid in South Asia and let it be expanded. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Apaugasma Just a small advice, it can be expanded in this name also, it’ll be more good. There are many debated on this subject between the Barelvis, Deobandis, Ahle Hadiths and Ahle Qurans. There may be a section for this. — Quadrimobile(T · C 06:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am also in favor of expanding this existing article and prefer to leave the name alone as it already has been IN USE by the people for over a century...Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the views and reasons of Ngrewal1, it can be expanded but not Renamed or Redirected. The same name is being used for centuries in the South Asia. — Quadrimobile(T · C 18:43, 16 January 2024 (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 Agoura Hills, California#Geography. Star Mississippi 16:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morrison Ranch, Agoura Hills, California[edit]

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

Unsourced, no independent notability from main city article. Broc (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Broc (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Agoura_Hills, California#Geography, where this neighborhood is briefly mentioned, and appears on a map, and per the previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Agoura, Agoura Hills, California. The one source in the article does mention the neighborhood, but it's really mainly about a goat farm. That content would be better used in the paragraph about the neighborhoods. Redirects are cheap. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Agoura_Hills, California#Geography or Delete, This one is not like the others and the newspapers mention it, and that it is in the "Highland" area. The mentions are related to it being a housing development. So I think, but can't be sure that it's not a real community either. SEE User_talk:Arspickles17#Agoura_Hills_Neigborhoods and judge for yourself.James.folsom (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2024 (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. Given issues about veracity of neighborhood names, redirect doesn't make sense. Star Mississippi 16:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Cove, Agoura Hills, California[edit]

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

Unsourced, no independent notability from the city Broc (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Broc (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Agoura_Hills, California#Geography, where this neighborhood is briefly mentioned, and appears on a map, and per the previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Agoura, Agoura Hills, California. Someone could write a sourced article about these neighborhoods, but there is no need for a half a dozen unsourced articles on neighborhoods. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The neighborhoods are hoaxes User_talk:Arspickles17#Agoura_Hills_Neigborhoods. James.folsom (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Agoura_Hills, California#GeographyDelete as these are not real. I'm applying the newspaper test to this. If you search against the LA county newspapers there ~400 mentions. Obviously, I'm not going to check all of these. But just sampling by decade I find the hits are all to forest cove park or lane. Notably, there are no obituaries mentioning the place, which is real red flag because it means the people who live there don't even think it's worth mentioning. James.folsom (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a notable neighborhood. Lightburst (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2024 (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 15:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ship decommissionings in 1801[edit]

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

A 'list' of 1 redlinked ship of unknown size or importance, sourced to a website where the full entry reads "AGGERSHUS, cavalry pram (1786-1801)". Unlikely that "ship decommissionings in 1801" is a notable topic on its own, so far we have served the readers this extremely unsatisfactory page for 4 years, time to put an end to it. Fram (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: ~~Lists of people~~, History, and Transportation. Fram (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated are:

List of ship decommissionings in 1807
List of ship decommissionings in 1811

I have added two other pages, for 1807 and 1811, to the nom. These three seem to be the only pages before 1860 we have for this. The two I added have two and one entries similar to the one above (from the same website), and both so much care has gone into the creation, and so much interest has there been from later readers/editors, that in both cases the text on the pages is about commissionings, not decommissionings, e.g. "In cases where no official commissioning ceremony was held, the date of service entry may be used instead." Fram (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, having looked through quite a few of these List of ship decommissionings in YEAR articles, it would be even more appropriate to merge them by decade, or even by century as there are plenty more that feature just one ship. Ajf773 (talk) 09:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The inclusion criteria seems rather vague. HMS Alban (1806) was a British ship captured by the Danes in 1810 and recaptured by the British in 1811. Its inclusion on the 1811 list is presumably because "capture" automatically means the ship is no longer commissioned by the previous navy. By the same logic, these lists should then include ships that were sunk, as they would also lose their commission. I'm not sure of the value these lists of decommissioning provide. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Even a category won't be enough. killer bee  15:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary. The lists of ships by nation and by launch year are enough. Separately/unrelated to this !vote, if someone really wants this data, I assume it could be obtained through Wikidata. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a pretty clear Delete per nom, however given the existence of many articles for years with more notable decommissionings such as 1946 it could be possible to have a page for decomissioning across each respective decade or perhaps even the entirety or half of the 19th century. In which case, a redirect could possibly be warranted. For example the article for 1872 has just one entry, if the ships could have an article created then it could work but unless that can be figured out my stance remains as Delete. N1TH Music (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2024 (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 14:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Šilas (supermarket)[edit]

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

Not a single reliable source; advertisement; routine announcements only; Gavrover (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Lithuania. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 20-30 stores in a country of a size of Lithuania doesn't sound like that many.Marcelus (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A store with only 20 locations and no significant coverage is definitely not notable. Also, there is no secondary sourcing; the only two sources are not independent from the subject. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 03:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above, + lack of sources TLA (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2024 (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 14:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naxeex[edit]

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

Clear advertisement, linkedin as a source; not notable piece of promo Gavrover (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Cyprus. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator. No notability and a search for sources turned up nothing, so this could very much be promo.

λ NegativeMP1 18:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Reeks of WP:COI. Press releases ain’t passin’ WP:GNG for me. TLA (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hi! Article creator here. While I am sad that the article got nominated for deletion, I can understand why. I initially thought of making an article for the company because it was a pretty popular developer during my childhood days and i actually thought that was enough for it to be notable. So I made it. However, there was massive revisions courtesy of the Naxeex founder making a wikipedia profile and making edits, removing some of my references, and turning it into a big fat ad. I agree that now I can see that making it was a bad idea. I sincerely apologize. Bulls123 (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: no need to apologize, totally makes sense. Seems like the article has WP:COI after your creation. TLA (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ChrisGultieri: Partially related but you edited sourcing about Naxeex in this edit on Battleboarding. Any comment or was that scoop.it ref reliable? IgelRM (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2024 (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 14:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RC Slovan Bratislava[edit]

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

Non-notable club. While there might be WP:SIGCOV for the league in which they compete, I couldn't find any for the club. Page is unsourced. Broc (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Rugby union, and Slovakia. Broc (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, no suitable WP:ATD also. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2024 (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 14:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RC Spartak Trnava[edit]

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

Non-notable local amateur club. Broc (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Rugby union, and Slovakia. Broc (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, no suitable redirect here either per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2024 (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 14:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ravens Košice RC[edit]

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

Non-notable local club. Broc (talk) 11:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Rugby union, and Slovakia. Broc (talk) 11:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, no suitable redirect here either per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2024 (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!} 08:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rithika Pandey[edit]

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

Tenuous. Single exhibition. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:ARTIST. Effectively starting out. UPE. scope_creep^Talk 10:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, and India. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ghana, Nigeria, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Simply fails WP:GNG or any related WP:NARTIST. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom. failed WP:GNG or any related WP:NARTIST. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the article says, "an artist of growing note having completed her first exhibition." Maybe an article in the future. Elspea756 (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2024 (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!} 08:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josie Del Castillo[edit]

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

No indication of being notable. Coverage is minimal. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 10:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Mexico, and Texas. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. FAils WP:ARTIST, WP:TOOSOON. Graduated in 2020. The article relies on self published material and interview. This article was created for the class Chicana Latina Art and Artists taught by AlmaLopezGDA for several semesters. Perennial problems --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2024 (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 Jordan–Palestine relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Palestine[edit]

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

As discussed on the talk page, fails WP:SIGCOV, with no reliable sources addressing the topic directly and in detail. The topic as written is mostly WP:OR, as many of the key sentences are not supported by the citations given. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jordan–Palestine relations which has ample space to cover this topic. By this I mean that the topic can be covered in Jordan–Palestine relations, not that many of these cherry-picked bits of fluff (letter to a student conference, oh my) deserve to be in the encyclopedia at all. Zero^talk 11:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. As mentioned by nominator, there are no significant coverage, not even one RS addressing the topic directly. The body is incoherent and filled with contradictory and unrelated pieces of information. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Palestinian irredentism or the Jordan Option as agreed in the talkpage. Palestinian claims are unambiguously established in discussions among PLO leaders and speeches. Just as we have the Greater Israel article, which is based on a book that is not known to be 100% reliable, the Palestinian demands in Jordan are real. Golda Meir implicitly stated that Jordan was part of Palestine. We also have the outcomes of the Palestinian National Council in March 1971, after the bloody events, which rejected the distinction between the West and East Banks ("Palestine" and Transjordan). If we rely on the argument of Makeandtoss, this would attribute all the concepts of irredentism around the world, such as Greater China, Greater Serbia, and Greater Azerbaijan. I understand there is a problem with the title. Sakiv (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Jordan–Palestine relations - there is no standalone subject here. The page name itself is sourced to a single, one-off quote that carries little weight alone, let alone justification for a standalone page; the rest is OR and has no place anywhere. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What should be covered in that "diplomatic relations" article? Is this (https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/denilp10&div=21&id=&page=&t=1557137677), (Mitha, Farooq. "The Jordanian-Israeli relationship: the reality of" cooperation"." Middle East Policy 17.2 (2010): 105-127), (https://www.palestine-studies.org/ar/node/35431) OR? What we are seeing now is a charade. I have offered a middle ground but there seems to be something to hide. Sakiv (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Something to hide", eh? Do you think that impugning the motives of other editors helps your case? Zero^talk 03:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you leave me alone? The intentions are not 100 percent correct. There are dozens of articles about unionist tendencies, and the facts prove that the Palestinian demands extend to Jordan: what proves this are the statements of the leaders of the Liberation Organization, research centers, books, and political parties. Can you respond with a convincing argument instead of making accusations? Sakiv (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you respond with just one secondary RS that says these demands and claims are related to Greater Palestine instead of you acting like a researcher and drawing conclusion from primary sources like statements? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mish mash of Israeli propaganda probably intended as a response to Greater Israel. No serious basis for an article.Selfstudier (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jordan–Palestine relations because there is more space to cover the topic. — Sadko (words are wind) 22:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Selfstudier and if not, then Merge per Zero. Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand the merge/redirect to Jordan–Palestine relations. Why not to Palestinian nationalism as the most prominent usage, or possibly a disambig with some selective merging to those and Binational Solution and Greater Israel [13]? Ok, after looking more at the content and talk page i think i see why that suggestion, but really i think a disambig is probably more useful for the reader at this title. fiveby(zero) 01:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MIKTA[edit]

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

Whilst I find some sources - such as https://www.tepav.org.tr/en/haberler/s/10595 I am not sure there are enough good sources to show the subject is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey, Australia, and Mexico. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete it man. Bourenane Chahine (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bourenane Chahine Why keep it? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The group is mentioned on websites operated by the individual countries (for instance Australia, Korea, Turkey, Indonesia, Mexico). Of course, these links could be regarded as primary/non-independent sources, but they do show that the group is active and relevant to these governments. More importantly, its purpose is discussed by the UNDP in Seoul [14] and it also received coverage by the Council on Foreign Relations [15], the journal Global Summitry [16], The Diplomat [17], the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs [18] and so on. There's plenty more using a basic Google check. A Google News search also provides regular coverage of the group's activities. Pichpich (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found here. toobigtokale (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KeepPackerfan386beer here 18:48, 18 January 2024 (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 Neom. No objection has been raised to that, no reason to close as n/c despite the lack of input. Star Mississippi 16:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leyja[edit]

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

This is the second of four articles about parts of NEOM, a grandiose Saudi commercial, industrial, and recreational development:

Leyja is an ecotourism destination. This article reads like an information brochure. It focuses on what the Saudi government says about Leyja and not what this parties say about it. The references read like press releases.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	www.neom.com	Announcement of establishment of Leyja	No	Yes	Yes	No
2	www.spa.gov.sa, Saudi Press Agency	Press release that is same as reference a	No	Yes	Yes	No
3	www.designboom.com	Press release with promotional description	No	Yes	Yes	No

Robert McClenon (talk) 07:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Saudi Arabia. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a tough one, Google News turns up several dozens of results for this, seems like lots of different people are talking about it. If push comes to shove, I might need some assistance with ascertaining the quality of the sources. Left guide (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with ~~Noem~~ Neom. I nearly brought this to AfD for the same reasons as the nominator. However there are a few reliable sources outside of the middle east that have picked this development up, such as The Evening Standard and The News International. It's borderline. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 14:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think that User:SailingInABathTub means to Merge with Neom. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup! Thanks for pointing that out. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 11:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 16:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trojena[edit]

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

This is the third of four articles about parts of NEOM, a grandiose Saudi commercial, industrial, and recreational development:

This is a mountain tourism resort. It has been selected as the host location for the 2029 Asian Winter Games. The references are all press releases or marketing, except for one news report of the award of the games.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	www.neom.com	Announcement of establishment	No	Yes	Yes	No
2	www.neom.com	Information-advertising brochure	No	Yes	Yes	No
3	english.alarabiya.net	Press release announcing establishment	No	Yes	Yes	No
4	saudigazette.com.sa/	A press release about the announcement of the plans for the site	No	Yes	Yes	No
5	www.spa.gov.sa, Saudi Press Agency	Press release about bid to host 2029 Asian Winter Games	No	Yes	Yes	No
6	www.arabnews.com	News report that it will host 2029 Asian Winter Games	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

That one news story is not enough to satisfy general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Saudi Arabia. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its nomination as a site for the Asian Winter Games makes it notable. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now it looks like No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 12 January 2024 (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. (non-admin closure) Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 17:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hizon–Ocampo House[edit]

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

Challenged for references since 2009. GNews, GScholar, Gbooks and GNews Archives turns out negative results. Google turned a 2013 website whose text was lifted from the 2011 iteration of this article -- Lenticel ^(talk) 07:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 07:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not really decisive but I also found this and this, but enough that I don’t feel comfortable with deleting. Mccapra (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several structures in the San Fernando Heritage District have been marked by the National Historical Institute (now known as the National Historical Commission of the Philippines) as heritage houses, because of the architectural significance and also their current state of preservation. This is one of them. Djflem (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Filipino heritage listing is a bit confusing, but this would suggest that it is heritage listed. It therefore meets WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks...#1044 Djflem (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. Mccapra (talk) 11:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GEOFEAT per Djflem's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2024 (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 Hyperbolic function Clear consensus. Feel free to add a "brief mention of such second-tier functions" to the Hyperbolic function page. Adumbrativus mentioned that this redirect target may not be best for Tanc function, this is a small fix for someone better at math. (non-admin closure) TLA (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coshc function[edit]

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

This concept $\operatorname {coshc} (x)=\cosh(x)/x$ is not notable. To begin, I checked the four sources cited in the article. The first, den Outer et al. [19], at one point contains ${\frac {\cosh \kappa r}{\kappa r))$ as part of a larger equation, and that's all. The second (Körpinar [20]), third (Sönmez [21]), and fourth (ten Thije Boonkkamp et al. [22]) contain neither "coshc" nor even $\cosh x/x$ for anything in place of x. The article also formerly cited http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CoshcFunction.html which is currently a dead link and I can't confirm it ever existed. I found no other potential sources from a search. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hyperbolic function, where a brief mention of such second-tier functions can be added. Owen× ☎ 14:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suggest we add Sinhc function, Tanhc function and Tanc function to this AfD. All suffer from the same lack of independent notability, and all can be included as a brief definition under the Hyperbolic function page. Pinging @David Eppstein: for an expert opinion. Owen× ☎ 14:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added these other three pages as suggested; hopefully I didn't screw up any of the technicalities on the backend. XOR'easter (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! No problem - I'm pinging David Eppstein about this - he was the only one who hasn't seen the update yet. Owen× ☎ 20:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator after sinhc, tanhc, and tanc were added: I am happy to support redirect for Sinhc function, Tanhc function, Tanc function, but I think targeting Sinc function is more natural. I guess it would be a brief mention in the history/etymology context, as names sometimes used by analogy. Certainly Hyperbolic function isn't a proper target for Tanc function. I originally proposed to delete Coshc function rather than redirect because that name is at best very obscure or at worst completely made up (more so than the others), but I don't object to a redirect to sinc if the other ones get redirected there too. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. We have chosen to group our trigonometric and hyperbolic functions into bundles; for instance, we do not even have a separate article for cosine. Given that, we should not make an exception for this one function. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: while I can guess your answer, for the sake of pro-forma, can you confirm your !vote also applies to the three other functions added to the AfD since your comment? Thanks! Owen× ☎ 20:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all These border on the territory of things made up one day. The "literature" on the topic is paltry and admits as much: The hyperbolic function $\sinh(x)/x$ receives scant attention in the literature. [...] If you type “sinhc function” into Wikipedia, you get the discouraging message “Did you mean: sinc function?” [23]. XOR'easter (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's hilarious! I wonder if any of the sources referenced on the Circular definition page reference the Wikipedia article in turn. Owen× ☎ 18:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the MathWorld business, I've been keeping a list of examples where that site has been a shoddy source, particularly for names. I don't think they have very high standards; sometimes it seems that if one person said it one time, MathWorld will accept it as a term. XOR'easter (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all. Redirects are cheap, but agree that there's little sign of separate notability for these. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2024 (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 Ivanović. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanovych[edit]

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

Fails WP:NNAME and has no WP:SIGCOV; therefore fails WP:GNG as well. This name is extremely rare as a surname, and almost all uses of it are as a middle name patronymic. I am not opposed to redirecting. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also the 2020 AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivanovich. TompaDompa (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Expand and improve as needed. Ivan is one of the most widely used names in Slavic languages, just as John is in English. There would be literally hundreds or thousands of Ukrainian men with this patronymic. It is a relevant and useful article and there is no reason to delete it. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Forebears.io says there are 28 people with this surname. 28. I know Forebears isn't generally considered a reliable source, but the data is usually somewhat accurate. I believe this name may have been misinterpreted as a surname by the article creator. Middle name patronymics have never been found notable, for reasons such as the ones stated in the AfD discussion linked in TompaDompa's comment. I know rules don't have much of an effect on you, but try researching beforehand. In fact I'm pinging User:BD2412 and User:PamD on this. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ivanović. To the extent that these names are variations of each other, similarly constructed, everything about both can be said at one title. BD2412 T 00:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ivanović per BD2412. Slight variations in spelling or pronunciation do not make the different forms of the patronymic separate topics. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2024 (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. While some of the sourcing issues have been addressed, it's not clear that all have for this to be a clear keep and I don't see a further relist helping there. Star Mississippi 16:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Froid (rapper)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Macbeejack ☎ 05:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Brazil. Macbeejack ☎ 05:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This might be a long one- anyways, first thing that's wrong with this one is @Moscow Connection's claim that he passes WP:MUSICBIO #3 - he does not. The paragraph immediately above this states "Note that regardless of what notability criterion is being claimed, the claim must be properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials." The archived RevistaRap magazine by @Moscow Connection reads more as a blog. The Omelete source on the article seems to be more of a "geek" source a la Screenrant (unreliable due to engagement clicks and more of a blog than news). The only reliable source apparent on the article is the Pro-Música Brasil, but that seems to be not a news source but rather a federal agency (not a secondary source, which is preferable). Genius as a source seems to have no consensus, however does not appear appropriate in proving the existence of an album due to it being WP:USERGENERATED (so that takes out sources 9 and 4). And the rest of the sources have these same problems with notability (one of the ones listed). Pardon me for suggesting that this may even fall under WP:GARAGEBAND (even if the artist is neither a garageband nor is Garageband completely serious). UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote a long post dismissing 3 completely random references I had found in the Portuguese Wikipedia. You could have spend this time googling the rapper's name, and you'd see another 100 publications about him. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you continue bringing sources, I will check each of them. This doesn't mean I'm trying to prove you wrong- why the hell would I edit here if I wanted to tear it all down? I just want to ensure the mission of knowledge is carried along with reliability, and I'm sure you do too. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I want to ensure is that an article on a notable musician isn't be deleted from Wikipedia. But I don't want to put much effort into it.
Btw, I have no idea why a completely random newly registered user nominated this article for deletion. Obviously, he didn't follow the WP:BEFORE process and should be reprimanded. He could have googled "Froid", "rap", "brasileiro", smth like that, and he would have found more potential references. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is pretty strange. I also agree the AFD probably wasn't followed properly in that case, but it appears as there is a lot of questionable sources attached to the article unfortunately. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source 5 to 11 are only listings. Fails GNG Jeraxmoira (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was on the fence to submit for deletion after doing some clean-up edits as I'd never done so before but I agree that it fails WP:GNG. EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them) (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I affirm that the article in question correctly complies with WP:Music guidelines, and there is no reason for it to be banned, as the rapper Froid is quite notable here in Brazil (or in other countries abroad), having received numerous news and appearances by other great Brazilian artists. Gustavo (Musician Wiki) (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As has been noted above, while Froid has had certified singles, he fails WP:SIGCOV - as there is not enough detailed coverage about him by news/media outlets. If you'd like to give your opinion, I'd suggest you do so in a new contribution to the page, with Keep, along with your reasoning. More guidance on how to do this can be found at WP:DISCUSSAFD. EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them) (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's an easy and strong keep. He had a record certified diamond, see WP:MUSICBIO #3. And the Portugese Wiki article has more relable sources, like:
• All about Froid – Profile (Rap magazine);
• Froid recebe placa de Disco de Diamante por “O Pior Disco do Ano”;
• Conheça Froid, rapper brasileiro que acredita que a Terra é plana: "A Nasa é uma mentira".
So he passes WP:GNG. (See also WP:MUSICBIO #1.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be interesting to get more evaluation of the sources brought into the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Sorry, don't review AFD often so I forgot how replies work; meant to put it down here. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The three new sources (Rap magazine, "Froid recebe" and "Conaheca Froid") are all minimal, half page posts. I'm not seeing sigcov, so I don't think we have enough to pass musical notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment. I am genuinely shocked by this very US-centered discussion. The users who can't read Portuguese and can't google, shouldn't have participated.
In short, do you want more? I simply googled "Froid rapper Belo Horizonte", and here:
- Freud ou Froid? – Meon
- Froid lança disco “Mr. Ego” no Opinião – Correio do Povo
- Rapper Froid apresenta novo disco no Opinião neste sábado – Jornal do Comércio
- Vem aí: festival confirma Froid como 3ª atração nacional – Campo Grande News

And you can google a bit more. That is, if you really want to know if the rapper is notable. If you just want to write clever comments, just comment on and on and on... --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find his Brasilian certifications here: [24]. "Sk8 do Matheus" has been certified Gold, and "Sk8 do Matheus" has been certified Double Platinum. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CampoGrande News would be local news, which is not allowed under the citation guidelines. The Jornal do Comércio seems to mostly check out but not be very notable- there is also no "about" section to verify editorial status. Also, the current state of the article falls under WP:CITATIONOVERKILL. Correio do Povo is owned by Grupo Records, which may been contracted with Froid as a producer at the time making it primary. Also, again, pro-musicabr is owned by the Brazilian government and is perennial- good starting place but doesn't prove notability. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Local news are allowed as references. 2. O Jornal do Comércio even has a wiki article, and it doesn't have to be notable to be used as a notabilily proof. Et cetera... And could you please stop bolding everything? Especially random guideline shortcuts? --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And how doesn't a detailed Correio do Povo article not prove notability? --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do the bolding thing in case someone has sight problems or dyslexia and wants to easily check the counterpoints I lay forth, and yeah, it does kinda seem pompous, but I assure you that isn't the intention. The thing that makes this very difficult compared to most AFDs is that normally I could just run sources through this, but unfortunately the other editors are overly concerned with English sources. Correio do Povo is a fine source looking further into it- I was under the assumption it was a record label which would have lost it's credibility. The point stands on O Jornal do Comércio, however- no about section means there is no way to verify editorial methods and background check editors. Refer to this essay's line as to why local news sources are a bad idea. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's one... You can admit this one is a reliable source... Now, Shifter, too, has a wiki article in Portuguese (see pt:Shifter). And Meon is frequently used there, see the search results. And portalrapmais.com too: [25]. And, as I have said before, these sources are just a bonus cause Froid "has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country," which is WP:MUSICBIO #3. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please link the Shifter article about him? Also, I don't really get your point about Meon being cited on Portuguese Wikipedia- there are different citation rules there. If you could show Meon being cited on English Wikipedia, then there is a case to be made. To quote from earlier in the discussion "first thing that's wrong with this one is @Moscow Connection's claim that he passes WP:MUSICBIO #3 - he does not. The paragraph immediately above this states "Note that regardless of what notability criterion is being claimed, the claim must be properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials." UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. This Shifter article: [26]. (Why couldn't you find it?)
2. Meon is used here on the Enwiki too: [27]. (There are at least 7 articles not counting "Froid (rapper)".)
3. "Note that regardless of what notability criterion is being claimed, the claim must be properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials."
– But isn't the claim (of Froid's records having been certified Gold and Platinum) "properly verified by a reliable source independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials"? Is Pro-Música Brasil owned by Froid or what? (The reference has been here the whole time, and you should have seen it, but here it is: [28].) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. It's been difficult to find your articles through Google- searching 'Meon' or 'Meon News Portugal' brings up nothing (same with Shifter). Shifter has the same problem the Jornal do Comércio had with no about section to verify editorial methods or staff. Also, I got little information out of the article- it seemed they were just trashing on the album and using meaningless jargon (ex: It is impossible not to “violate the replay button”; not only because of the complexity of the lyrics that require successive listenings until the message is fully recognized, but also because of the sound, a reflection of a mix of influences that result in the Worst Album of the Year . It's not an album of ad-libs or catchy bars , but the musicality is addictive, a result of the simplicity of the samples used.)

2. Could you link his article again, please?

3. Even if it was owned by Froid, I would have no clue because the website has no about section to verify editorial methods. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. «Shifter has the same problem the Jornal do Comércio had with no about section to verify editorial methods or staff.»
– There is an about section, couldn't you find it? You can also click on the article's author to see that he specializes in music.
2. Press Ctrl^F and find it on this page.
3. "Even if it was owned by Froid, I would have no clue because the website has no about section to verify editorial methods."
– Why would you want to verify the editorial methods of the Pro-Música Brasil website? Pro-Música Brasil is the Brazilian Association of Record Producers. And I what I linked is not even an article and therefore it wasn't edited by anyone. (Except for the header note.)
I'm sorry, now I'm out of this discussion. If this gets deleted, I will just submit a deletion review. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pro-Música Brasil is owned by a governmental agency, which means the source isn't secondary and can be used but not to prove notability. As with you, I've gotten my dose of AFD for now and also am out here unless I'm needed again. Cheers, UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is totally incorrect what you are saying. You hijacked this discussion, voted "delete", and you don't even understand what a secondary source is. (And Pro-Música Brasil is not "owned by a governmental agency", where did you even take that from? And even if it was, who cares? The rapper is not the president of Brazil, and the article doesn't discuss any controversial political subjects.)
I hoped you'd change your vote... But you still can't understand you are wrong...
Read "Wikipedia:Competence is required". If can't read the sources I have provided and can't navigate the Portuguese-language websites used as references, you shouldn't participate in this discussion. The whole time, you just kept repeating "there is no way to verify editorial methods". --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, @Moscow Connection, I have actually been participating in the deletion review process and vetting each of your sources, of which you only seem to check through yourself once I bring up a point against them. As I'll get to in a minute, your claims that I've "hijacked" the discussion are unfair and problematic. For now, I got the claim of Pro-Música Brasil being "owned by a governmental agency" from it's own Wikipedia page. I finally got you the policy to back that up here. Now for your problematic comments:
You hijacked this discussion, voted "delete", and you don't even understand what a secondary source is. I participated in this discussion, voted delete upon reviewing your evidence given at the time (which, apparently, I wasn't the only one who thought it wasn't enough to prove notability given someone else nominated it and 3 other users voted delete), and do, in fact, understand what a secondary source is.

And even if it was, who cares? See reason given in paragraph before this list.

I hoped you'd change your vote... But you still can't understand you are wrong... So... you weren't really participating in the discussion, you were just hoping for your predetermined outcome to come true if you debated long enough?

Read "Wikipedia:Competence is required". I did, and guess what? It's not meant to be used as an attack in the way you're using it.

If can't read the sources I have provided and can't navigate the Portuguese-language websites used as references, you shouldn't participate in this discussion. I can read the sources due to Google translate, so please quit assuming I can't. There is no section labeled "about" or such and I'm not fishing to find it. Link it if you want.

This whole time you've been awfully snarky about everything and assuming I'm acting in bad faith. Please keep this civil going forward; I've been trying to ignore this but you keep trying to get a reaction out of me. I really am trying to have a normal discussion here, but I'm done being talked down to. Best regards, UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I see a rough consensus to Delete but there is an ongoing discussion about the viability of sources supplied in this discussion. Unfortunately, the burden falls on those editors wanting to Keep an article to provide reliable sources that other participating editors can evaluate. It would help the discussion considerably if you didn't make this personal and attack each other. This discussion is about notability and adequate SIGCOV, assume good faith that even editors who disagree with you are trying their best to carry out Wikipedida principles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz I've tried repeatedly to participate in this deletion discussion and this user keeps disregarding my reasoning behind why the sources aren't valid. I don't feel as though I'm being taken seriously and that the other user isn't going to take this discussion anywhere. I also don't feel like logging in anymore because of this. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: The user keeps repeating the same stuff about "editorial methods". I wonder where he even took that from. He sounds like a kid who copies what the "cool" Wikipedia editors do. I think his comments should be just disregarded. (Fgs, he can't find an "about us" link, which is in plain view. And he can't find a link on this very page and keeps asking me to post the same links over and over. And he thinks that a search result is an article and keeps repeating that the Brazilian Association of Record Producers is owned by the Brazilian government. If he doesn't have the technical or Portuguese language or whatever skills necessary to read the sources and even this very page, he should not participate in this discussion.)
I didn't want to login on Wikipedia because of this... Could it be that he was just trolling?
And, btw, I've expanded the article. The article as nominated was very bad, now it is better. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After reviewing the above discussion and evidence - I agree with Moscow Connection. This artist meets WP:MUSICBIO, in particular verified 2 singles certified gold or above, and I'm seeing at least 3 articles with sigcov secondary coverage referenced in the article. ResonantDis_tortion 18:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:MUSICBIO. - Davidships (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2024 (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 keep !votes are heard, but the synth/OR has not particularly been addressed. That said, there's been virtually no discussion since 23 December. Discussion on a rename (and to what) can continue on the target or this can be re-nominated if nom doesn't find resolution to the raised issues there. Star Mississippi 15:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NFL opening day standings[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST and I don't believe it can get to a point where it would pass because historical records of teams in x week (week 1 in this case) are not typically discussed or covered. Up to date sourcing (not including the 2023 season) does exist and is created by the NFL, but it's amongst 800+ pages of records and facts that the NFL tracks here. Not every stat is meaningful enough to merit its own list and I don't believe that there's enough coverage of this contextual stat to justify it. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Lists. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as far as I can tell, this article is entirely rooted in WP:OR/WP:SYNTH because there doesn't appear to be any league-wide focused statistical treatment of cumulative opening day games either from the NFL or from reliable independent third parties. Left guide (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Left guide: I don't believe it's OR based on the link I included in my nomination statement (see page numbered 293). The NFL regularly puts out these record books each year and there's a reference to the 2003 version of this doc in the article, with references to 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 from ESPN to supplement the info from the 2003 book. That's why I mentioned the lack of coverage of these records in other sources. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: Ok, thanks for sharing and for the page number, so then in that case, if that’s the only source that doesn’t violate OR/SYNTH, then what we are dealing with here is a WP article reflecting a single page of stats that doesn’t include any WP:SIGCOV prose or context, thus violating WP:NOTSTATS. Do you agree with this assessment? Left guide (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Left guide: I do think it currently fails WP:NOTSTATS as well, but I also understand context can be added, which is why I was more focused on NLIST as the rationale. Sigcov on opening day records of franchises is not something I've been able to find. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: well there’s team-by-team coverage available, but given that this article is meant to be league-wide, then league-wide WP:SIGCOV would need to be presented to make a case for keeping. Left guide (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: alright for starters, there's this historical guide, and this article about most memorable games, and this article about most lopsided games. Left guide (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to NFL Week 1 (or a similar title) for expansion and fuller encyclopedic treatment, this would be like the Opening Day article for baseball. I’ve found lots of overview-level coverage of the NFL's Week 1/opening weekend as a cohesive topic (a few examples are presented above), and the standings are but one aspect of this topic overall. Left guide (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's risky for WP:PANDORA to move to "week 1". There are only 18 weeks in the regular season and it's not a team's record during any week would have a certain level of coverage. It doesn't make that as a topic itself notable. If anything, I'd argue the subject of a team's final regular season game to be a more notable topic, and even that, that's not something that I think we should have a standalone list for. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be more clear, I'm open to the idea of opening week as a subject (not under the proposed name), but I don't think a list of a team's overall record for week 1 is an appropriate independent list. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per Left Guide. Azuredivay (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to NFL Opening Week or similar per above. NFL Week 1 would be too contentious and definitely opens the door for every week to have its own article. However, this article alone would need extra trivia or content on the matter. It shouldn't be focused on just the list. Conyo14 (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I see a rough consensus to Keep (although no agreement about where to move the article) but I haven't seen a complete rebuttal to the nominator's argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 12 January 2024 (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} 01:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of My Little Pony Earth ponies[edit]

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

List of characters from the entire My Little Pony franchise based on an in-universe attribute that fails WP:NLIST sentence #3, resulting in an original research tag since 2011. I would not be opposed to content from here being merged or copied into other lists as it contains more important characters like Applejack, but this list's scope is inappropriate for Wikipedia. QuietCicada - Talk 16:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, Comics and animation, and Toys. QuietCicada - Talk 16:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep per WP:SIZESPLIT. This article, as well as the article from which it was split, are both over 100 kB. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as someone unfamiliar with MLP, how many of these characters are actually noteworthy in the series? If there's a whole ton of one-offs and minor characters I don't think WP:SIZESPLIT applies here, as those can be trimmed and the notable characters added to the main list. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even as a non-fan, I can see that this is pure FANDOM material. There is no way that all these minor characters are even somewhat encyclopedia worthy, and this is clearly an attempt to sweep cruft under the rug rather than just delete it. List of mainline My Little Pony ponies should simply be merged to List of My Little Pony characters and all minor characters be removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As long as the article approaches a reasonable size, I am perfectly OK with this. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment size and content are editorial decisions. The real question is does 'earth pony' as used in MLP meet GNG with independent RS'ing. I've done a BEFORE-lite on that, which yields [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], among other Google scholar results. I don't have time to dig through those, and don't immediately have access to some of the journal articles. BUT, if those demonstrate that 'earth ponies in MLP' is a valid topic, then there's no reason to delete the list and arguing over inclusion criteria is an editorial decision. Jclemens (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to access #2 and #3 with the Wikipedia Library. #2 (Communalism and Feminist Politics) has a brief examination of the Pegasi-Unicorn-Earth class system on page 35 (and only page 35). #3 (Better Hegemon) is only a mention. QuietCicada - Talk 00:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You would also have to prove that it wouldn't just overlap the general concept of ponies to the point where making a separate article about the Earth type would be undue. It would need to be a pretty high bar that I highly doubt it would be able to get over. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the least. That would be a NOPAGE discussion rather than a discussion of notability for the fictional element. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jax 0677. Otherwise, merging this article to List of mainline My Little Pony ponies and then renaming it to the remove the "mainland" may be a good idea. Merging it into the list of characters would just make the article way too big and/or mean that information gets lost. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 12:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to merge here at all. It's WP:ALLPLOT from the looks of it, any merge would violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:LISTCRIT. Not opposed to Merge as ATD but finding a landing place with independent sourcing may prove difficult. Image scan sources may prove existence but does not advance notability. Self-published sources do not advance notability, nor does forums, interviews or Q&A's. There is so much unsourced material or material from the general primary sourcing, that makes it appear to be advocacy, advertising, or soapbox. I also feel that someone willing to expend a large amount of time creating (and those supporting) such an elaborate list that judgment of the topic's importance is clouded by them being a fan. Proposing that WP:SIZESPLIT applies might be credible if not for the original research and citation needed tags since 2011. The second paragraph of the Wikipedia:verifiability policy states All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Over 12 1|2 years of tags should have been plenty of time. -- Otr500 (talk) 09:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I see no consensus here right now. I'm surprised there aren't more participants in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and others. I see that most of the other delete !votes are open to a merge, and I would also support that if it would help produce a consensus. I agree that many of the unsourced entries would need to be cleaned up or outright removed, which is why deletion makes sense. But we should also consider WP:ATD to produce WP:CONSENSUS. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – With List of mainline My Little Pony ponies (and moving to List of My Little Pony ponies/characters). I don't follow the series, but I know there is an absurdly large fanbase. A single list to cover all the characters is enough in my opinion. Svartner (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per above. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 23:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Failure of WP:LISTN. While the actual major characters of the franchise are certainly notable, that does not give carte blanche to have multiple, massive lists of non-notable information for every minor character in the franchise. There are virtually no reliable, secondary sources in the article actually providing any kind of coverage on these characters that would indicate that this grouping is notable, and the size split arguments for keeping are not really valid, because the only reason why these articles are so huge is because they're almost entirely comprised of trivial, unsourced information and entries that should be removed. I am opposed to actually merging because, as ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ stated above, there is really nothing that should be merged to other articles. I will also point out that the very few blue-linked entries here already link to their entries in other character lists, so there would not even be any risk of losing information on the very few entries that have any modicum of notability. Rorshacma (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Jax 0677 above (WP:SIZESPLIT). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An academic article or two on the franchise doesn't make the complete list of items notable: "List of Norwegian musicians would not be encyclopedically useful if it indiscriminately included every garage band mentioned in a local Norwegian newspaper" (WP:LISTCRIT), and certainly not in this exhausting, excruciating level of detail. We are well into Wikia territory here, and the reference section indicates there's really no verified content worth merging. Delete. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2024 (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. (non-admin closure) Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 17:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Inglis[edit]

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

Non-notable academic, sources online are partly about a different guy who worked on the atom bomb. Andre🚐 08:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Social science, and England. Andre🚐 08:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article was in terrible shape (I have trimmed a lot of unsourced and unverifiable information), and there were fewer reviews of his books than I might have expected. But I think there's still a case for WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF#C1 (citation counts 304 for Culture and everyday life, 292 for An invitation to social theory, 207 for "The body in sociology", and 164 for The uses of sport) and maybe for WP:PROF#C8 (supposed founder of a notable journal). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, I think it would be helpful if the nominator reviewed the article since it's been improved.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per David Eppstein improvements. Svartner (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: greatly improved since the nomination. Owen× ☎ 00:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin H. Pomeroy[edit]

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

Sum total of the article after eighteen years, much as it has been since its beginning, is "Martin H. Pomeroy was interim Chief of Police of the Los Angeles Police Department between May 7, 2002 and October 26, 2002". Less than six months as an interim police chief is not a basis for encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 04:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and California. BD2412 T 04:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Lots of coverage directly of him in the LA Times going back to the mid 90s (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), but I don't know whether they count as "intellectually independent of each other" as per WP:BASIC.

Jonathan Deamer (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He may only have acted as chief for six months, but he was deputy chief for seven years and there does seem to be sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Necrothesp: A deputy chief of any police department will generate some amount of local coverage. Is there any here that is not WP:ROUTINE? BD2412 T 14:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Interim/acting chief of police that doesn't seem to have done anything noteworthy, not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd love to close this discussion but I don't see a consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in the article and found in BEFORE are database listings/name mentions, nothing that meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Being the intermin chief of police for 5 months, even in Los Angeles the most important and consequential city in the world, doesn't meet ANYBIO, and there are not sources showing this has WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. They had a role in the police response to the North Hollywood shootout, but I was not able to find sources with SIGCOV about the subject.

The single source [34] in the article is dead link primary source redirecting to the main page, probably was to this page [35]. If sources are found, ping me. // Timothy :: talk 01:11, 14 January 2024 (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 television stations in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Broadcasting Network[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Puerto Rico, and California. Let'srun (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Caribbean. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Unless Sammi Brie can find some sources (if anyone can, it's her), I say redirect to List of television stations in the U.S. Virgin Islands. It's not perfect, but most of their stations are in the US Virgin Islands. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This seems like the type of small group that isn't likely to have much coverage in independent sources. (Redirecting to the list of television stations in the U.S. Virgin Islands does not seem like a good idea to me, as that list does not mention any station owners and thus may present a surprise, and this group has also owned Puerto Rico stations.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist given the opposition to a Redirect which is how I would have closed this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of television stations in the U.S. Virgin Islands, a couple mentions here and there, but quite sure it doesn’t merit its own article. TLA (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nhttpd[edit]

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

Non-notable software. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources and none found in a WP:BEFORE search. Tagged for notability and sourcing issues for over a decade. Jfire (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Jfire (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find any independent sources, either. The article is sourced entirely to documentation supplied by the inventor. No-one else has apparently ever documented this. Uncle G (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find any independent sources as well. PaulT2022 (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this article was PROD'd in the past so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's one article about a vulnerability [1] but nothing significant. --StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of British Rail unbuilt locomotive classes. There is a clear consensus that the article should be merged, however, there are differing views to the target. There was no counter-response to the rebuttal of British Rail as a target and as participants have not subsequently engaged on that suggestion as a target it does not have consensus. Of the other suggested targets, the unbuilt locomotive classes list apppears the most frequenly amongst choices offerred by participants, therefore I see a rough consensus for that as the target. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Class 51[edit]

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

This never-built locomotive class is not individually notable and does not justify an article. It should be a redirect to one sentence at List of British Rail unbuilt locomotive classes. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (first preference) or merge. The existence of three independent sources on the article rather suggests that this is actually notable. I don't have access to those sources, but I have no reason not to assume good faith about them, nor have I looked for additional sources. The issue with merging is that there are multiple equally good targets List of British Rail unbuilt locomotive classes, British Rail Class 55, English Electric diesel engines and possibly others, and any such merge is likely to result in the removal of sourced encyclopaedic information for no good reason. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would AGF, but this was authored by the community-banned Australian railroad IP, who is known for misrepresentation of sources and creating articles on non-notable subjects. I don't have access to the sources myself, but I would imagine more than this could be said about the proposed locomotive class if it were independently notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have two of the four (not three) sources, and have given my opinion of them at Talk:British Rail Class 51#Sources. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The pertinent information could be merged to, say, British Rail, since this was a proposed locomotive class for BR. TH1980 (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
British Rail is a very poor merge target when List of British Rail unbuilt locomotive classes exists. British Rail is far too general of a subject matter for this to be merged there, it would be out of scope. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 03:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are several different Merge/Redirect target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

merge selectively to Napier Deltic#Railway_use where the designs could be summarized as an unexecuted project. It's the Deltic engine that really gives these any notability at all. Mangoe (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could also go with a redirect to List of British Rail unbuilt locomotive classes. Mangoe (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Looking over the discussion it now looks like there are 4 different Redirect/Merge target articles being suggested. If there is no agreement on the horizon this will likely close as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with British Rail Class 50: using the same chassis as the Class 50 and a modified body makes it a better merge target than the somewhat different Class 55, I believe. (I know; sorry, Liz...) Owen× ☎ 22:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of British Rail unbuilt locomotive classes; somewhat against merging to Class 50 as above; purely on the premise of lack of sourcing, apart from using chassis/body I see no reason to merge to there. Its like merging HS4000 and Class 47 together. Nightfury 21:10, 17 January 2024 (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 as to whether to retain this as an independent article. However without any chance of a delete outcome and no input after the last relist, this can continue on the Talk. Star Mississippi 15:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blueprints at Addison Circle[edit]

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

Insufficient notability for a stand-alone article per WP:ROTM, WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Neat-looking, but not widely discussed in secondary sources other than a single article in the local newspaper; most other Google search results point to people or companies which had something to do with its creation, or run-of-the-mill "Things to see in Addison" travel guides. The article has seldom received more than 1-2 daily page views. Good candidate for merging with the Addison, Texas, page. Carguychris (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Carguychris (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Texas. Owen× ☎ 00:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourced article from The Dallas Morning News (a major U.S. newspaper characterized in the nomination as a 'local newspaper') added to other sources, including an article in Sculpture magazine. Meets GNG. I almost missed the image of the impressive sculpture, have to scroll the image to the right for viewing, but have added another image. Designed by notable sculptor Mel Chin. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever you want to say about the reputation of the DMN, it is nonetheless the local paper for Addison. Mangoe (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the two refs added to the article today. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while @Carguychris makes a good point about WP:ROTM, the structure is quite impressive and distinguishes it from something "ordinary". Definitely is something notable to keep on Wikipedia. Noorullah (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an entirely subjective evaluation of the subject not an evaluation of the provenances and depths of the sources documenting the subject. Notability is not fame nor importance. Our subjective opinions of fame and importance do not count, and Project:fame and importance was rejected in 2004. Uncle G (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Noorullah seems to be commenting on and disagreeing with the reasoning in the nomination, the essay WP:ROTM, and not the sources (which now are adequate to provide notability). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)*[reply]
Question. Does someone know if coding exists to make the large image scan from right to left instead of left to right? The page topic, the statue, can only be seen in the large image by scanning way over to the right when it probably should be the image seen at the start of the scroll. It's pretty nice when you get to the 'reveal' though. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Kryn, perhaps just create a new image file by cropping out the rest of the panorama. The other stuff is irrelevant. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But I've never created or uploaded images here. Besides, the entire panorama is descriptive of the park and area, and hopefully everybody scrolls over because coming upon the statue is quite the surprise after not expecting anything like that. Certainly not a run of the mill piece, the sculpture would enhance the art heritage of any major city in the world. Addison, Texas is lucky to have it. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: you can use ((wide image)) with the dir=rtl parameter, as in this edit. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Caeciliusinhorto-public, it looks pretty good. A nice artwork (both the sculpture and the panorama). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Addison, Texas I'm just not seeing the notability here, but it's a prominent enough local landmark to warrant inclusion in the city article. Mangoe (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies GNG.Djflem (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't quite see GNG being passed here. I don't really mind the Dallas newspaper article, though I agree it's in a routine (monthly) column and that the fact it has a large readership doesn't make it any less than a local paper, but I don't see any other coverage which looks sufficiently independent and it is almost written in a combination of WP:NOTTRAVEL/overly matter of fact sense. It can be adequately covered on the city's page and doesn't need a stand-alone article. SportingFlyer T·C 07:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text cited does not seem to apply ("Travel guides: An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone numbers or street addresses of the "best" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. While travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should list only those that are actually in the city. If you do wish to help write a travel guide, your contributions would be more than welcome at our sister project, Wikivoyage."). Where does it mention anything about landmarks in the city to which the citied guideline refers. Adding it to the Addison article would make that article more "travel guidy", wouldn't it? It is a substantial work of art and landmark in its own right. The matter of factness is presents the facts about the sculpture and the vision of its creator as an article about a work of art should.Djflem (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's enough GNG-calibre sourcing regardless, it's just an oddly written article to me. SportingFlyer T·C 13:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments are divided between Merge and Keep. The article has seen a lot of editing since its nomination, a review of sources would be helpful for the next potential closer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 12 January 2024 (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!} 05:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine Radio Network[edit]

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

The topics in this dabpage are covered by and included in the larger Sunshine Radio dabpage. There are no incoming links and only 49 pageviews in the last year. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Disambiguations. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As mentioned above, Sunshine Radio created in 2006 is a sourced and better inclusive dab than this 2010 version. — Maile (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:CHEAP. Geschichte (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2024 (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 page's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jahrbuch[edit]

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

This is just the German word for yearbook. I doubt any of the journals listed are going to be referred to as just "Jahrbuch". AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cf. Yearbook (disambiguation) which is not a list of every single article that has Yearbook somewhere in the title. Geschichte (talk) 09:57, 18 January 2024 (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. If you are going to suggest a Redirect/Merge as an option, you need to suggest a specific target article. Also, this is apparently, a new line, should it receive more coverage in the future, it could warrant a standalone article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mau–Lokmanya Tilak Terminus Express[edit]

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

Unsourced, non notable. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 01:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, India, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: looks like this is a new train route that started last month, and I found some coverage chronicling its launch. Left guide (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the launch was notable (WP:1E), I don’t see any WP:SUSTAINED coverage. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with @MicrobiologyMarcus, seems to fail WP:GNG, page has no sources as well. Noorullah (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to whichever of the two train station that is more notable.

Jothefiredragon (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2024 (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 South Dakota State Jackrabbits football, 1889–1909#1897. (non-admin closure) TLA (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1897 South Dakota State Jackrabbits football team[edit]

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

Subject does not contain the significant coverage needed for this one game season to meet the WP:NSEASONS. Let'srun (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and South Dakota. Let'srun (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to South Dakota State Jackrabbits football, 1889–1909#1897. Lacks WP:SIGCOV from reliable, independent sources. Redirect is preferable in this case as an WP:ATD. Cbl62 (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2024 (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.