< January 19	January 21 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 is insufficient. If Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inffinito ends up being retained, a redirect can be done at editorial discretion Star Mississippi 22:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Film Festival of London[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This has been at AfD twice with no consensus. I couldn't find enough to show it meets WP:N. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; I hope it can now be resolved. Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, England, and Brazil. Owen× ☎ 19:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move~~Redirect to Inffinito as was more or less decided last time....For explanations about this, please see previous Afd. Also see below.Thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Out of courtesy, notifying @Mccapra and Atlantic306:. Doncram had suggested to expand the page as Inffinito, but was unfortunately not able to do it. I might do it myself with the sources he presented, when I have more time. Best.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I must admit I can’t entirely make out the case in Doncram’s lengthy explanation about why this article about this film festival should be merged into an article about ….. a different film festival but I’ve no objection to that if someone understands the point better than me and is willing to do it. Mccapra (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, in fact BRAFF (State festival) and Inffinito (Private prod company) are not connected, I'm afraid. Will try to improve the article as BRAFF, rapidly to help warrant a Keep but I have little time to do so. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, my bad, their Twitter account shows they are connected: https://x.com/BRAFFLondon/status/585412661598380032?s=20. So it can easily be renamed Inffinito and expanded with the other versions (Miami, etc) of the festival. Best, sorry for the contradictory input. Doing this in a rush. Best,-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Inffinito with extra content regarding the other versions of the festival which together should pass WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary im my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:43, 14 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!} 23:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm open to changing my mind, but I'm unconvinced at the moment. I've (mostly) read the prior AfDs, and I'm seeing claims about how if the BFFL is merged into an "Inffinito" article that the sources from the various connecting festivals would meet GNG, but I'm not seeing substantiation of that claim and I can't find much myself. I'm seeing a lot of "this festival exists" / "we endorse this festival" / "this festival showed XYZ film" / "come to this festival at XYZ date" sources both at BFFL and Inffinito, but nothing that gives any SIGCOV or commentary on the festival itself. There isn't an existing article to merge into, so I think the best outcome is deletion and if an editor actually decides to create "Inffinito" and they really want the sources currently present here at BFFL, any administrator can be asked to retrieve them. —Sirdog (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone wants to take the time to expand this into a well-sourced article on Inffinito. Llajwa (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said I might try, out of consideration for Doncram's work. But I'd rather wait for the move (and keep, for that matter). All right, I'll create the page first then, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC). Done[reply]
@Mccapra, Atlantic306, Sirdog, Llajwa, and Liz:....but then this happened...Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inffinito.... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Sirdog's eval, fails GNG and NEVENT. No WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found routine mill news, promo, nothing that meets SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 17:53, 27 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 stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Owen× ☎ 00:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WVEB-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Another ground-up run-of-the-mill DTV America/HC2/Innovate station with no real local content that has never received — and probably never will receive — the requisite significant coverage to merit anything more than list entries. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The low power station has been consistently updated and has several references to justify its existence. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Existence is not the same as notability. The existing references are either databases, which are not regarded as significant coverage (and one ref to the FCC database is automatically generated by the infobox), or are to its listings on the websites of DTV America and HC2 Broadcasting, which as owners of the station do not count as independent coverage (and themselves might fall under "database" as well). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by what you said. So by that logic, all HC2 stations should redirect to the list of stations owned by Innovate Corporation/HC2 Broadcasting then? So then by that account, all stations owned by HC2/DTV America (Innovate Corp.) aren't notable? Wikipedia:ENN does exist but it feel likes we're using it to delete it like all non major-network affiliates. It's kinda confusing.... I hope you clear that up because just like how my mother can't understand how WDAF-TV and KSHB-TV changed affiliations in the 1994–1996 United States broadcast television realignment and thought they CHANGED facilities, I wouldn't understand the Notability ≠ Existence thing for HC2 cause then, if we all took it literally (which is what is happening here) then do we just redirect all of them, all of the stations to the Innovate Corp link then? Even the notable ones??? It just confuses me, that's all. Mer764Wiki (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are only pruning stations that have never received the requisite significant coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline. Most DTV America/HC2/Innovate stations do not have SIGCOV, especially the ones that went on the air in the 2010s and have had no other owners. But some (not all, but some) of the stations they acquired from other owners did receive such coverage in the past, and the articles on those stations will be less likely to be deleted or redirected — notability is not temporary. There is no one-size-fits-all approach here — this is a big reason why a bulk nomination of HC2/Innovate stations failed last year (I forgot my usual note that this article is a survivor of that, as it happens). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to almost explains my point over the notability of some stations, because they might be notable back in the day but now they really are just subchannel farms like WKOB-LD or KCEB meaning they are NOT notable. Mer764Wiki (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:47, 27 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 stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Owen× ☎ 00:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WHEH-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Yet another ground-up run-of-the-mill all-national-content DTV America/HC2/Innovate station with usual nonexistent significant coverage not warranting anything more than list entries. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The low power station has been consistently updated and has several references to justify its existence. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Existence is not the same as notability. The existing references are either databases, which are not regarded as significant coverage (and one ref to the FCC database is automatically generated by the infobox), or are to its listings on the websites of DTV America and HC2 Broadcasting, which as owners of the station do not count as independent coverage (and themselves might fall under "database" as well). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. per all. To Washu; we've been putting up these articles for deletion/redirection because Innovate/HC2 have no designs on running competitive or contributive stations to their community and do little more than distribute a number of networks otherwise available online or automated to the point of having no impact on a viewer whatsoever, and these stations also have no hope of more than OTA distribution because of that factor. Nate • (chatter) 03:05, 21 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. Limited participation even after three relists. However, consensus of P&G-based arguments was clear to delete. Owen× ☎ 00:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fuad Alasgarov[edit]

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

Run of the mill bureaucrat. There is nothing that indicates that the subject is notable. Thenightaway (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if he was actually a member of the Supreme Court he’d almost certainly be notable, but I’m struggling to understand how he managed this at the tender age of 31. Mccapra (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, may also pass WP:NPOL as the head of the "State-legal department" and "Department on work with law-enforcement bodies", each being state-wide offices. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 13:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject pass GNG having significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Try to search “Fuad Ələsgərov”. Subject also pass first criteria of NPOL: being the Assistant to the President for Work with Law Enforcement Bodies and Military Issues, Head of Department and member of the Supreme Court make the person certainly notable and these facts are verifiable: 1. All of the sources in the article are reliable enough to proof the facts: two of them are from the Official Website of President of Azerbaijan and the other ones are Decrees of President of Azerbaijan. 2. There are also numerous reliable secondary sources which proof the facts. For example: [1]. @Mccapra: the fact is verifiable and as a individual editor, we don’t have responsibility to research all points of view. --Surə ^🗯 17:26, 4 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!} 22:17, 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!} 21:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he was not a Justice of the Supreme Court in 1990-1994, he was a district court judge in Baku; the disctrict courts sit within the structure of Supreme Court, but are lower courts. Being a high-ranking bureaucrat is not a "state-wide" office. There's *no* presumed notability available under WP:NPOL. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC) correction ... left out the negative --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG, NBIO, NPOL, mill bureaucrat article with mill news sources. No sources in article meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth and nothing found in BEFORE for Fuad Ələsgərov, Fuad Alasgarov, Fuad Murtuz oğlu Ələsgərov. Azerbaijan gov sources are not WP:IS WP:RS for subject. BLPs require strong sourcing. Ping me if WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV are added to the article. // Timothy :: talk 06:20, 21 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WCEE-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hard to imagine any significant coverage for a not-that-old LPTV that seemingly has only carried national services. Maybe a redirect to List of Estrella TV affiliates could be a possible alternative (this did start out as a redirect to KTBN-TV, as it was formerly a TBN translator), but as this isn't an Estrella-owned station I can't exactly say that's ideal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [reply]
- Well, as sometimes happens, there turned out to be a bit more hiding out there than there was on the surface. Pivoting to a weak keep per Sammi Brie's improvements. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The station also carries a feed of a Mexican broadcast, XHQMGU-TDT, which is more than just a Estrella affiliate. They do provide their own news program for the Charlotte area, which is where the article can be expanded. It isn't that it is less important, it is just that low power stations are not seen by many wiki editors and thus are ignored, this one should not be. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My research is turning up the SIGCOV. It's an older station than the article listed, and I have pegged it to a March 1, 1985, start date. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:04, 21 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. The page does not qualify for a soft-delete, as it was previously DEPRODed. Owen× ☎ 00:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parothumneer[edit]

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

Delete Could find no mention of the village in the 2011 Indian census, and I also cannot find any WP:SIGCOV online. Tooncool64 (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kerala. Skynxnex (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete The ward name checks out; the village claim does not and isn't cited. Election wards are specifically noted as not notable. Mangoe (talk) 20:46, 26 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. No evidence of notability demonstrated. As noted in the discussion, what is needed to establish notability is not sources written by the subject, but sources not written by the subject. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Ostrowski[edit]

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

This article is blatant self-promotion, and appears to be a résumé written by the person it's referencing. Extensive editing could be done to fix it up, though the person isn't really notable in the first place. OnlyNano (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Bibliographies. OnlyNano (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NOT A SOCIAL NETWORK : Possible socking involved. Editor Sanctus7 and Andrew Ostrowski are possibly the same person. Sanctus7 supplied the images dated 2009, 2011, and 2012. Written like an in-depth press release for media outlets - more likely for a dating website - no doubt written by him ("I guess I'm an old fashioned ‘bump into somebody/love at first sight’ type of person as opposed to a wolf out for the hunt.”) Details on his likes and dislikes. An entire subsection on his "Spirituality", his various collections and personal life. "Ostrowski was in a relationship with the daughter of an executive..." — Maile (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to a contested PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Now this is a real work of art in the personal self-promo genre, I don’t think I’ve ever seen an entry at this level. My instinct is that this will end up as a delete vote, but it’s not a speedy one, as there are in fact in-depth profiles here. The Staten Island advance is a real outlet. This coverage does not however appear to be independent of the subject however at first glance. WilsonP NYC (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sheer level of effort this must've taken for someone to try to promote themself is sad at best. May it's deletion be swift. The13thTroll (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is a really interesting article he's worked on here. Really caught my eye when I was copyediting it... OnlyNano 18:24, 22 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 James Putzel. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis States Research Centre[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. A possible ATD is merge/redirect to London School of Economics, but it could unbalance that article. Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and England. Owen× ☎ 18:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Eligible for soft deletion, though I'd like to see some discussion on the ATDs that were floated by nom before closing that way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to James Putzel. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a brief properly sourced summary into James Putzel. This may very well develop into a full article one day, this will be a good place for it to be developed. Currently it fails GNG and NORG. // Timothy :: talk 07:00, 28 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 Draftify‎ to save BeanieFan11 the step of asking me for it since I'm happy to do this for any established editor. I am not redirecting to Georgetown football, pre–1890 since that's a redirect to Georgetown football, 1874–1889 which is up for AfD. Should it survive, the merger can happen from draft space. I believe this saves everyone's time and also solves to the consensus that it doesn't currently belong in mainspace as its own page. Star Mississippi 02:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1881 Georgetown football team[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NSEASONS. This team didn't play any actual games, and the only secondary source merely recants the report on the only scheduled game from the student newspaper, which is not WP:INDY. Let'srun (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Washington, D.C.. Let'srun (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Moreover, there is no plausible claim to notability as even Georgetown doesn't count this season (Georgetown records its first year as being 1887) which consisted of (i) zero games played, and (ii) a forfeit claimed against a local high school that sent word they could not play. Cbl62 (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a nothingburger. Nothing happened, nothing significant was written. Geschichte (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling that several other early seasons would also be subject to a "delete" fate if brought to AFD; Georgetown is a historic Division I team and one of the oldest in the country (dating to 1874) – we should have coverage on all the seasons of said programs, whether that is in standalones or mergers – maybe we could draftify this so I can make a valid merger article? (maybe Georgetown football, 1874–1889 - the first 15 years after the team's founding?) BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Object to the seasons which come before 1887, as they are not recognized by the school. Let'srun (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think whether the team "recognizes" the games (and they did before 1950) should matter as to whether we can cover them – what matters is if the team played the games, in my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what matters is if the team played the games In this case, though, the game wasn't even played, as the local high school kids sent word that they couldn't make it. Cbl62 (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but there appears to be several other pre-1887 seasons, e.g. 1883 Georgetown Hoyas football team, where they did play. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that just because a few students organized a club team to challenge some random teams to de facto exhibitions doesn't mean that there was a team representing the school officially. This wasn't an intercollegiate team by any stretch, and didn't play any games. Let'srun (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reason for a merger is that there are other early seasons, e.g. 1883, that were intercollegiate games, that would likely be deleted at AFD, thus a merger documenting all the early Georgetown seasons would be most beneficial. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but they were not "varsity" level games. I could write a article about the club football team at Georgetown, but it wouldn't meet the WP:NSEASONS. The same principle applies here. In any event, this discussion covers just 1881, not the other seasons, and I don't see any record of a 'team' playing actual games in 1874. The origins of the team can be covered at Georgetown football. Let'srun (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you determine that the 1883 season was not a varsity season (played against another long-standing college)? Draftifiying assists me in creating a valid merger target which includes enough seasons to make it notable (we should have coverage of these games somewhere). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not included in the official team records, which suggests that the games were either WP:ROUTINE non-official exhibitions (failing WP:NSEASONS still) or the team wasn't sanctioned by the university. I'll ask again, since you ignored it the first time, but what evidence is there to suggest a team played any games in 1874, the first year of your suggested merge? No team that played 0 games meets WP:NSEASONS. Let'srun (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And it not meeting NSEASONS is the exact reason that I wish to create a merger target. Once this is draftified and I have the time to work on it all the finer points can be worked out. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to a possible article involving the seasons from 1887 onward, but not anything prior to that. Let'srun (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you're just saying that we should, despite pre-1950 Georgetown media guides recognizing them and newspaper evidence, ignore that all seasons prior to 1887 that occurred and erase it from Wikipedia? That doesn't make sense. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they don't meet the notability guidelines in place, they can't have a standalone article or even a merged article if they still can't meet those guidelines. A couple of sentences covering the origins of football at Georgetown football still allows the most pertinent info to be covered. WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep any article, and I am still seeking evidence that there was even a team that played any games at the start of your hypothetical season merge target. Let'srun (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting plain ridiculous. An article not meeting notability criteria is the exact reason for a merger. All I am asking is for a draftifcation so that I may find a way to adequately cover the early Georgetown seasons; what wrong possibly could be done by that? None! This is not a ILIKEIT argument at all; I don't care about Georgetown; all that matters to me is that we adequately cover the histories of top-Division football programs... BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am opposed to including 'seasons' which were not really seasons in a merge season target which includes real seasons. If you can't understand that, I don't know what to say. Let'srun (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the details can be worked out later. There is no issue with draftification for now. I don't know what to say. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you just said that you wanted to create a merger target including the seasons from 1874-1889. That seems a bit specific and not much of "working the details out later". Let'srun (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
maybe we could draftify this so I can make a valid merger article? (maybe Georgetown football, 1874–1889 - the first 15 years after the team's founding?) That's not saying I've set in stone exactly what I am going to do. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that is you are requesting this article to be saved as a draft, you are implying that there is a merge season article that would include this 'season' in it, which as a non-official season with 0 intercollegiate games (or any games played whatsoever) I might add doesn't meet any notability criteria. I gave you an alternative option that the early history of this team could be covered, and you rejected it. Let'srun (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that this still was a "team" and there is one result that still happened - it not meeting notability is the reason to merge for the last time. An article on the early history of Georgetown football would warrant a mention of it. What wrong is done by draftifying it? The only "wrong" that could be done here would be hiding from readers history of a Division I football team because YOUDONTLIKEIT. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is under the assumption that there is a season merge article that would include this 'season', which for the last time I'm saying there isn't since this was a non-official non-season where the 'team' didn't play any games. I love watching football, I don't love keeping articles that don't meet the WP:NSEASONS because of WP:NOHARM. Let'srun (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a short explainer of this 'season' in the history section at Georgetown football. Hopefully you appreciate this solution. Let'srun (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that mention is really WP:DUE especially since other early seasons (e.g. 1883, which actually did play games) are not mentioned. I am NOT saying to keep this - I repeat - I am NOT saying to keep this - just to draftifiy so that, when I have time (your mass deletion-related activities have definitely costed me a lot of time I otherwise would have been able to spend improving articles) we can work out an article covering early Georgetown seasons that mentions this - if you think it DUE to mention it at the Georgetown article, then it certainly is DUE enough to mention it in an article containing all the early Georgetown football history. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions of the 1883 games can also be added there. The rest of what you wrote, take it to ANI if you want, it has nothing to do with the discussion of THIS season. You actually are advocating to keep it, you are just trying to pretend that you aren't by first creating a draft and once the smoke has cleared putting it back in mainspace. Let'srun (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is incomprehensible why I should not be given a chance to merge per NSEASONS early Georgetown seasons - as Cbl62 said at a related discussion where you similarly had illogical opposition to my improvement attempts: "...But I don't think we need to cross that bridge in order to justify draftification for an established user like Beanie who has demonstrated ability in building viable merger targets. Worst case, he fails and the draft gets deleted in six months. I don't see any downside to letting Beanie work on it in draftspace." BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a different discussion. I am open to a WP:ATD ~~there but can't draftify it per WP:DRAFTIFY. Let's stick to the issue at hand, which is this season.~~ Let'srun (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Let'srun: You actually are advocating to keep it, you are just trying to pretend that you aren't by first creating a draft and once the smoke has cleared putting it back in mainspace. Wow. Talk about Wikipedia:Assume good faith. You really think I'm that low? I would never do that. But anyway, this whole argument is moot now that I created a merger target in Georgetown football, pre–1890. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte and Cbl62: BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~No objection by me to draftification. Cbl62 (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
Redirect to Georgetown football, pre–1890#1881 as a resonable WP:ATD. Cbl62 (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Georgetown football, pre–1890. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:44, 27 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]} 13:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John H.A.L. de Jong[edit]

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC.

The closest criterium is that the subject has a "special chair" (nlwiki), which unlike a named chair, is a temporary and usually part-time position and funded by a company he works for. NM 22:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Language, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 on GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
@Xxanthippe is that a lot for linguistics? I wouldn't have expected so. -- asilvering (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you are welcome to produce data for other linguists. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:52, 12 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!} 21:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I honestly can't tell whether this number of citations suggests 'significant impact'. De Jong's user profile on Google Scholar lists 31 articles with ten or more citations, including 5 with 100 or more citations. For comparison, Paul Boersma's and Theo van Leeuwen's user pages each list more than 100 articles with ten or more, and Marc van Oostendorp and Elly van Gelderen each around 60. (All are Category:Linguists from the Netherlands.) Lal Zimman, a linguist from the United States, has a similar number of Google Scholar citations as de Jong, but Zimman has also won the Ruth Benedict Prize in anthropology. For what it is worth, I am a linguist who had not heard of de Jong, but I am not involved in language assessment, which appears to be de Jong's specialization. Cnilep (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the effort to find citations for other linguists. The candidate holds his own among those others and in my view satisfies WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Keep by PROF. Nominator and subsequent authors only complained about academic notability and never invoked the GNG, where the problem could be. Therefore sticking to PROF as the criterium. That part is met. gidonb (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around specific elements of WP:NPROF as they relate to this individual would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NPROF criteria 2 and 6: (2) because he received the Distinguished Achievement Award from Cambridge/ILTA (reference in article); and (6) he was President of the European Association of Language Testing and Assessment.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep that award puts him over the bar. The folks giving it to him look real enough. Hobit (talk) 06:53, 25 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. Owen× ☎ 22:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quixote's Cove[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Companies. Skynxnex (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like a lovely bookshop but it doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Jfire (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not too much coverage to meet notability.Royal88888 (talk) 22:55, 22 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 00:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Yves Bouguet[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Computing, Software, and California. Owen× ☎ 19:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting any guideline. Do say if anything is found. Geschichte (talk) 23:30, 20 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 G5. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Enwiki23. Mkdw ^talk 01:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Rudrabangla[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. None of the sources seem to actually discuss the newspaper in any significant manner or seem to be reliable. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Bangladesh. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Made with reference to a newspaper registered by the Government of Bangladesh. Check that all references have been provided. Aslam Talukdar (talk) 22:07, 20 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) 22:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spoonful James[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Was deleted at AfD in 2009. Boleyn (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Alabama. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBAND at best, and I don't see much significant coverage. FlutterDash344 (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 22:04, 20 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 Kim Gruenenfelder#Bibliography. I see support for this AtD, and no other consensus was likely to appear. Owen× ☎ 23:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hangovers & Hot Flashes[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. I have checked for reviews on Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, and Booklist, as well as a general Google search, but couldn't find additional RSes. 4/6 of the sources on the page mention the book. However, none establish notability: Chick Lit Central (#1) doesn't provide SIGCOV, and Daily Bruin (#4), The Other 50% (#5), and Kim Gruenfelder (#6) are primary. Gruenfelder's website only mentions one "review", which is from another author, not a news source. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a stub article, I strongly agree that there needs to be more sourcing on this book. Gruenenfelder's website does feature simply a quote from another author, but this is common for published works and not a reflection of reviews. Five of Gruenenfelder's books easily establish notability, but I will also concede that this sixth one is a bit more difficult in terms of sourcers from Kirkus and the like: my chief goal is to represent a work of literature about an older demographic of women, which is often excluded from the books that receive coverage. Happy to continue work on improving it, and would be open to Moving to Draftspace in this spirit, though I believe that removing it entirely would be a mistake. PickleG13 (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, PickleG13! I absolutely agree that we need more literature that represents older women. However, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. If you can find sources that establish the notability of this book, please share them here or add them to the article page. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kim Gruenenfelder#Bibliography (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The page was a redirect to Kim Gruenenfelder#Bibliography before being converted to an article on 6 January 2024. I am also fine with a move to draftspace but would like to have the redirect to Kim Gruenenfelder#Bibliography restored if that happens.
I did a detailed search for sources and could not find reviews or significant coverage other than this article in the University of California, Los Angeles student newspaper Daily Bruin. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Student media says:
Reputable student media outlets, such as The Harvard Crimson, are considered generally reliable sources for news on their school and local community. They can sometimes be considered reliable on other topics, although professional sources are typically preferred when available. However, given their local audience and lack of independence from their student body, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions.
Kim Gruenenfelder is an alumna of the University of California, Los Angeles, so the student newspaper is not entirely independent of her for the purpose of determining notability.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.
Cunard (talk) 09:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, it looks like the most promising options are a Draftify/Redirect or just a straight Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kim Gruenenfelder#Bibliography per Cunard. No objection to the requested draftification. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:12, 26 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

East Cobb Baseball[edit]

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

It exists and has some coverage, but I don't think it is enough to go over WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think the sourcing, while less than ideal, is enough to get it over the edge. If not, support merging and adding a sports section to Marietta, Georgia where it merits mention. Star Mississippi 20:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable regional amateur sports league. There are thousands of these all over the country and this one does not have special significance. Spanneraol (talk) 22:14, 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!} 22:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The sourcing, though not ideal, provides enough coverage to meet the threshold for notability. If not considered standalone notable, merging and adding a sports section to Marietta, Georgia where it merits mention would be a suitable alternative. The regional significance of East Cobb Baseball is evident, and its inclusion adds valuable content to Wikipedia's coverage of sports in the area. KarKuZoNga (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am almost sure that this is an AI-generated summary of the comments above, particularly looking at @Star Mississippi comment. The first sentence is just a rewording of Star's first sentence, and notice the duplication of "merits mention". See this user's other AfD contributions and all of them are just summaries of other's comments written in a very AI style. GraziePrego (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summarizing comment doesn't make it ai. Not sure about your point. If you have issue with my Keep vote and its justification please give proper argument to oppose that. KarKuZoNga (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spanneraol's reasoning. This is a run of the mill youth club baseball league and there is nothing outside much in terms of coverage outside of 2 local newspaper articles and the obit of the guy who founded it (which itself appears to be a reprint of the one provided by his family to a funeral home). Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Verducci, Tom (2010-04-19). "Legend Before His Time". Sports Illustrated. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
  The article notes: "Since 1985 East Cobb has won 146 national titles and produced 150 pro players, including 21 drafted and signed last year alone. It has grown to 85 teams for ages eight through 18. You might see as many as 600 scouts and college coaches at the complex at a time; they're engaged in the baseball equivalent of catching fish in a barrel. Among the major league stars who have played at East Cobb are McCann, Jeff Francoeur, Jeremy Hermida, Nick Markakis, Micah Owings, Matt Capps, Stephen Drew, Dexter Fowler and Gordon Beckham—and that doesn't include the 14 first-round picks in just the past three years."
2. Murray, Lynn (2013-02-01). "God's Little Acre of Diamonds: Observations on Travel Ball in Cobb County, Georgia. The Cathedral". Illustoria. McSweeney's. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27. Retrieved 2024-01-27.
  The article notes: "East Cobb is the cathedral of baseball in Cobb County. It’s High Church baseball. ... The story of East Cobb Baseball goes something like this. Back in 1983, a baseball team from Cobb County won the Little League World Series. That World Series. The one on ESPN every August. ... East Cobb Baseball eventually grew to an eighteen-million-dollar, 30-acre complex, and now it fields around 75 travel teams for ages eight to eighteen. Over the years East Cobb has won more national titles (181, according to its website) and trained more future major league players than any other organization in Georgia. It is generally recognized as among the top baseball programs in the country. More than 150 East Cobb alumni have gone on to play professional baseball; more than 800 have earned college scholarships. A 2010 Sports Illustrated article puts it this way: “What Silicon Valley is to computer chips, East Cobb is to youth baseball: the heart of the sport’s research and development.”"
3. Shanks, Bill (2005). Scout's Honor: The Bravest Way To Build A Winning Team. New York: Sterling & Ross. p. 254. ISBN 09766372-1-9. Retrieved 2024-01-27 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "The best system in Georgia is also perhaps the best in the country, East Cobb Baseball in Marietta, just north of Atlanta. They take kids starting at the age of eight and teach them the specifics of baseball, and then the kids play teams all over the country. In the mid-80’s and before, traveling baseball was non-existent. Kids were lucky if they picked up a few summer league games after rec league or the high school season. But now, kids can play a hundred games in a calendar year. East Cobb’s success has produced better talent that has bled into the high school ranks, making that level of ball better as well. And most of the kids in Georgia high schools have grown up not only watching the Braves, but watching the Braves win."
4. Williams, Pete (2011). Baseball: How To Play The Game. New York: Universe Publishing. p. 303. ISBN 978-0-7893-2218-0. Retrieved 2024-01-27 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "There’s also East Cobb Baseball, which was created in the northern Atlanta suburbs in 1985, not long after a team from Marietta, Ga., won the Little League World Series. Guerry Baldwin, a Pony League coach in Marietta, thought it made sense for players to be grouped together based on ability rather than age or home address. A wealthy benefactor helped build a 30-acre, eight-field complex that has since become the most prominent year-round facility in the country, producing such Big Leaguers as Jason Heyward, Brian McCann, Jeff Francoeur and Corey Patterson."
5. Simpson, Allan, ed. (2003). Baseball America Almanac 2003. Durham, North Carolina: Baseball AmericaD. p. 450. ISBN 0-684019299. Retrieved 2024-01-27 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "The powerful East Cobb baseball program from Marietta, Ga., added to its bulging trophy case by winning four more national titles in 2002. The 16-year-old East Cobb Astros stood out, winning 19 straight games to capture two major national titles in a 20-day span. They went 10-0, beating the Bloomfield Hills (Mich.) Wolves 18-0 in the final, to win the 24-team Continental Amateur Baseball Association (CABA) World Series, played at East Cobb's own new $9.8 million complex in Marietta. The Astros then went 9-0, beating the Arlington (Texas) Wizards 4-1 in the final, to win the 48-team Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) Junior Olympics national title in Knoxville, Tenn. East Cobb's victory in the Junior Olympics marked the sixth time in the last seven years that it won the gold medal. It finished second in 2000."
6. Crater, Paul (2007). Baseball in Atlanta. Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing. p. 25. ISBN 978-0-7385-4380-2. Retrieved 2024-01-27 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "In the Atlanta area, organizations like the Northside Youth Organization, the Cascade Youth Organization, the East Cobb Baseball Program, and various Dixie Youth leagues foster competitive environments and provide boys and girls the opportunity to play the game on an organized level. The East Cobb Baseball Program, located north of Atlanta in the city of Marietta, is one of the finest youth leagues in the country. It operates a multimillion-dollar facility and has produced dozens of collegiate and professional baseball players over the last 20 years."
7. Edgerton, Les (2009). Perfect Game USA and the Future of Baseball: How the Remaking of Youth Scouting Affects the National Pastime. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 86. ISBN 978-0-7864-3408-4. Retrieved 2024-01-27 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "East Cobb baseball has long been recognized as one of the premier youth baseball organizations in the country and probably the premier program in most baseball insider's eyes. Ford talks about how they teamed up."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow East Cobb Baseball to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's sources. Toughpigs (talk) 20:31, 27 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. ✗plicit 00:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Springbank School[edit]

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

WP:NORG:

Non-commercial organizations

[...] Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area.

I was not able to find coverage that satisfies the above for this years 1-13 school. बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is a composite school, providing education at both primary and secondary levels.-gadfium 18:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I confused ages 1 - 13 and year 1 - 13. I have updated my nomination according to your clarification. बिनोद थारू (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to get regular coverage in news media, e.g. with the change in principal this year.-gadfium 02:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Stuff.nz seems to delight in writing about the school. Since the article was written in 2011, the school has continued to get coverage in a variety of news outlets, as a Google search will show. Sionk (talk) 20:15, 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!} 22:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of anything beyond routine coverage. Article creator may have COI. Three (currently dead) stuff.co.nz links are all to Northern Advocate which makes it local news, not nationally significant. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I will note that this is a school, and WP:NSCHOOL (part of the WP:NORG guidance) states that articles on schools are permitted to merely satisfy the WP:GNG, provided that the school is not-for-profit. Coverage from The Northern Advocate, therefore, is perfectly fine for establishing notability here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A brief search indicates that this school has received significant coverage in local media, beyond the sources cited in the article. The school appears to be notable in accordance with WP:GNG. Marshelec (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: repeated coverage by Fairfax New Zealand ("Stuff") suggests notability meets WP:NSCHOOL. Owen× ☎ 23:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable secondary school. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:15, 26 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muthukrishnaperi[edit]

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

Delete Fails WP:NGEO. Cannot find any mention of the village in any of the Indian 2011 census tables nor any other information on google demonstrating WP:GNG. Tooncool64 (talk) 07:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

The content provided appears to be a description of a village, including information about local employment, facilities, climate, pollution levels, and religious practices. To determine whether to keep or delete such content on Wikipedia, we in good faiyth must also consider its compliance with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, specifically the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) and the guideline for notability of geographic features (WP:NGEO).

To meet WP:GNG, the subject must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

For WP:NGEO, the village would need to be notable either through historical, cultural, economic significance, or by being the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from reliable and independent sources.

If the village (which has to exist) has not been mentioned in any reliable sources, such as government records like the Indian census, or if there is no other verifiable information available from independent sources, it likely faile to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Lacking in sources et al. Cray04 (talk) 12:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:NGEO, as a populated, legally recognised place. The village does exist but the article was a mess and had a number of errors. Sources are thin on the ground but there is a polling station there, and this court document, and this newspaper article that reference the village. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 01:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need some of our WP:NGEO folks in here as there is a disagreement over whether or not this subject meets this standard.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the sources above there's a newspaper report in The Madras Weekly Mail of 14 September 1899 on a court case involving the burning and looting of dwellings in this village in what seems to be an ethnic or religious dispute. Link here: [2]. It's a populated place, maps show it to be a distinct village, there's road signs on the main road and a high school. It's existence is verified and it can be kept under WP:GEOLAND. Rupples (talk) 03:30, 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!} 22:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Map shows village is exist, it can be kept under WP:GEOLAND. 2400:9700:113:1547:45B5:4F14:BC2E:F828 (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Muthukrishnaperi is not a 2011 census village; it appears to be included in Kaluneerkulam, a revenue village comprising four distinct settlements, but I've only ascertained this from maps. Being a census village is not a strict requirement under WP:NPLACE. Rupples (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:49, 20 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. Owen× ☎ 23:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14 No Chingrakhali Government Primary School[edit]

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

Primary school which fails any of the criteria in WP:GNG or WP:NORG. None of the sources provide any independent significant coverage on this school. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Bengali source looks independent. It appears to be a series featuring a number of schools. What criteria was involved in leading to this school's inclusion isn't readily apparent, nonetheless, it hints the school has some degree of notability now or in the past. Rupples (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupples are you speaking of the first reference? It doesn't really say much except some basic facts I wouldn't consider that significant. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the first ref. And having had a break and come back to this it looks like I've misread; the "No. 14" is just part of the school's name. The Bengali article is dated 8 December 2023 and has the same picture as was posted to Commons that same day and included here. Rupples (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing does not satisfy GNG/NORG and it's unlikely this primary school is notable. Rupples (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Otherwise, this is now G5'able, for a speedier resolution. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. should not be deleted. Because the said school is Govt.
WikiShakib (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Blocked sock.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, Fails GNG, nothing found with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 19:42, 27 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 23:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Nicaragua[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This doesn't meet WP:N. There was no consensus at the AfD 3 months ago, mainly because of low participation. After 14 years in CAT:NN, I hope we can now get a good discussion and resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Beauty pageants, and Nicaragua. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely doesn't fit WP:Notability guidelines, and I'm pretty generous about it. Just not enough coverage about it, and not much potential to be informative for readers. Professor Penguino (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Geschichte (talk) 19:49, 25 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 Characters of the Street Fighter series. Views seem roughly evenly split between Keep and Merge, but the latter are better anchored in guidelines. Owen× ☎ 23:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gouken[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Gouken, by *himself*, is not notable, and the most notability the character received was due to Sheng Long, a completely separate character that Capcom used the hoax about to promote Gouken's inclusion in Street Fighter IV, but has since included in a game as his own character, albeit an optional boss. Bringing that up because there was a lot of confusion over the matter during the previous AfD, including the weird suggestion of...merging Sheng Long into Gouken.

Now with that said, a source analysis of what was presented during the last AfD:

Play issue 217, which is more discussing the Sheng Long hoax, and is also factually incorrect: Gouken's look was defined in the manga Street Fighter II: Ryu, which came out years prior. Take that how you will.
A paper by Nicholas Ware, which by itself is a fine source, but only briefly discusses his design in comparison to Ryu and Ken. It should be pointed out that some mentions in the paper are not from Ware, but interviews he conducted of others for his research, and don't fall under the same attribution.
This from IGN and this from GameSpot which both discuss his gameplay, and were done for all the characters. If these counted towards notability, we would have articles on pretty much every Pokemon that was competitively viable.

So with that longwindedness out of the way, trying to do a further WP:BEFORE isn't turning up anything either. The main reason this character is known at all...is because of the notability of another character, and that isn't inherited. Take that away, and there's little to say about Gouken. Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The magazine, IGN and Gamespot sources alone are sufficient for SIGCOV. "Discussing a character's gameplay" is not a disqualifier and there's no Wikipedia rule against it. (WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE refers to articles, not sources). A character being notable due to another character is also not a disqualifier. It's not the same as "inherited" notability, which would be akin to saying that, let's say Gouken had a son who was totally non-notable, that character would be notable too. These are some weird assertions for something to be non-notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The magazine article is primarily discussing Sheng Long, not Gouken. Gouken is discussed at the very end of it, and even then it's somehow *hilariously* managing to be incorrect? As for the IGN and Gamespot articles, I'm going to refer to the [AfD], where it was pointed out such gameplay reactions and discussions were done for all the characters, and not for the one character specifically. The issue isn't the gameplay focus per se over discussing him as a character, it's that every character got some degree of discussion on both sites from the game. Lastly your argument "A character being notable due to another character is also not a disqualifier" is more of a matter that, on its own merits, the character lacks discussion. One has to examine if the actual sources are discussing him, or the Sheng Long hoax that has he was created independently of.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that "it's incorrect" appears to be your own belief. The article is very much correct. There's a difference between a design being shown of Ryu's mentor, and the idea of Gouken as a playable character. While Ryu's mentor as a one-off design had already existed, Sheng Long spurred the developers to create a playable mentor character.

While Sheng Long may have been a separate character, Gouken is essentially the official version of Sheng Long and the two are intrinsically linked. I still think that Sheng Long should be merged into Gouken, regardless of the offhand dismissal of that idea here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the article is. It's claiming Gouken's appearance is based off Sheng Long's, when we have artbook sources that state otherwise. Additionally, Sheng Long is now an actual character in SF6, albeit as an optional boss. Long's impact was more on Akuma, but also EGM as detailed in that article, and has his own development history. Merging it into here makes no sense, nor would merging Gouken into Long's article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WIRED also states that "Gouken began as Sheng Long" and that Capcom had been teasing that Sheng Long would become real before they introduced Gouken.

Though I guess that given that Sheng Long got a recent canonical appearance I wasn't aware of before [3] they should both probably have separate articles. Gouken was still clearly based in some manner on the character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Street Fighter characters list. His notability seems almost entirely tied to Sheng Long, but a merge there is inappropriate, and Gouken is covered in enough at the Sheng Long article. There is some content worth adding to the character list, so I'd say there is appropriate, but there is nowhere near enough for a whole article here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per previous AfD. WP:GNG has been established, the character in question is old enough in the franchise to have WP:SIGCOV, regardless of if it started as hoax. It doesn't seem to me that there was any new fact to review the previous decision. Svartner (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Svartner How old a character is in a franchise does not automatically guarantee SIGCOV. That's basically arguing WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're arguing that the character is old enough to have gained SIGCOV, not that the character is notable because they are old. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, being in a franchise for a long time does not guarantee SIGCOV must exist, which seems to be their argument.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's still practically the same argument. Unless sources can be directly found and shown this is basically just a WP: SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the sources show notability and that GNG has been met.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I am not at all opposed to game guide content if appropriate and significant coverage, but the notion of a rather short reception that is, from what I can see, exclusively about how he plays in Street Fighter, is to show no real-world notability. The reception suggests a character whose notability has zero reach outside of people who play Street Fighter. The reception section even seems to have content that provides very little real perspective on the character. One citation just says that he's powerful; one is a Valnet listicle that doesn't provide sigcov; and the other two are lists, one which the author literally says he's not memorable. For effect, let me demonstrate what his article looks like if you pare it down to actual sigcov:
Ryan Clements from IGN commented that Gouken is one of the best new characters from Street Fighter IV, recommending him highly due to his large number of combos and originality.[15] He has also been regarded as a powerful character, with Game Revolution reviewer Nick Tan criticizing his moves for being much stronger than those of many other characters, making evading them almost impossible.[16][17] Den of Geek ranked Gouken commented how Gouken differentiates himself from Ryu, Ken, and Akuma, making him "appear more masterful."[20]
Like, I'm sorry, but this is incredibly weak. The only angle seems to be that Sheng Long and Gouken are intrinsically linked, which I do not buy. As it is, with Gouken as a character separate from Sheng Long, his reception is almost entirely fluff. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm finding the 'merge' arguments significantly more persuasive currently, relisting for seven days to see if consensus is established.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per source analysis above and possibly WP:TNT. I also felt like his notability were def tied to Sheng Long. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 00:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a short summary to Characters of the Street Fighter series: Fails GNG, fancruft. Nothing found with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from WP:IS WP:RS. // Timothy :: talk 19:45, 27 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. Clear consensus, improved significantly. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sail Forth[edit]

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

Contested draft. No indication of sufficient sourcing found in my BEFORE Star Mississippi 16:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 16:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. NL Eurogamer PC Gamer (though the latter two aren't particularly thorough). Situation VG/S search also pulls up Gaming Age Softpedia ~ A412 ^talk! 17:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a reception section. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's hindered by some gaming sites not giving actual scores in their reviews anymore, but besides the Metacritic-listed Nintendo Life one, there's a PC Gamer review and a Eurogamer review. That's in addition to the earlier mentioned Softpedia one. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:58, 13 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!} 20:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. See Talk:Sail Forth. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 22:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per TWOrantula. Sources properly presented on the talk page. Svartner (talk) 02:30, 25 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. Arguments for Delete are based on policy. Quoting NEXIST is not a substitute for finding sources. Owen× ☎ 23:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Yebba[edit]

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

There is some coverage, but I am not convinced he meets WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Massachusetts. Owen× ☎ 19:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 13 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!} 20:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability guidelines for actors. There are some minor mentions in a couple of news articles but they do not convince me of sufficient notability. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the GNG even with what is in the article. And, importantly, per the golden WP:NEXIST rule: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. AFDISNOTCLEANUP applies. gidonb (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. Ping me if WP:THREE sources are posted. // Timothy :: talk 20:21, 27 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 00:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yutaka Kurita[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Japan. Owen× ☎ 19:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not sure there is any assertion of notability in the article, and only the birthdate is cited. I could not find anything better in a search. Dekimasuよ! 05:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I did some searches and added some content, an image and references. According to the International Aikido Federation he was a notable person, see here. It looks to be notable person, but can't find many secondary sources. It would be good to do a search in Japanese, but I can't speak Japanese. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 12:46, 18 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!} 20:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Could not find source, no pp #	1. The Way of Aiki, by Jose Carlos Escobar, MA., Trafford Publishing
Obit, all the normal problems with Obits	2. ^ Jump up to:a b c d "RIP Yutaka Kurita Shihan". International Aikido Federation. 11 March 2022.
Blog post	3. ^ "The great masters: Yutaka Kurita Sensei (Part 1)". boec.com. 3 October 2021.
Part 2 of blog post above	4. ^ Jump up to:a b c "The great masters: Yutaka Kurita Sensei (Part 2)". boec.com. 4 October 2021.

The one source above I couldn't find a copy of has no page number, doubtful the entire book is about the subject and a single source won't meet WP:N. Ping me if sources are posted with WP:SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 20:57, 27 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 without prejudice to an early relisting, although two relistings here garnered no additional participation. Owen× ☎ 23:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Peace Without Justice[edit]

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

It exists and there are some sources, but not the level of independent, reliable sources to show it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years. Boleyn (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The page is a mess but it has received significant media attention following the Qatargate scandal recently, I found a full profile of the NGO written by the Huffington Post: [4]. Older sources in Italian likely exist. --Broc (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional comment, the NGO keeps a section "In the News": [5]. Many of those mentions are only minimal, though. --Broc (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:57, 13 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!} 20:54, 20 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. World Heavyweight Championship (Pacific Northwest) now redirects to this article, rendering it no longer a viable AtD and there's no indication of further interest in discussing the topic. Star Mississippi 02:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Heavyweight Championship (Los Angeles)[edit]

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

I could not establish that this is a notable topic. There is a possible redirect target for World Heavyweight Championship (Pacific Northwest) but this was removed and prod declined. I wouldn't merge as this has no referenced information. Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: there's also another article called World Heavyweight Championship (Los Angeles version). At first glance, it's unclear to me whether or not there's a WP:REDUNDANTFORK situation going on. Left guide (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See also this comment by an IP address, that may shed some light on the context. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:56, 13 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!} 20:54, 20 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liam McCay[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, declined three times at AFC. Theroadislong (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, and Music. Theroadislong (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You beat me to the nomination. I can find an entry on Nialler9, which appears to be a blog with minimal editoral oversight, therefore non-reliable. Plus a couple of YouTube WP:INTERVIEWS. Besides that, everything is Spotify and last.fm listings, publicly editable wikis, etc. Also of note, it was declined thrice at AfC by three different reviewers, then moved to mainspace by the creator. Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 19:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found the following sources but they are not enough to establish notability.[6] GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GoldenBootWizard276 Mach61 (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He does get significant mention in this article from Stereogum. The rest of the sources presented so far don't look great so he would still need more for me to be convinced, but at least it's not nothing. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough SIGCOV to satisfy GNG. dxneo (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. As noted above, he has been covered in Stereogum as a representative of a rising genre (such as it is). It might help if he could nail down his stage name, because he got a few media mentions when he worked under the name Sign Crushes Motorist. But for the time being, I don't think this adds up to "significant" coverage as required at WP:SIGCOV. He might have a future but it's too soon for us. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the source are reliable even the Stereogum is user created. Can't find anything remotely reliable to verify his notability. ww2censor (talk) 10:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A case of, at best, WP:TOOSOON, and notable that, per Thriftycat, it was mainspaced despite being 3x rejected at AfCc, very poor form. Lack of RS, lack of sigcov, GNG not met, etc. SeoR (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater|(tαlk) 21:05, 25 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 00:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Badil Al Taharouri[edit]

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

This article has existed as a stub since its creation in 2008. The group's website has also been dead since 2009 and I can't find much information about them outside of the primary sources in this article. The only reference to them I've managed to find in a reliable source was a passing reference in Laura Galián's 2020 book "Colonialism, Transnationalism, and Anarchism in the South of the Mediterranean", which tells us that the group was the Lebanese counterpart of Alternative Libertaire founded in 1995 and dissolved in 2008, and provides a quote from their manifesto about libertarian communism. Given that this appears to lack significant coverage in reliable sources, and it doesn't appear this will ever grow beyond a stub, I propose it be deleted. Grnrchst (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Lebanon. Grnrchst (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources establishing notability. I did manage to find some mentions however [7][8] GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 19:18, 27 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 Kíla. Owen× ☎ 23:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colm Ó Snodaigh[edit]

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

I came across a concerning edit to this article in recent changes, which included some personally identifiable information about a minor, which resulted in the last couple of years of its editing history being supressed. I don't think the addition was malicious - rather, this article looks like it has been written by someone close to the subject, and is being used more like a Facebook page than a Wikipedia article. Almost none of the content is sourced, and what sourcing there is is of the 'Wordpress blog' type. I considered improving the sourcing and stripping it back to a stub that would be compliant with WP:V, but looking for sources I'm coming up rather thin. This looks like an independent review of his writing, but I'm not seeing a lot else that would point towards independent notability independent of his involvement in the group Kíla. So, I wanted to get the community's opinion on whether the subject is notable before working on stripping it back. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ireland. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is an article about him in the Irish Independent. He is also in this RTE broadcast, but it is in Gaelic so I can't understand what he is saying. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC) Redirect to Kíla Non notable musician. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an article about him, it's an interview - those are problematic, as set out at WP:INTERVIEW - it's a reliable source, but it's not not really secondary, so it doesn't necessarily help us get very far. I can't get past the paywall, and I guess it's possible that there's a substantial chunk of text that talks about him in the third person, but if it's all just questions/answers then it doesn't help establish that he's independently notable (in a BANDMEMBER sense). I'm assuming that the same goes for that short RTE broadcast, but we'd need an Irish Gaelic speaker to comment on that. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit@GoldenBootWizard276. The radio interview is basically a monologue about soccer. He talks about dreaming about being scouted by Liverpool, the importance of a support circle, how he knew lads who went pro but burnt out. He talks about how he got a trial with Shamrock Rovers, and played with them for a while but was ultimately dropped.

Overall it's probably not relevant or notable. In my opinion speaking on an Irish language radio broadcast isn't massively notable as there aren't that many notable fluent Irish speakers available to fill airtime.

I'll weigh in on the deletion discussion when I've time to go over the article and cited sources. Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Boardwalk.Koi - that's useful context, I appreciate your input. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kíla. The claims to notability in the article are entirely unsupported (and frankly more than a little questionable - "junior C hurler [with a bad knee]"? "Class 2 tennis player for Sandymount tennis club in the under 19 summer league"? Even if these were supported they almost read like a bit of a joke.) The coverage identified by GoldenBootWizard276 (an interview by the regional Wicklow People (not, I note, the national Irish Independent) and an interview by Raidió na Gaeltachta) both relate to his membership of Kíla. And, even if they were not both WP:INTERVIEWS, would not contribute much/anything to a claim to independent notability. (Note: Given, frankly, the questionable and unsupported material in the article -indistinguishable from jokes/hoaxes- I have added this title to my watchlist.) Guliolopez (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect would be an eminently sensible alternative to deletion. Given the nature of the oversighted content, and the likelihood that the person who has been maintaining and embellishing this page for years would revert the redirect, I would recommend that the redirect be indef ECP protected. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kila. I think @Guliolopez said it all really. No substantiated claim to notability.

Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kila, as not notable distinct from the band. And yes, a role in a serious band (and Kila are very much notable in these parts) is something, but we have a way to handle that, under which a few lines in the band article could expand on the person, even a whole paragraph. The publication bit is OK, but these are not clearly notable publications. Second string sporting activities don't count, and should only appear, if at all, in a full-length bio going deep on the main reasons for notability (min. 8 paragraphs before even considering such near-trivia, I'd say). The problemmatic past handling of this article in a way highlights the issue - if there'd been better material, it would probably have (been) surfaced by now. SeoR (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kila per above. Spleodrach (talk) 09:09, 26 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 Colorado College Tigers football, 1882–1909#1882 per the clear consensus below. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

1882 Colorado College Tigers football team[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS. Let'srun (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Colorado. Let'srun (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Colorado College Tigers football, 1882–1909#1882. Lacks SIGCOV in independent source to support a stand-alone article. That said, Colorado College was one of the earliest football programs in the Western United States, and a redirect is preferable to deletion per WP:NSEASONS and WP:ATD. The target article is a work in progress that I will develop in the coming days. Cbl62 (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect beats delete. Carrite (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cbl62. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:08, 23 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 Wano Township, Cheyenne County, Kansas. Owen× ☎ 23:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lawnridge, Kansas[edit]

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

Yet another Kansas post office pretending to be a town, yadda, yadda..... The nearby cemetery may or may not be named "Lawn Ridge", and who knows, the post office may have been named after it. Mangoe (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kansas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again no town nor village, and another ghost town lie.
Lawn Ridge; township in Cheyenne County; area, 72 square miles; population 171.
— Gannett 1898, p. 129
It is the only Lawn Ridge there. The GNIS sourcing is false. The GNIS record that used to exist had this as a "locale" and "(historical)". That is because Lawn Ridge Township, name-checked at Blackmar 1912a, p. 327, has since been consolidated into Wano Township, Cheyenne County, Kansas. Uncle G (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

references

Gannett, Henry (1898). A Gazetteer of Kansas. Bulletin. Vol. 154. United States Geological Survey. OL 20596112M.
Blackmar, Frank Wilson (1912). Kansas: A Cyclopedia of State History. Vol. 1. Chicago: Standard publishing Company. LCCN 12015729. OL 13489994M. (Kansas: A Cyclopedia of State History at the Internet Archive)

Redirect to Wano Township, Cheyenne County, Kansas Somebody might wonder about the old township that no longer exists. I affirm Uncle G as the The local paper has articles stating this is a township, and the township had a post office.James.folsom (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm going to object to the redirect as they are not the same place and don't even vaguely share a name. Mangoe (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and mention the township merge on the Wano Township page as this is encyclopedic information. SportingFlyer T·C 23:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the wise posters above. jp×g 🗯️ 03:02, 21 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 clear among the policy-based views, with the one dissenter admitting that sourcing is weak. Owen× ☎ 00:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Hope Church[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Unable to locate any coverage in reliable sources except for the three sources cited in the article, and of those, two sources are local newspapers, and one source is a church magazine. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Texas. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment This is an extremely common church name and would need to be disambiguated even if there doesn't happen to be an article on any other such church in WP. Mangoe (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is easy to fix. Nathantx (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above name is now a Dab. It redirects to New Hope Church (Manvel, Texas). — Maile (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(with regret) Delete -- I see noting in this to distinguish it from many run of the mill local churches. A magazine classified it as (relatively) fast growing one year, but I doubt that is enough to make it notable. I would love to keep articles on all local churches, but we do not. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Run of the mill local church" - The average size of an American church is 200 people, so if a church seventy-five times larger than an actual "run of the mill local church" still falls under that categorization, then, respectfully, I think your math is not mathing.

This church is 75 times larger than the average church and is a major cultural hub for the community surrounding it. Nathantx (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as the Houston Chronicle is a regional rather than local newspaper with the third largest Sunday circulation in the US. The magazine is an evangelical organization publication. More sources are needed so it's a weak keep, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the correct option, as Wikipedia itself states that things don't need to be perfect when they're published. This is a cooperative space and things continue to grow. There is enough of a case to keep the page, as the information is reliable and if someone is looking for this information, they can find it.

There is not any amount of "harm" in keeping this article, but only potential for net positive gain. The freedom of information and information access is valid in both the large and small strokes; just because someone else does not care to have this information, this does not mean there is no audience for this information. Even then, information access is not about audience, but the virtue of knowledge itself.

This page for 'New Hope Church (Manvel, Texas) deserves to stay and be added to over time as I run across more articles, or anybody else has things to contribute. Nathantx (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please list WP:THREE (and no more) sources that pass WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article has been written and improved according to the suggestions above. This is my first article, and I have been targeted by some really nasty editors, sadly. In keeping with "do not bite the newcomers," I would have hoped for some more helpful dialog rather than running me through the wringer over this. I am open to helpful dialog to make this article the best it can become, as this is my first article and it has already been nuked to oblivion by other editors. Nathantx (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the sources used are reputable and there is a precedent to keep. More sources can be added, in addition to those already in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OzyXCV (talk • contribs) 23:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. None of the references pass WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Manvel, Texas per WP:ATD. I don't see a reason why it can't have a mention on the article of the city its based in, and could easily be condensed to 2 paragraphs (minus the growth "recognition" section, which is questionably sourced). If there is no appetite to merge, then I'd be concurring with UtherSRG's concerns and leaning delete. I am unconvinced there are sufficient independent significant references to assert notability for a stand-alone article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, fails GNG and NORG. Sources in the article and found in BEFORE are mill news, event promo, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. If there are WP:THREE soruces with WP:SIGCOV posted, ping me. // Timothy :: talk 19:36, 27 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 Armenian merchantry to the better article about similar topic Star Mississippi 02:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mercantilism in Armenia[edit]

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

I created the Armenian merchantry article. Smpad (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is not a reason for deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:00, 20 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 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Armenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG. terrible nom, but there are valid concerns about this article. The single general ref is to "G. Kirakosyan, M. Tavadyan, S. Grigoryan - Economics 2004", an incomplete citation and I was unable to find anything resembling it or to find anything with WP:SIGCOV supporting the topic Mercantilism in Armenia. Since there is nothing properly sourced, I see nothing that could be merged.

Under most circumstances I think writing a new article under a new name and then nominating an existing article with a similar topic to the new article (without proper discussion) is bad form, but this stark difference between the two, particularly the unsourced state of the first makes this worth considering.

Comment: @Smpad:, AFD needs nominations made according to source evaluations, and based in guidelines and policy, if you are in need of help, I would spend more time at AfD participating and reading the nominations of experienced AFD participants. Nominations can be concise (and this is often very helpful) but this nom presents no valid rationale for deletion. If there was even one plausible source, I would have !voted to procedurally close the nomination per Pppery. // Timothy :: talk 02:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you colleague, I will know it for the future. I agree with you, the article is devoid of sources, the topic is not covered and probably cannot be fully covered under such a title. With respect. Smpad (talk) 11:41, 21 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 keep as malformed nomination by a banned sockpuppet ‎. Owen× ☎ 00:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Babu Karam Singh Bal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Babu Karam Singh Bal (2nd nomination)

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

No References provided and person in biography was not any politician or holding any important office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unionrow (talk • contribs) 08:31, 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 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can someone link the first nomination here? Or is this the first AfD for this subject? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:17, 24 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. Clear WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Railways[edit]

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

Indian Railways page should be deleted because the content of the Rail Transport of India and Indian Railways is same and also if it differs is only in the orginization info. which can be added as section in Rail Transport of India page seperately. Bhagwan22 (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bhagwan22 (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced; one article as mentioned by the nom is about the company, the other is about the history of rail in India. Two different things. Oaktree b (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The two articles cover different material. As Rail transport in India points out, "Majority of the metro urban rail networks are operated by independent bodies constituted for the purpose of the respective operations. Private owned rails exist in few places, mostly used to connect freight to the integrated rail network. Inter-city rail services are operated primarily by Indian Railways though efforts have been made to introduce privately operated trains as recently as 2022." Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While much of Indian Railways forms a subset of Rail transport in India, the first article is about the company with a few sections pertaining exclusively to it in detail. The rail transport is a generic article and as IR was and is not the only railway operator, it needs to exist as a standalone article detailing the history and other rail transport in India. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article stats and history — Total edits: 6,711; editors: 2,803; 30-day pageviews: 66,844; article created: 2004-05-15 (19+ years ago). Do we really want to get rid of this one? Maybe check with some of those 2,800+ editors? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

then I think it should be merged and kept as seperate section that's the conclusion if u all agree Bhagwan22 (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The articles don't cover the same things as others have mentioned, and needs to be separate. S5A-0043^Talk 14:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously, different scope which justifies the existence of both articles. Rail transport in India also covers the history before Indian Railways, and the Indian Railways article doesn't include metro/commuter services run by cities or the existence of several private railways in the country. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the articles are different as noted with several editors above. Royal88888 (talk) 06:20, 23 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 00:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Osseus Labyrint[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. No obvious good WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Organizations. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 20 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hourglass, Kansas[edit]

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

Another post office (this one for only a year) elevated to a town. There's no there there, of course, and nothing on the topos. Mangoe (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kansas. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator should remember to place ((subst:Afdnote|name of article)) on the creator's talk page whenever nominating an article for deletion. This time, I placed it myself, but it's better for the nominator to place the notice. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not in Gannett's 1898 Gazetteer. It's not in the 1912 Blackmar Cyclopedia. The KHS source in the article says post office and does not support the claim of a town, ghost or otherwise. I can find merely a second source with it as a dot on the 1887 mail route through Cheyenne County, and a third that is a directory of post offices listing J. Shaw as postmaster in 1883. Nothing else. This is another ghost town lie, which Wikipedia has been telling the world for 6 years. Uncle G (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge According to the local paper, Hourglass was a Township, It contained Hourglass ranch and a post office. Last mentioned 1886, I couldn't find what happened to it. If someone knows what happened to this township, I support merging per wherever they say.James.folsom (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That's interesting. The 1887 map with the dot had "Municipal Township No. 3" in the background. It's the Fifth Biennial (1886) report by the Kansas State Board of Agriculture, page 124. Maybe people knew Township No. 3 by its post office.
  Blackmar's list of townships is: Alexander, Beaver, Benkelman, Bird City, Calhoun, Cherry Creek, Cleveland Run, Dent, Eureka, Evergreen, Jaqua, Jefferson, Lawn Ridge, Nutty Combe, Orlando, Porter, and Wano. (c.f. another ghost town lie that was at Jaqua, Kansas and that is still in the Template:Cheyenne County, Kansas navigation box)
  Uncle G (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - The local paper says there was a hourglass township in 1887, https://www.newspapers.com/image/225927515/?match=1&clipping_id=139223036. I agree with what you say, but I also have no explanation for why the local paper says that township existed. But, here I will add: Newspapers are being made available online at an exponential rate. I love it and thrive on it because it's newspapers that tell history, not gazateersJames.folsom (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - That looks official, and is dated 1887. So I switched from the Fifth Biennal Report to the Sixth Biennial Report of the Kansas State Board of Agriculture, which is 1887–1888. This has a population breakdown by township on page 65, and it has Beaver, Benkelman, Bird City, Calhoun, Cherry Creek, Cleveland Run, Dent, Eureka, Jaqua, Lawn Ridge, Nuttycombe, Orlando, and Wano. No Hourglass in sight.
      But history books beat newspapers, as do the official reports of the State Board of Agriculture, and the history books say that Cheyenne was run by Rawlins County, Kansas before it got its own county government and wasn't organized until 1886. Hence the Fifth Report not including townships at all. The Sixth Report's list is the earliest valid list.
      I note that that newspaper report is reporting that the Hourglass account is being emptied by order of the county commissioners. I wonder whether it was merely a bank account set up for a prospective township that never got organized in the first place. This was around the time that the county was first being set up, with appointed and not elected commissioners.
      Uncle G (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - So this clip: https://www.newspapers.com/article/cheyenne-county-rustler-townships-in-che/139244909/ is the earliest mention I can find of the townships, April of 1886. It gives names and numbers, Hourglass is #3. I think the names given here are informal names that haven't been ratified. Because in Dec 1887 this article https://www.newspapers.com/article/cheyenne-county-rustler-beginning-of-a-c/139246147/ reports on the proposals to create those same townships, and hourglass isn't one of them. My conclusion, is that hourglass ranch was likely in township 3, and because of that this township was known as hourglass. In late Dec 1887 the official names were put forward, and the hourglass town acct was emptied. So GNIS picked up the post office named hourglass, which was probably at the ranch and created a town. For the record I've seen no mention of a town named hourglass anywhere. And I probably now know more about the history of that county than people who live there. I think I will add a snippet about the massive voter fraud that happened during the vote for setting the county seat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.folsom (talk • contribs) 2024-01-21T18:10:42 (UTC)
Delete. I can't find references to this beyond as an aptly-named post office. Jbt89 (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Calhoun Township, Cheyenne County, Kansas This GNIS entry was a ranch and post office named Hourglass. The location given is in Calhoun township and somebody might read about hourglass and search it. Then someone could take some of this newspaper material and roll into the county article.James.folsom (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It sounds like Cheyenne County, Kansas#Townships needs at least a couple of sentences. Cheyenne County, Kansas#History is where the county seat election is. Uncle G (talk) 06:00, 22 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 over-the-air HSN affiliates. ✗plicit 00:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W30EG-D[edit]

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

Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV needed to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tennessee. Let'srun (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of over-the-air HSN affiliates. A network subsidiary owns this LPTV. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of over-the-air HSN affiliates: like most Ventana Television stations, it has only ever existed to carry HSN or HSN-associated networks (including QVC's networks as well more recently — the only exception is that random carriage of Dabl on 45.6, which happens at a few other Ventana stations as well), undoubtedly without much of any significant coverage. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:19, 21 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 00:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Men's Divisions International[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. No obvious good WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 20 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 Czech Republic at the 1998 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh. Star Mississippi 02:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kondrát[edit]

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

Bobsleigh athlete Peter Kondrát has not received enough coverage to meet WP:SPORT and WP:GNG. Article was created in 2018 without major changes since.

Since this athlete was born in Ilava, Slovakia, but represented Czech Republic, I don't know which language of source can be considered primary. The closest Czech one I found is iDNES: Hned v první jízdě si český bobista Peter Kondrát poranil tříslo, druhou ještě se zatnutými zuby absolvoval, ale večer už měl na pravé noze obrovský otok a jeho sobotní start je vyloučen. , which roughly translates to: Czech bobsledder Peter Kondrát injured his groin in the first race. He completed the second race with his teeth clenched, but already had a huge swelling on his right leg in the evening, thus his start on Saturday is ruled out.

As I did with nominating two AfD of bobsleigh atheletes, corresponding article of this athlete on Czech Wikipedia lacks proper sourced information, which would copy over English article otherwise. I searched for him on Google (e.g. "Peter Kondrát bobista"); results come almost exclusively from blogs and forums.

CuteDolphin712 (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics, Czech Republic, and Slovakia. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Czech Republic at the 1998 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh. Article was created in 2018 without major changes since is irrelevant for the nomination, but I agree with the rest. FromCzech (talk) 08:24, 24 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 00:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wai Linn Aung[edit]

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

Sourcing is an issue with language, but no case is made for notability here. Contested draft. Star Mississippi 15:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Star Mississippi 15:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage found in English or Burmese. No evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC being met. The article is too promotional and contains citations to YouTube and Facebook, which are both completely inappropriate. This should not have been moved back to mainspace but, given that it would just be edit warred back if it were draftified again, I'll have to favour deletion this time. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Due to the article being moved from draftspace without the proper submission process. Svartner (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:49, 21 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hein Zeyar Lin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Contested draftification. While language is an issue for accessing sources, doesn't appear factors changed w/r/t notability since the prior AfD and no case appears made that it has. Star Mississippi 15:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Star Mississippi 15:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Due to the article being moved from draftspace without the proper submission process. Svartner (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Vilnae867: How did you miss the fact that Hein Zeyar Lin has scored at least one international goal for Myanmar (against Macau) in October 2023? I have now added it to the article, but the fact that you missed this tells me that this article is not ready for mainspace and needs more work. We need to be especially careful not to make big mistakes like this when we are publishing information about living people, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Please don't move articles from draft into mainspace before they are ready, and please make sure they have enough references to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines per Wikipedia:General notability guidelines or Wikipedia:Notability (people). Otherwise these drafts keep ending up in these deletion discussions, which is also not very good for the player's reputation, because even if the article is deleted, this discussion will live "forever" on the Internet, associated with this player's name. Please do proper research; it is simply not enough to try to build articles from scoresheets that aren't telling the whole story. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 20 international caps, normally you get quite a bit of information for these, but there maybe a language barrier for the English wikipedia, this might be a Myanmar wikipedia article only. I am on the fence. Govvy (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy Agree. At this point I would support re-draftification to allow additional sources to be found, but then I think we would need @Vilnae867 to agree not to keep trying push the draft into mainspace prematurely. It is a waste of everyone's time. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - (still) no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His signing to a two year contract to Yangon United just made the news. It's confusing because the report says he played for Myawady last year, yet he shows up in this 2023 Yangon United box score, and is listed on the final 2023 Yangon United team roster. No vote since WP:NSPORTS is not my area of expertise. STEMinfo (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy @GiantSnowman:. STEMinfo (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - transfer news is held to be WP:ROUTINE. Giant Snowman 22:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article gets his international caps wrong – twice. First, the number is below 20. Second, the article claims that "His first international match was in October 2023 during the preliminary round of World Cup qualification against the Macau" which is also wrong. His first international match was in September 2021 against Hong Kong and he has 12 caps. [9] Geschichte (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 07:14, 28 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 14:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Gardens Park[edit]

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

The subject of this article appears to have been a 2010 marketing campaign. The article was created in four edits by a new account that never did anything else - draw whatever conclusions you like from that. The article is supported by two sources: the website of the company that ran the campaign, and a rehashed press release on a local press site (replete with a link to the company website encouraging readers to find out more or sign up). I searched for better sources online but just got more churnalism and press releases. There are potentially notable subjects that could exist at this title - there apparently public gardens of this name in Athens and in Florida - but this particular subject isn't notable. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable marketing campaing. --Broc (talk) 20:08, 21 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 02:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refresh Bolivia[edit]

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

The available material and lack of reliable sources indicates the nonprofit is not notable 多少战场龙 (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Bolivia, and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not much info available, doesn't meet WP:ORG. Spagooder (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I created the paper some years ago. I made a quick search and found sources like [10], [11], [12]. I suggest keeping the article in light of the mentioned sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:23, 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 14:27, 20 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 Eleven Point River. Star Mississippi 02:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Hollow (Oregon County, Missouri)[edit]

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

I cannot see how this possibly meets gng. It's just a valley named after pine trees. Heyallkatehere (talk) 11:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Missouri. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If our article on the Eleven Point River were better it would let you know that this is a tributary of the Spring Creek branch of Eleven Point, and we'd be telling readers about the Ozark Land and Lumber Company, and in particular about the Cordz-Fisher Lumber and Mining Company, in relation to Eleven Point and Pine Hollow. Uncle G (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If any of the sources are easily accessible on online, leave the links here and I would be willing to do a little expansion of the other article.James.folsom (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I need to check that the sources join up. There are eleven Pine Hollow valleys in Missouri. This one is definitely the aforementioned tributary. I spent ages with the maps making sure. But further research after writing the above led me to doubt the connection from Cordz-Fischer to this Pine Hollow. The source that made the connection for me didn't mention the river system. Cordz-Fischer might be connected, per a later source that I found after looking further, to one of the Jacks Fork tributaries named Pine Hollow. Of which there are two. It doesn't help to check for a mention of Spring Creek. Missouri has 21 of those.
    Cleaning up the GNIS mess is a right pain in the arse, sometimes.
    Uncle G (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Eleven Point River. There is no mention of the this place in the local papers, and 8 articles in the state papers, but those are passing mentions without even enough detail to determine if it is the same place. I still think that if the local newspapers don't mention it then the hunt stops there, I just don't trust google for this anymore.James.folsom (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This one is hard on the search engines anyway, for the aforegiven reasons. Uncle G (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You may know better than me, but I will add that I set the Newspapers.com filter to Oregon county and no mentions popped, so I set it to all oregon and found a few, like you said other ones.James.folsom (talk) 22:17, 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 14:24, 20 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 Convent of Jesus and Mary with history preserved until such time as sourcing is found to determined whether it can or should be spun back out. Star Mississippi 02:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convent of Jesus and Mary, Ambala[edit]

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

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The sources that I could find are either primary, or school/college databases. One of its alumni is a well-known actress, which lead to some bare-mention hits about the school. A previous PROD was contested.-MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Haryana. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST the school was established in 1909 which is over 110 years, there are bound to be offline sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the sources currently in the article in relation to notability:.cjmambala.org not independent; Datta, M.M. mentions the school their daughter attended; Khattar merely names the school as location of a solar farm; Joshi, S. mention in connection with actress who attended the school; The Tribune interesting that the marathon has been given coverage, not SIGCOV per se but may hint the school is notable. Puniyani, R. no access. This [13] reports on one pupil's achievement. IMO currently identified sourcing doesn't quite meet the notability guideline. If no additional sources are identified, redirect to either Ambala Cantonment#Education or Convent of Jesus and Mary as an AtD. Rupples (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Convent of Jesus and Mary until better sources can be found. Most of the sources in the article are not useable to show notability, so the article should be redirected until sufficient sources are found to source it. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:19, 27 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 14:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Khalfan (footballer, born 1994)[edit]

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

I can find plenty about Mohammed Khalfan (footballer, born 1992) and Mohammed Khalfan (footballer, born 1998) but nothing about this Qatari footballer. Soccerway shows a very brief pro career but I can't find any evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC being met from my Arabic searches. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Fails in WP:GNG. I can't find out if there are sources in Arabic, if anything comes up I'll rectify my vote. Svartner (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:49, 21 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 14:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fahad Al-Malki[edit]

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

I can't find any non-database sources on this player in Arabic. No evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. It looks like he only played one professional season. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:49, 21 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 14:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrazak Yusuf[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, he has only played one half of a professional game and I can't find any evidence of an ongoing career. More importantly, I can't find any evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. According to Livesport he played for Niger Tornadoes F.C. for a short while but I can't find anything close to significant coverage and it doesn't look like he got much playing time with them either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. The lack of coverage makes it impossible to establish basic information. Svartner (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no basis for an article per the mentioned guidelines. Geschichte (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:48, 21 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 14:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chile Unido IF[edit]

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

Like the situation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF, this football club has always played on lower tiers, peaking at sixth tier, and does not seem to meet any established notability guidelines. Geschichte (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sweden. Owen× ☎ 12:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Similar case than Srbija FF. The citations show that the club existed until 2011, making it impossible to determine its notability. Svartner (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The club existed until 2021. A defunct club can absolutely still be determined to be notable. I'll have a look around for references later today. AlexandraAVX (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but it's not a good argument. if you can find more sources, I'll change the vote. Svartner (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:48, 21 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 14:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luis García (footballer, born September 1993)[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:GNG and thus WP:SPORTCRIT. It can be verified that he played 46 minutes for Barcelona in Ecuador, which is nowhere near enough for an encyclopedic article. Geschichte (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Ecuador. Owen× ☎ 12:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. 46 minutes in professional football speaks for itself. Svartner (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:48, 21 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 14:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masaya Inoue[edit]

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

Fails WP:MMABIO. 6 matches 20 years ago. Only database sources. Many unrelated Japanese people with the same name. Geschichte (talk) 11:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Japan. Owen× ☎ 12:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't have significant coverage. Fulmard (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:MMA and WP:GNG. Lethweimaster (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA and my search didn't find multiple cases of significant independent coverage. I mainly found database entries along with some fight coverage, but those aren't enough to show WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:04, 22 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 14:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CoFluent Design[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NPRODUCT or WP:GNG, and there is no obvious WP:ATD. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can resolve it now. Boleyn (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and France. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EE Times says it was reported by Intel in 2011, so it should be mention somewhere on the Intel articles. (Also mentioned on List of EDA companies) IgelRM (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The best source the article has is eeTimes, but even if that meets GNG we need more than one. Google news, web, and web archive are barren. Same goes for the Wikipedia Library. We don't have enough sources to establish notability. —Sirdog (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a mere 2 gnews hits. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:14, 27 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 11:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issam Eid[edit]

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this former journalist, now businessperson, but cannot find any reliable sources to add (or any sources really, apart from Linked In). The existing references are poor (primary / self-published). I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:JOURNALIST. Tacyarg (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Journalism, Lebanon, and Canada. Tacyarg (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphan article that does not meet WP:JOURNALIST. LibStar (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per LibStar. Reads like a PR vanity page. Llajwa (talk) 16:31, 25 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 11:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KBFK-LP[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 WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Let'srun (talk) 14:44, 13 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!} 07:01, 20 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 installation software as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 02:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

InstallAnywhere[edit]

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

The article's notability is questionable as it does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:SIGCOV, which necessitates substantial coverage from reputable and independent sources. Moreover, the absence of proper citations or references to substantiate the information presented further weakens its credibility. Additionally, the article fails to adhere to the guidelines set forth in WP:NPRODUCT, which are necessary for a standalone article. Barseghian Lilia (talk) 10:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 13 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!} 06:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of installation software: I wasn't able to find any independent SIGCOV. Owen× ☎ 12:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is deemed not notable and lacks reliable sources, redirecting it may not be the most appropriate course of action. The purpose of the List of installation software article is to feature notable and significant entries. Therefore, it is advisable to remove articles that do not meet these criteria, rather than redirecting them. This ensures the list maintains its intended purpose and showcases genuinely noteworthy content. Barseghian Lilia (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects do not need to be notable. If they are a likely search term, and have a relevant redirection target article, they should be kept. And our notability standards for inclusion in a list are far more lax than they are for a standalone article. The items listed under List of installation software need to be verifiable. They don't have to meet WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. Owen× ☎ 13:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and respect your viewpoint, but I maintain the belief that removal remains the optimal solution. In my opinion, it is not appropriate for an article (about which there is not a single reliable source, i.e. cannot be verified), to be redirected to another Wikipedia article. Additionally, there are numerous articles on this list that may also need to be removed due to ambiguity surrounding their notability. Barseghian Lilia (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems with your view, Barseghian Lilia. Firstly, a redirect is not an article. List of installation software is an article. A redirect to it is nothing but a search term that takes the reader to the article List of installation software. Individual items on a list are not required to meet our notability guidelines.

Secondly, there are reliable sources that mention InstallAnywhere:

[14], [15], and others. They do not provide significant coverage, but they do establish verifiability for the product, which is all we need for including the product in a list.

It's nice of you to say you respect my viewpoint, but deletion discussions are based on policy and guidelines, and so far you failed to point which policy or guideline prompts you to claim that this software cannot even be mentioned in a list. Owen× ☎ 20:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my previous explanation was not clear enough. If we consider the history of editing of List of installation software and the discussions on the talk page, it can be inferred that there exists a certain level of soft consensus regarding the inclusion of only those items in the list that have their own dedicated articles on the English Wikipedia. The editors often refer to rules WP:WTAF, WP:NOTDIR, WP:LSC in support of this (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10, 11, 12, 13, 14 etc.). Consequently, if the article in question is removed, it would also be removed from the list, rendering any redirection to it just inappropriate. Barseghian Lilia (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW Barseghian Lilia, InstallAnywhere was created in July 2007, and the very first revision of List of installation software https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_installation_software&oldid=196700606 in the beginning of March 2008, already DID contain reference to IA (InstallAnywhere). I've never had to add it myself, all that I did was to reflect the ownership change. --Vlad|-> 14:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete as a nominator. Based on the current situation, it is necessary to remove the article. This action is prompted by the absence of reliable independent sources to support its content. Additionally, it should be remove from the List of installation software article and other places, rather than redirecting it. Barseghian Lilia (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: Barseghian Lilia (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]

Redirect to List of installation software (thank you Owen×, I wouldn't have thought at this possibility being a deletionist myself); User:Barseghian Lilia, as OwenX has pointed out, there ARE sources about this niche software. Unfortunately, it's been more than 10 years since I've last used it (as a developer) and only recently saw it used by a software installed by myself, so I cannot help more in order to keep it as an standalone article. --Vlad|-> 09:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC) ~~— Note to closing admin: Vlad (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.~~ [reply]

Hey Barseghian Lilia why do you keep misleading?!? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=InstallAnywhere&action=history I'm NOT the creator of this article, just by accident the person who contributed the most, and that... 16 years ago! --Vlad|-> 09:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vlad, I apologize for my inattention. Barseghian Lilia (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After consulting the article history (not much in the last 10 years, but it's better than nothing), and not because I contributed a long time ago, but I do change my vote, it's an established 20 years old multi platform installation software, not known probably just because of that (i.e. that's not Windows-oriented like InstallShield) but there are people actively using it, there used to be a community around it, probably still is. --Vlad|-> 14:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there is an established consensus to remove the article due to the lack of reliable sources and substantial coverage, which is one of the main criteria for all articles, and we now determine the need for redirection. My suggestion is to delete the article and refer the issue of creating a redirect to a new separate discussion. Barseghian Lilia (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you've got something personally with the article itself (as a side note, after creating a completely new article from scracth, did you choose from the more than 6 milion articles en.wiki has, this one in particular, and propose it to deletion?!?) I understand you're a somewhat new user, but you're going a little too fast IMHO: ok, it's your right to nominate the article for deletion, but there's another user (not me) that pointed out that there are in fact external references for IA; while initially agreeing to transform it into redirect, I changed my mind and voted to keep it. Why? Because while I haven't touched it in years, I realized that stuff that I'd added eons ago, when deleted, someone else readded it, so in a way agreeing that it's better than nothing. Counting me, there are exactly 3 users that opinated, each one with a different opinion, where do you see "established consensus"?!? --Vlad|-> 17:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of installation software An item on a list does not need to be notable. Also, maybe add a short section or sentence about this to the software package that inherited its user base. Llajwa (talk) 16:22, 25 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 The Next Star as a viable ATD with no indication any further input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 02:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JD Meeboer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No real sources.Not even real passing mentions. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 07:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Television, Internet, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Next Star. Original creator of the article here, I say redirect to The Next Star, as he was one of the contestants of the show. You make a good point on the subject's notability. This one is on me for adding the article too soon or was not notable enough to have its own article. Shout4Serenity (talk) 14:51, 13 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!} 06:59, 20 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 Ice hockey at the 1948 Winter Olympics – Rosters#Austria. Star Mississippi 02:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Böhm[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOLY and I was unable to find sources to help this meet WP:GNG. Recommend Redirect to Ice hockey at the 1948 Winter Olympics – Rosters#Austria -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Austria. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ice hockey at the 1948 Winter Olympics – Rosters#Austria : Subject does not have the coverage to meet WP:SPORTSBASIC. Only current source is Olympedia and I don't see any WP:SIGCOV. Redirect per nom as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ice hockey at the 1948 Winter Olympics – Rosters#Austria : Fails GNG and NBIO and meets 1E unless someone can show sources for other events. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 22:15, 27 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 05:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chavão888[edit]

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

Non notable musician. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 04:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment potential COI, warned on User talk:Gustavo (Musician Wiki) at Special:Diff/1197353951. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 04:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Brazil. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 05:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No relevance, appears to be promotional content. Svartner (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No relevance, no sourcing, non-notable. Worth noting that the sources [16][17] appear to have copied from a wiki, potentially us. Using automated Google translate shows a bracketed "[edit]" next to some of the headers. —Sirdog (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above dxneo (talk) 13:07, 21 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 2023–24 Vijay Hazare Trophy. Consensus is split between the need to merge info and whether what's there is sufficient. History remains under the redirect should someone choose to merge it enabling both outcomes possible. Star Mississippi 18:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 Vijay Hazare Trophy Group A[edit]

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

Redirect to 2023–24 Vijay Hazare Trophy, the content is already on that article and it is not notable enough for it's own article. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are almost the same just another part of the same tournament:[reply]

Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and India. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep: Absolutely bogus claim that the content is already on that article. The parent article only contains the points tables, and mainly links to the respective groups articles for the match scorecards, which is surely necessary. Since there are a lot of matches in the league, it would excessively increase the article size if separate groups articles were not created. See WP:SS and WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE. Robo^Cric Let's chat 08:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for linking to those guidelines they're useful but I don't think they really apply to this case. Instead of redirecting why not just merge them into one easy to read article like this 2015–16 Ulster Rugby season. The other group articles for other years lack any real substance they just contain basic information about what happened and external links to ESPN. Dr vulpes (Talk) 19:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2023–24 Vijay Hazare Trophy. It's an unnecessary WP:CFORK to have separate articles for each group, when the extra information like fixtures could just be added to the main season article. This is what we do for most other domestic cricket tournaments e.g. 2023 County Championship has all fixtures listed in main article, not 2 separate articles for each group/division. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:20, 9 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!} 06:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Joseph2302. I looked in the respective articles, the only information that the articles contain that is not contained in the general one are various notes on the matches, definitely not requiring a separate piece. I think they should be Redirected--deletion seems too harsh, and redirection is more useful to users. AriTheHorse^{talk to me!} 02:28, 18 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!} 03:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merging whatever can be reliably kept seems the best option as above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I don't think the groups are important enough to have their own articles. A summary of each in the parent article will suffice. Most of the tournament coverage should be of the later rounds, and I would just use the group stage as little more than background. Batagur baska (talk) 01:57, 27 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 02:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Marlais[edit]

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

Fails WP:NARTIST and WP:NAUTHOR. All of the sources listed in this article are primary, and I could find almost no secondary coverage on her JooneBug37 (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JooneBug37 (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JooneBug37 (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NARTIST and WP:NAUTHOR. There are no sources to establish any kind of notability and was created by a WP:SPA. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NMUSICOTHER. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:17, 26 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 2023–24 Ranji Trophy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 Ranji Trophy Plate Group[edit]

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

Redirect to 2023–24 Ranji Trophy, the content is already on that article and it is not notable enough for it's own article. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and India. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 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!} 06:32, 13 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!} 02:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per the nom. No need for a separate article. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:09, 23 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 2023–24 Ranji Trophy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 Ranji Trophy Group B[edit]

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

Redirect to 2023–24 Ranji Trophy, the content is already on that article and it is not notable enough for it's own article. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and India. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 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!} 06:31, 13 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!} 02:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per the nom. No need for a separate article. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:09, 23 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 2023–24 Ranji Trophy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 Ranji Trophy Group C[edit]

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

Redirect to 2023–24 Ranji Trophy, the content is already on that article and it is not notable enough for it's own article. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and India. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 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!} 06:31, 13 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!} 02:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per the nom. No need for a separate article. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:08, 23 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 2023–24 Ranji Trophy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 Ranji Trophy Group D[edit]

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

Redirect to 2023–24 Ranji Trophy, the content is already on that article and it is not notable enough for it's own article. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and India. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 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!} 06:30, 13 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!} 02:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per the nom. No need for a separate article. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:07, 23 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 Animorphs books. However, because of how this was listed initially (speaking technically, no fault to anyone involved in the nom), the script cannot do it. As a redirect is fundamentally an editorial action, it can be performed by any interested editor citing this AfD as the consensus to do so. There is no need to delete the text as no policy reason has emerged to do so. Star Mississippi 17:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Individual articles in the Animorphs series[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Individual articles in the Animorphs series

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

In articles about a specific Animorphs book (i.e. The Mutation (novel)), the article's text only consist of author info, the plot and in-universe info. I have tried to find independent mentions about the books in reliable sources, not the series, to no avail. This means that most articles does not meet WP:BKCRIT for not having individual sources, and because notability is not conferred from the Animorphs article, they should be deleted and redirected according to WP:BKMERGE.

Tl;dr: books linked by List of Animorphs books should be deleted and redirected towards the list itself. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific:

Other related AfDs:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Category:Animorphs books (speedy kept, wrong procedure)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Invasion (Animorphs) (kept)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Invasion (Animorphs) (2nd nomination) (kept)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Visitor (Applegate novel) (still running as of nomination)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Extreme (novel) (redirected)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Absolute (novel) (redirected)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Deception (Animorphs) (redirected)

- CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I don't want to delete these article presumptively. People are free to find independent sources that challenge my proposed AfDs. There is also a great encyclopedic value in the plot and there should also be a way to add a short plot description in List of Animorphs books similar to articles about TV series (List_of_The_Expanse_episodes). CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete or redirect all to the main list. I've nominated several books from the series for deletion before, and there were no reviews of any to show notability. WP is not for plots of obscure books, there are multiple fan wikis that do exactly that.

Artem.G (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all without deletion. There is no policy-based reason why NN text should be deleted, when it could potentially form the basis of a compliant article in the future. Likewise, this would allow merging current text into a series article with capsule summaries of each book, while WP:CWW would prohibit reusing the text if it were deleted outright. Jclemens (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all without deletion, per above. However I am quite surprised that there were no reviews for the first book? Really? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all, retaining the categories (eg Category:Animorphs books,Category:1999 science fiction novels, Category:1999 American novels, Category:Novels about diseases and disorders) and DEFAULTSORTS on the redirects, and the disambiguation page entries. But Improve the sourcing on the target list page - it's sourced to Goodreads only, and there's no indication where the names of the ghost writers have been sourced from. Eg The Sickness (novel): " It is known to have been ghostwritten by Melinda Metz.", but her name is not mentioned either in the article's source (this article, for one, has a source) or in the Goodreads description, linked from the general Goodreads record for the series which is the only source given in List of Animorphs books. So the whole "Ghostwriter" column of the table in the list amounts to unsourced BLP info and needs sourcing or removal. Pinging @OGoncho:, who created the list of titles in Dec 2004 but is still an active editor. PamD 11:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of Animorphs books without deletion, except The Invasion (novel), The Visitor (Applegate novel), The Encounter (novel), The Message (novel), The Predator (novel), and The Capture (novel), which are or soon will be adapted into graphic novels which imply at least some notability. The Beginning (novel) also might be worth keeping because of its controversial ending which may or may not be mentioned in reliable sources. I would love to see the rest of the articles stay but the sources simply aren't there; not enough has been said on a book-by-book basis by reliable sources. And besides, most of the articles are flagged with decade-old maintenance tags that editors are unable or unwilling to address. I would like to see short plot descriptions added to List of Animorphs books using the summaries from the existing pages, though. 〜 Askarion ✉ 15:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish that there are RS to keep these articles! But unfortunately, all Wikipedia articles sooner or later will need reliable sources, and at some point we have to decide that the content is not worth keeping. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm almost ready to procedurally close this nomination. This is not how you present a bundled nomination. You have only tagged one article and this AFD can not be extended to articles that have just been mentioned in the comments. Each article you are concerned about has to be tagged for a week, the content creator informed of the AFD and all articles listed in your nomination statement. It's interesting that you included other related AFDs but how this one closes doesn't affect them. And you can't include a template in an AFD nomination, it has to be nominated separately at WP:TFD. Please read over the instructions at WP:AFD for how to format a bundled nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, I think I've done it properly now, I guess? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, CactiStaccingCrane, this discussion has gone on for a week, you can't add articles to the nomination at this point. I think you should close this and start it over. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this just pedantic though? I think that everybody here know what articles I'm talking about. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect All per the above. All fail WP:GNG or WP:BKCRIT. These articles are in-universe fanfluff created around 2006, when Wikipedia was a very different place and standards for inclusion were often non-existent. Fans created what they wanted and then left, which is why so many of these articles have maintenance tags over a decade old. Back to Before even has a maintenance tag asking for citations that is nearly 20 years old. I can stomach a simple redirection to List of Animorphs books, but believe that is a mistake. This generally unsourced and abandoned material belongs on a fan wiki, not kept in the vain hope that the fans will come back to use them to spruce up the main list. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:48, 23 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 Stantonsburg, North Carolina. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Stanton V[edit]

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

Not much information on the subject for a standalone article. I suggest redirecting to Stantonsburg, North Carolina where mentioned. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, United States of America, and North Carolina. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stantonsburg per nom. jengod (talk) 04:40, 18 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!} 02:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per the nom. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:56, 23 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 02:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad J. Naous[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF. It's a bit hard because the critieria mention the subject's "discipline" and stratetxology is not a conventional discipline (like chemistry or English literature). Most of the sources appear to be interview puff pieces. The article was not ready for mainspace, but the author insisted it be moved from draft space. Bbb23 (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Economics, and Lebanon. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing for WP:PROF; I think "their scholarly discipline, broadly construed" suggests we should look at the discipline of "business". Nothing for WP:NAUTHOR; only one book and I can't turn up any RS reviews for it. I haven't found a single source that looks like solid WP:GNG coverage. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability very distant. Xxanthippe (talk).
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Maliner (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Making up a word and then calling yourself an expert in it is not by itself enough for notability, but we seem to have nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, WP:G5. Aintabli (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Search for sources to see the possibility of him passing WP:BASIC but couldn't find any.Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 07:07, 26 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. Clear consensus that improvements made since nomination are enough to assert notability. All deletion !votes were expressed prior to expansion, some subsequently withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laura McGloughlin[edit]

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

Fails GNG WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per WP:HEY--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Literature--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very minor mentions as the translator of a few books but nothing about the subject herself. ww2censor (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree - there is no indepth RS on the subject (either in the article or in a before search), and while there are RS review of the books she has translated, I don't see how these can apply to WP:NAUTHOR here. ResonantDis_tortion 14:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and other !votes above, a WP:BEFORE search returns nothing more than the same short 3-sentence "bio profiles" we find in the article itself. Nothing that reaches the expectations of WP:SIGCOV. I can't even find sources to support the text we have (like the subject's degree from UCC which doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere outside this article). WP:NAUTHOR, also, doesn't appear to be met. Guliolopez (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with regret, as not many translators to be found in here, but this probably does not qualify on the work, and certainly does not evidence it. Like ghost writers, translators have to be recognised as exceptional in some way, or have a massive body of published work, to have articles in Wikipedia, as they are not creating a personal artistic body of work, but working on others'. Some, of course, are recognised as going beyond "just translation", but they are the exception, and often are, or become, published original authors too. SeoR (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is much improved and now clearly asserts, and cites for, notable quality of translation. As I said originally, we could use more articles on translators. And I have done paid translation myself, and know both the limitations and the art that is sometimes called for - choosing words, never mind the flow and structure, can be a real challenge. And, frankly, some translations improve on the original. I've also heard a lot from authors about this (and don't even start on the more-common-than-we-realise world of ghost writing). All that said, I think the bar is higher than for wholly original work of quality - but anyway, this article now passes this bar. Thanks to the editor(s) who made this difference and facilitated retention. SeoR (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd like to respectfully disagree about reviews and translators. To put it bluntly, there's a ton of work that goes into translating a novel. A translator work, in a way, has them basically re-writing the book. Only they can't write it completely from scratch as they have to keep as close to the original source material while keeping the same content, intent, and flow. If anyone has ever translated, then you'll know that there's a lot of work involved with this because a lot can be lost in translation, even when you're doing something like translating a news article. The translator has to figure out how to do this without changing things too much - but also picking out the best word in the new language to fit the translation because sometimes it's not as easy as translating "gato" to "cat". The translator has to decide whether or not to pick a word with a similar meaning, translate it as literally as possible, or to leave the word "as is" and include a footnote. That's not even considering situations where a sentence or passage has a ton of nuance and double meanings. A bad translation can completely change the nuance, intent, and original meaning, as well as the plot as a whole. As this translator puts it, a good translation will make you forget that you are reading a translation entirely.

So what does this mean? Well... it kind of means that a review praising the author's writing is just as much for the translator as it is for the author because again, the interpreter has to re-write the novel. That's a huge amount of work because ultimately the original author didn't write their work in (for example) English. The translator did and what the reviewer is praising is the translator's interpretation of the author's work. It's why a review praising "evocative and atmospheric language" is just as much praising the translator as the author because it's the translator who chose to translate it that way.

I'm not saying this to argue for a keep, just that we need to look beyond a one sentence mention of the translator's name here. We need to consider what the review is saying about the sentence structure, descriptions, and so on. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There are some sources and I do think reviews should generally count towards notability as long as they discuss things like the language, sentence structure, and so on, but I don't see that we really have enough that go into depth about that. When I argue for or against notability I try to imagine how the article would fare if it were brought up for AfD in a year's time - would it still hold up to newer, fresher eyes? With this one, I can't really justify it. It's a shame but there's just not enough here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think McGloughlin is a creative professional according to WP:CREATIVE, and as I review and add sources to the article, she appears to have "played a major role in co-creating a [...] collective body of work", and I am in the midst of reviwing whether "such work [has] been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Beccaynr (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:CREATIVE#3 and sources added to the article - McGloughlin is a creative professional who has co-created multiple works that have been the primary subject of multiple independent reviews. The article also has a Reception section with two reviews that have a brief specific focus on her translations; overall, I think ReaderofthePack's first comment in this discussion helps explain why the usual notability guideline can apply here to support keeping this article. Beccaynr (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have struck my delete vote per the excellent work Beccaynr has done on the article. ResonantDis_tortion 20:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am persuaded by the NAUTHOR body of work: 5 books with 2+ reviews each where the reviews are specifically of her translations. Glad to see so much sourcing added. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The well-sourced article we now have is about five times longer than the unsourced version nominated for deletion.--Ipigott (talk) 12:33, 25 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. ✗plicit 02:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever (Kygo & Ava Max song)[edit]

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

The song was just released and we have no way of knowing if this song will be a hit, win awards, etc WP:NSONG & WP:CRYSTALBALL. I believe it also could also potentially violate WP:NOTBLOG & WP:NOTNEWS. Grahaml35 (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Three of the four sources here are no good regarding notability (Kygo's TikTok is primary, Genius lyrics pages and Forbes Contributor articles are unreliable), but the EDM.com article and this one from Exclaim! are both reliable and sufficiently in depth. It's not much, but with those two I think this article meets GNG. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did some cleanup earlier to clear out the unreliables, and now I've even replaced the TikTok source with a secondary. I think this article turned around nicely. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are some relevant sources, such as Billboard and VG, however, the title of the article should be "Whatever (Kygo and Ava Max song)". I also fixed the format so the article follows Wikipedia's format guidelines and added more references and relevant information. Jvaspad (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. VG now covers its initial performance in streaming charts. The same newspaper and another also did capsule reviews. Geschichte (talk) 08:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks like this was just created too soon before achieved any success on the charts and before any sources came to light.DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 22:31, 26 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Awrangzib Faruqi[edit]

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

This individual's lack of notability is evident, as several sources within the article don't explicitly mention his name. Most references provide only a vague and fleeting acknowledgment of his existence, with one source even labeling him as "certain Aurangzeb Faruqi." Furthermore, his absence of electoral victories disqualifies him based on the stipulations outlined in WP:POLITICIAN. This cumulative evidence underscores the compelling rationale for advocating the removal of this Wikipedia article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A highly controversial but very much notable person. The article needs improvement not deletion. Muneebll (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NPOL sets *inclusive* criteria, not meeting those criteria is not grounds for deletion, it only indicates that presumed notability is not available. NB WP:NEXIST, simple search shows sourcing to satisfy the WP:GNG: eg BBC Urdu (2015), Nawaiwaqt (2021), Daily Pakistan (2023). AfD is not clean up. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I can see multiple reliable sources of Urdu version to satisfy GNG. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This article already has many references from reliable sources - newspapers and book sources. In my view, there is no doubt about his notability. Meets WP:GNG...Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:47, 23 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 military engagements of the Second Sino-Japanese War. ✗plicit 01:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese campaigns of the Second Sino-Japanese War[edit]

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

I think this fails WP:SALAT. What is the encyclopedic benefit to compiling this specific list of campaigns, rather than, say, all of Japan's campaigns during WWII? SilverStar54 (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Japan. SilverStar54 (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the cleaner list at List of military engagements of the Second Sino-Japanese War (and merge any contents there that are not already included). The Second Sino-Japanese War is a perfectly valid encyclopedic topic to deal with in greater detail (and not simply as a subset of WWII), both from a Chinese perspective and a Japanese perspective. Although the scope of this list is clear, and in the context of Japanese history a different part of the military was waging the war in China from the part of the military active in the Pacific, I am not sure why this needs to be framed as a list of "Japanese campaigns" rather than noting what was happening on the Chinese side as well. Thus, redirect to the article on the full list of engagements. Dekimasuよ! 03:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A stand-alone article for quick information is better than a very long article which is List of military engagements of the Second Sino-Japanese War. Both can exist. Azuredivay (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per above as I see no difference between the two subjects. The target article is crappily organized, but that's something that needs fixing there, not by forking it. Mangoe (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No need for two articles covering the same subject matter. Unneeded redundancy. If there’s anything not already included, it can be merged. Kierzek (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the superior List of military engagements of the Second Sino-Japanese War article. Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 21 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 01:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RK Tacklers[edit]

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

If WP:A7 were to ever apply to a sports team, then this would be the perfect candidate. According to WP:NTEAM, clubs are meant to meet WP:GNG but I can find no evidence that RK Tacklers meets this. Even Danish searches have come back with nothing useful. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 01:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 01:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Left guide (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I would have even used PROD for this one. --Broc (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, no suitable redirect here either per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:47, 20 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 01:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CSRA Football Classic[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 13:09, 23 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 01:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RC Qanot[edit]

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

Similar case to RC Yangiyer. I can't see any evidence of WP:GNG and the only reference used is a forum post, which is an unacceptable source. I can't find any significant coverage in the Latin or Cyrillic alphabets in my own searches. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union and Uzbekistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Left guide (talk) 06:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, no suitable redirect here per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:48, 20 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. Arguments made counter the merge as an unviable ATD in this circumstance. Star Mississippi 17:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calhoun, Kansas[edit]

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

Another short-lived post office presumed to be a town. It doesn't show up on any topo or aerial back into the 1950s and the GNIS link is no good (no ID). Mangoe (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kansas. Shellwood (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This one is easy. This is another ghost town lie.
Calhoun; township in Cheyenne County; area, 54 square miles; population 253.
— Gannett 1898, p. 47
It's the only Calhoun there. No town. No village. None of the history books records anything else, moreover, except that before 1858 this was the name of Jackson County, Kansas. But that would correctly be a redirect at Calhoun County, Kansas. Uncle G (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

references

Gannett, Henry (1898). A Gazetteer of Kansas. Bulletin. Vol. 154. United States Geological Survey. OL 20596112M.

Merge with Calhoun Township, Cheyenne County, Kansas. The post office information and the 1898 population figure would improve the township article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no 1898 population figure in the article at hand. This proves my point. The article doesn't even have content about the township. Unless you think that a population of 0 is a true fact about Calhoun Township, Cheyenne County, Kansas. Personally, I'd like Wikipedia's geography to be true. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Calhoun Township, Cheyenne County, Kansas. The United States 2020 census [18] lists total population of 41 in Calhoun township, Cheyenne County, Kansas, as of 2020 Decennial Census. — Maile (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely a bizarre game of follow-the-leader starting here. You know that there's no mergeable content about the township in the article at hand, right? And that just copying what it does say into another article would flatly contradict the very statistic that you just gave, right? The content that you want to merge says that Calhoun, which would be the township in the merger target, is a ghost town with population zero. Uncle G (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This township still exists. It had a post office, hence this article existing due to GNIS. Anybody looking for the township will find that article, so no need to merge or redirect this.James.folsom (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as said above, this article exists purely because the post office serving the township was here. This was never a town. Ghost Towns of Kansas ^[1] does mention a town of Calhoun that was abandoned after Bleeding Kansas, but it was near Topeka on the other side of the state. Jbt89 (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ghost_Towns_of_Kansas/UwslAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Calhoun

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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!} 08:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Matveyev[edit]

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

Insufficient SIGCOV found to demonstrate GNG fulfillment InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:43, 13 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to contested PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - failed simple google test Mr Vili talk 00:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article about a semi-pro footballer with no coverage other than database entries and club press releases. Jogurney (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:V. The athlete appears to have a consistent career, but without any coverage, and there is no relative article in Russian. Svartner (talk) 20:57, 23 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.