< January 04	January 06 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawing nomination. Article has been improved significantly since being brought to AfD. No further discussion is needed. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Campbell[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NSPORT due to lack of significant coverage, and some sources only mention the subject in passing. Article has been tagged due to multiple issues since 2015, but no improvements have been made since then. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, and American football. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Campbell shared the backfield with Bo Jackson, was MVP of Auburn's 1982 Tangerine Bowl victory against Doug Flutie's team (see here), and led the 1983 Auburn Tigers football team to a victory over Michigan in the 1984 Sugar Bowl and a national championshp per some selectors. Top tier starting QBs always get tons of coverage, and Campbell is no exception. See, e.g., here, here, here, here. Cbl62 (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with the comment below about the article needing work. The section on his notable college career is in need of expansion and improvement, and the section on his later "entrepeneurship and philanthropy" is full of unsourced content in violation of WP:BLP that needs to be trimmed. Cbl62 (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and trimmed unsourced content from the "entrepeneurship" section. Cbl62 (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Topic has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. The article does need to be cleaned up, but deletion is not cleanup. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG with the sources provided by Cbl62. Agree that the article could stand some improvement but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Let'srun (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was a notable college player and passes WP:GNG with the above sources. Alvaldi (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CycloneYoris: While it wasn't obvious from the article at the time of your nomination, the sources presented above pretty clearly establish notability. If you would consider withdrawing, we can move on to other topics and end the snowstorm. Cbl62 (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per the sources provided by Cbl62 and FormalDude. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanna Yun[edit]

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, an Uruguayan women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2009, 2010, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Uruguay. JTtheOG (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

U GRO Capital[edit]

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

Fails NCORP and the WP:3P. Routine financial reporting, PROMO material ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, India, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are two reliable sources, The Hindu and The Economist. An argument can be made that it passes WP:SIGCOV, or that it does not. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP. Sources found do not meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found similar sources to those in article, routine mill business news. // Timothy :: talk 01:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Adolphus I, Prince of Schaumburg-Lippe. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Hermine of Waldeck and Pyrmont[edit]

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

This page is mainly a copy of Adolphus I, Prince of Schaumburg-Lippe that only includes issue and marriage. Nothing on this page is about her and the rest is purely a genealogical entry (WP:NOTGENEALOGY), to add to that it has no citations. Azarctic (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. Azarctic (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it does not matter if there are citations at the minute, what matters is that there are some out there. As far as I can see, she is not notable for anything else other than family, so WP:NOTGENEALOGY applies. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to husband, but keep the categories and incoming redirects. Not notable in herself, but a valid redirect to her husband's article: keep the categories if sourced within husband's article (eg birth, death, etc), and the redirects from alternative versions of her name. PamD 08:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep what the hell? She was a princess consort of the Principality of Schaumburg-Lippe, a reigning house, and at the time, not an abolished princely state until the end of the German monarchies in 1918. She may be considered as the queen consort function, similar to Countess Marie Kinsky of Wchinitz and Tettau of Liechtenstein. Therefore, she was a consort of a princely state that passes WP:NPOL. She didn't have to do anything to become famous or garner attention because she was already the legitimate wife of a ruler! How much more do you need? She held more influence in her time than modern-day useless first ladies. If you disagree with my assertion, please note that she had an entry in Volume 7 of Women in World History: A Biographical Encyclopedia. Additionally, a street in Bückeburg was named in honor of the princess (see source), so the princess is also sufficient to meet WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Please conduct research before voting on AfD, and why are people using AfD as a weapon?. 188.240.216.10 (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of Taung Tan) DrKay (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an informational website, nothing on this page has ANY information about HER! I doesn’t matter if she’s a Princess consort, I’ve seen pages get deleted for being a consort of some sort. She herself was not notable, and how could she meet WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO if there’s no information about her nor any citations. And she is only a consort, that doesn’t mean she meets WP:NPOL, her husband was the political ruler, not her. Azarctic (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So pitiful, 🥲. Learn more about Wikipedia's rules and policies. Don't just focus on criticizing others. Well! Queens or consorts are clearly notable if monarchy is not abolished. Of course, I will try to delete she was a consort of defunct head of house (pretender to defunct throne ). Queen consorts are a highest position of a country or princely state. As an example from my country, Inge Sargent, the princess consort of Hispaw State, is titled as queen consort. She doesn't need to do anything; as a queen, people from that state worship her like a god. If they meet her elsewhere, they need to kneel down and pay homage to her. Criticizing her will result in beheading. As for Burmese monarchy, but not sure on German. For GNG and ANYBIO issues, a street named after her is a sign of notability, and she has an entry in Women in World History, a standard notable dictionary for notable women. 188.240.216.10 (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me? Please explain your article first at Princess Christine Wilhelmine of Saxe-Eisenach! Don't pretend to be a good editor even if you have a similar issue with your article. This AfD appears to be a result of your frustration due to your article being in the process of deletion. It's meaningless.188.240.216.10 (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry! If you want to create royalty articles on Wikipedia, I'll be happy to help. I have 8 years of experience with royalty topics on Wikipedia. There are many anti-monarchy gangs and groups of thumbs. They will bite new editors and always challenge royalty articles. I have fought them for many years. 188.240.216.10 (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be explaining that as it has nothing to do with Hermine. These are two separate deletion discussions, and no, I never pretended to be a good wikipedia editor, although I have made many, some of mine actually had a biography, and was a duchess consort of Guastalla, yet they got redirected to different articles. I have also made successful articles though like Duke Maximilian of Württemberg and Princess Christine of Anhalt-Bernburg. Anyway I can’t see why you want a pointless article with no information to stay up! Azarctic (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh boy! I got you. I can remember this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duke Maximilian of Württemberg. Thanks for creating a good article. Let's discuss the topic. As you said, 'some of mine actually had a biography and were a duchess consort of Guastalla.' So, did she have a biography? From where? A book, dictionary, or a primary website? If she has a bio or entry in a notable book or dictionary, she surely passes WP:ANYBIO. However, having a bio on a personal website can't make her pass WP:GNG. 188.240.216.10 (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it’s cause one of the admins on this website liked to target me, nonetheless it was kept. Theodora of Hesse-Darmstadt (see the deleted revision), also know as Duchess Consort of Gustalla had editors that contributed to it as well, but it was mainly cited from online books. It got redirected to Antonio Ferrante Gonzaga Azarctic (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! you was a target of that group as i can see [6]. Pls careful in future. They are ever bullying like blow wind and used admin power for misusing. However, some are good like user:Jfire I love him. 188.240.216.10 (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m very angry to see the case of Theodora! If I were active at that time, I would have certainly defended her. However, I'm happy to know you, as we share an interest in royalty or nobility. Please let me share the monarchy system of my country - the Burmese monarchy differs from the Western monarchy system; the monarch owns the lives of the people in the kingdom and holds immense power, akin to a god.

The children of Western monarchs may face deletion on Wikipedia for various reasons. However, they can't attack Burmese royalty, such as princesses or princes, because the king has granted his every child and father-in-law the appanage of the town as myoza making every monarch's child a minor ruler in their own right. This makes them easily meet the criteria for WP:NPOL. There was an attempt in the past on Taingda Princess, but Burmese editors defended it with facts. How shameful their actions were. You can learn some AfD outcomes to make you more stronger: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeanne-Françoise de Coeme, Lady of Lucé and Bonnétable, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara of Württemberg, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maharani Kishori, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taingda Princess, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen Seonjeong, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Gyeongchang. 188.240.216.10 (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I have decided myself after this that I will not nominate any more articles up for deletion after this. But what frustrated me the most is that the admin that put the good articles up for deletion, had also edited Hermine’s page [7] but then he has the brass decency to edit this page of which he acknowledged had no information or any citations, but put people like Theodora’s page up for deletion. I made my point across to him many times, of which he ignored so I have given up making articles that actually take my time up just for them to get redirected/deleted. Azarctic (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand how you feel. I'm okay if the article was deleted because it's not my business and not related to Asian royalty. I find it easier to defend Asian royalty articles since I'm a scholar of Asian royals and traditions. Defending Western royalty is challenging because most are constitutional monarchies, and the monarch's child rarely holds the title of duke or duchess in their own right.

In Myanmar, princes, princesses, and even queens who held the position of 'myoza' had the right to attend the royal parliament (hluttaw). Western monarchs may not follow these royal traditions. If your articles face challenges in the future, especially for AfD, and if the consort has no power in her own right, you can save her by presenting offline sources (if available). You can provide screenshots of pages uploaded on Google Drive, as shown here: example link. Pls learn from previous AfD outcomes above and defeat them next time. 188.240.216.10 (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The admin who targeted you is nearly impossible to defeat, even for me. He holds significant power on Wikipedia, being an administrator with a thorough understanding of policies. Occasionally, he might misuse his knowledge, for example, "labeling a subject about a cat as a dog. Many members of his thug group follow his lead, verifying it as a dog." Do you understand what I mean? Keep fighting and continue your excellent work. If I have free time from my studies, I'll be here to help. Thanks, and take care. 188.240.216.10 (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to husband's article. No independent notability but a valid redirect. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it to the article on her husband. It can always be recreated in the future if someone can dig out information about her and provide reliable sources. Keivan.f^Talk 16:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Not more than a genealogical note. I can verify that she has an entry in the Women in World History: A Biographical Encyclopedia by searching her name + book name, but I can't access it to read due to Google Book content restrictions. I'm not sure if it's sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO. If someone can access it online, read the Encyclopedia, and provide a substantial explanation in the article, I will reconsider my vote. For now, deletion would be preferable. 84.247.96.12 (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively and redirect. The only part that is unique and important is her genealogical table, which connects her from George II to the House of Orange. That can be merged into her husband's article, and a redirect for the remainder. Alternately, I would not oppose a plain redirect. Bearian (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: per nom and reasons above. // Timothy :: talk 02:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per reasoning provided by Keivan.f EmilySarah99 (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Endor AG[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Current sourcing all WP:FANCRUFT and a before search did not yield any WP:SIGCOV. Fails NCORP ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator as speedy keep ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, Technology, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under the argument that Fanatec passes WP:NPRODUCT, and "In cases where a company is mainly known for a single series of products or services, it is usually better to cover the company and its products/services in the same article". Coverage of Fanatec products over a decade: [8] [9] [10] [11] ~ A412 ^talk! 23:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@A412 this argument makes a lot of sense. While the tone of reviews are more promotional than I'd like, there are multiple of them and they are extensive. Your argument makes a lot of sense and I learned something new. Am withdrawing my AfD, thank you! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:52, 5 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 Ranger#Sports. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers (sports team)[edit]

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

unnecessary disambiguation, all articles here are already included in rangers — Karnataka 22:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — Karnataka 22:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I thought there was another avenue for unnecessary DAB pages. ~~In any case, delete per nom.~~ Conyo14 (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is another avenue for this. Redirect per the below. Conyo14 (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Conyo14 disambiguations come through AfD as they are mainspace pages. Please say what the avenue is if I'm wrong. — Karnataka 20:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ranger#Sports as a incomplete disambiguator. ~ A412 ^talk! 01:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per A412. Standard ((R from incomplete disambiguation)). SilverLocust 💬 07:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a ((R from incomplete disambiguation)). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rangers#Sports per the above. Left guide (talk) 05:43, 8 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilga gas field[edit]

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

Seemingly nothing on the internet mentions this gas field. The book source I removed from this page did not contain the word Wilga at all. Non-notable or hoax. 𝜩𝜩𝜩𝜩𝜩 (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Searched with quotes using this link here and actually everything about it is one goverment document and one legal contract. Not a hoax, but still not notable. 𝜩𝜩𝜩𝜩𝜩 (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(both are primary sources) 𝜩𝜩𝜩𝜩𝜩 (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bine Mai created a whole group of articles based upon this 1 source 13 years ago. Xe was very slapdash about the sourcing, getting the publisher, page number, and even embedded searches within the URL wrong. I've cleaned up a number of them, where the source actually did mention the field on another page. But this is an exception. This turns out not to be in the source at all. This is probably a case of this not being the actual name of the field. But since the sourcing was so sloppy, I've no idea which of the fields in the source might have been intended here. I couldn't identify it based upon the figures given, here, either; it not helping that the editor has foolishly substituted primacy of U.S. units for the metric in the original. Uncle G (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteWP:Geonatural states there should be sufficient verifiable sources to make a standalone article about a natural feature . This is not met. I think we should also think about the fact that since this is a natural feature that is not visible on the surface. You can't go see it. The only visible feature would be the mining operation, and it would be excluded as being too common place to be notable (wp:run-of-the-mill.)James.folsom (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage to merit its own article.—*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 00:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Setting aside GNG issues, this is unreferenced, no interwiki, and I cannot even confirm this exists raising concerns this could be a WP:HOAX. PS. I see a source was removed. The cited page is about the Przemyśl gas field, and search within the book using GBook search feature does not return anything for Wilga, so I stand by my hoax red flag. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hush (business)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine news, product launches, growth reports, acquisitions, failing WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep^Talk 22:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article reads like an advertisement, and there are possible some fringe claims about their bedding products reducing "cortisol, increases serotonin, and increases melatonin." Does not meet notability criteria for corporations WP:NCORP and is lacking in depth of coverage WP:CORPDEPTH as specified in the nomination. Netherzone (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reads like an advertisement with some fringe treatments. Also not covered in depth. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 18:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Spam, seems to an advert and fails WP:NCORP Seawolf35 ^T--C 01:23, 9 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. Closing a bit early as this is clearly a keep result. (non-admin closure) BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Cronin (basketball)[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Refs are primary, constituting interviews. scope_creep^Talk 22:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Basketball. Shellwood (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's unlikely this is the only NBA GM who isn't notable. Passes GNG with sources in the article and more shown on a quick Google search. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Colorado and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination rationale is incorrect -- few if any of the sources are interviews. They are for the most part significant coverage. Jfire (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't say the articles are only interviews.They are primary. I'll have a look at the references:

Ref 1 [12] Sources are twitter, social media coverage. Its a routine coverage of promotion and is likely non-rs.
Ref 2 [13] Another routine hiring story. Taken from a q and a with NBA.That is all from an interview. Same routine coverage of above from above.It is WP:PRIMARY.
Ref 3 [14] This the same story as above. It is a short profile article and is neither high-quality, independent nor in-depth.
Ref 4 [15] That is a database generated profile.It is non-rs.
Ref 5 [16] It is an interview. It is WP:PRIMARY.
Ref 6 [17] That is ultra-local news, in the same town and fails WP:AUD.
Ref 7 [18] Another interview.WP:PRIMARY
Ref 8 [19] This is social media driven. It is a terrible references. Its non-rs
Ref 9 [20] This is based on another report.
Ref 10 [21] This has been lifted from the ESPN story above.
Ref 11 [22] This has been lifted from the ESPN story above.

They are a mix of WP:PRIMARY interviews, social media driven stories based effectively hearsay and routine coverage of job promotions and ultra-local news. It states in WP:BLP "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." None of these are high-quality sources. They are extremely poor. Certainly there is a lot of interest in the man, but it is all routine coverage with no high-quality sources in any of it. None of it is true WP:SECONDARY sourcing. scope_creep^Talk 09:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cited WP:AUD, which is from Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). But Cronin is a person. And The Oregonian is anyways not some sleepy, small-town newspaper. —Bagumba (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep Please note that there is nothing that bans the use of local SIGCOV to establish notabilty of individuals. A proposal to limit their use has been thoroughly rejected in the past. Alvaldi (talk) 12:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see enough significant coverage if you piece together the bits of SIGCOV in the above sources, as is permitted per WP:NBIO, especially considering these sources are more than trivial mentions. Refs 5 and 7 in particular have enough non-interview coverage to be considered GNG-acceptable SIGCOV. However, even if that was not the case, WP:COMMONSENSE must prevail. Mr. Cronin is the highest ranking front office official for a team in the NBA, a top basketball league in the world. Clearly a case where WP:IAR should apply (though I believe the coverage is enough that IAR does not need to apply). Frank Anchor 15:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sourcing in this article is adequate and there is enough significant coverage. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 18:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a home town newspaper, which is again ignored for expediency and as usual with fan driven articles the quality of the sources, which are never considered, which junk at best are again ignored. Who quotes WP:IAR these days, in an Afd of all places. Really. What a trash argument. And common sense. Are we children. I've never heard such trash talk from an editor in an Afd for about 10 years. The only two policies that apply here are WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 09:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a home town newspaper, which is again ignored for expediency: Which guideline is that? Thanks. I know we expect multiple reliable sources of signficant coverage, which indirectly weeds out somone who only gets hometown coverage from the lone pub in Podunk.—Bagumba (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it exists I have yet to find it, but it is easy to find WP:CIVIL which I'd say disparaging other editors' good faith (and policy-based) keep votes as "trash" and as acting like children very much runs afoul of. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:GNG with over a decade worth of significant sources such as [23], [24],[25], [26] Alvaldi (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Available sources are well above the standard commonly required for notability. Calling The Oregonian a hometown paper is misleading. It's a major regional paper. (When I think of "hometown paper," I think of the neighborhood paper that prints lists of the kids who made the junior high honor roll.) In any case, The Oregonian is not the only source of information. Zagalejo (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ample sources on the article and listed here to demonstrate notability. Rikster2 (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Rlendog (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:GNG, as would be expected for an NBA general manager. Significant RS coverage from The Oregonian (the second largest paper in the Pacific Northwest) and ESPN & The Athletic (nationwide outlets). Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, as would be expected as an NBA general manager, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:58, 11 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akram al-Shafei[edit]

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

WP:ONEEVENT, can only really find sources about his death which is one event — Karnataka 22:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Palestine. — Karnataka 22:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E WP:EVENT WP:SUSTAINED WP:RECENT etc JM (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Sakiv (talk) 16:16, 7 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. I appreciate the source analysis. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Etawah (1770)[edit]

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

This appears to be almost wholly unotable. Maybe a few scatered single-line references, a list entry. Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion per nom. Spent some cleaning this article, it's a mess, and one of many recently created messy India-related battle/siege/war articles created by brand new users, something is off. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's called "Indians getting an Internet connection and learning the English language", but unfortunately for Wikipedia, many of these editors do not have the WP:COMPETENCE to make net-beneficial contributions, let alone with WP:NPOV and without WP:BIAS. A growing problem. Of course, not just Indians! JM (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the article fails WP:GNG and couldn't find much informations from modern sources other than just getting mentioned in some sentences, the notability of the article is very low. Merge it with any of the parent articles.Imperial ^[AFCND] 19:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just reminding that you are supporting for deletion while directing for merger is itself contrary. Sudsahab (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contexts that fails significant notability are usually added to the main articles instead of creating an article for itself. Imperial ^[AFCND] 10:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Afghanistan, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support deletion. Maratha history has got right to represent itself. Wikipedia has allowed erroneous and biased information regarding the Battle of Delhi (1737) in one-sided favor of the Mughal lovers, a gross injustice. I am absolutely sure that the person proposing the deletion is another Mughal Premi. Nothing wrong with the Mughals, but the history should be presented without colors. If there are references for the siege of Etawah, the article has all rights to be on wikipedia. NAZAARAEY (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We go by what wp:rs say, and no we do not wp:rightgreatwrongs with WP:FALSEBALANCE. Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People would start making skirmishes as battles such as "Battle of X" in that sence. There is a thing called wikipedia:GNG. I would recommend you reading that. And if there is any concerns about any of the articles on wikipedia, take that to its respective talk page. Imperial ^[AFCND] 18:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont support here is no reason to delete because I have deleted those sources which includes Sarkar Jadunath and WP:RAJ and those sources who have context or information are already added. I dont support deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudsahab (talk • contribs)
Borderline Delete - it appears that there is only one source (Sharkar) that discusses this siege in any depth… and that source’s reliability is questionable. That said - if other sources are found, my !vote would likely change. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks as per WP:HEY standards. The article seems to be notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonharojjashi (talk • contribs) 09:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : In light of the current surge in conflicts among new users regarding battle-related articles, it is imperative to scrutinize their histories to discern biases and avoid succumbing to POV-pushing tendencies. The Siege of Etawah holds academic significance, being a chapter covered in B.A. level studies under the event "Rise and fall of Marathas." Given its educational relevance, removing such a minor yet academically acknowledged article seems unwarranted. I advocate for a measured and unbiased approach in evaluating the importance of historical events on Wikipedia, ensuring the platform remains a reliable source for comprehensive information.Pinkish Flowers (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. The fact that the actual siege is less than a paragraph shows how "notable" the topic is. Removed MOS:OVERSECTION. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because of additions to the content of the article since its nomination. This is a situation where a good source analysis from an editor knowledgeable about this area of military history would be helpful to see whether or not this subject does hold "academic significance".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looking at the sources something happened around the end of 1770, but nothing called Siege of Etawah. I don't think any of the references in the article meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Not every event in every battle of every war needs a stand alone article.

I did a source eval for the first eight refs:

Comments	Source
Nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly or indepth	1. Sardesai Govind Sakharam (1948). New History Of The Marathas Vol-ii 1707-1772 (1948). B. G. Dhawale, Bombay. p. 511.
Nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly or indepth. I don't think this souce passes the NPOV test it seems very much like the victor writing their version of the history, [27]	2. ^ Rise & Fall Of Maratha Empire ( RV Nadkarni). 1966. p. 242.
Nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly or indepth, no mention of the subject or a seige on the indicated date	3. ^ Naravane, M. S. (1999). The Rajputs of Rajputana: A Glimpse of Medieval Rajasthan. APH Publishing. p. 119. ISBN 978-81-7648-118-2.
Nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly or indepth, no mention of the subject by the article title	4. ^ Bond, J. W.; Wright, Arnold (2006). Indian States: A Biographical, Historical, and Administrative Survey. Asian Educational Services. p. 78. ISBN 978-81-206-1965-4.
Nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly or indepth, no mention of the subject by the article title	5. ^ Rise & Fall Of Maratha Empire ( RV Nadkarni). 1966. p. 243.
Nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly or indepth, no mention of the subject by the article title	6. ^ Ghosh, D. K. Ed (1978). A Comprehensive History Of India Vol. 9. pp. 161–162.
Nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly or indepth, no mention of the subject by the article title[28], history in book goes only to 1748	7. ^ Chandra, Satish (1999). Medieval India: Mughal Empire, 1526-1748. Har-Anand Publications. p. 516. ISBN 978-81-241-0522-1.
Nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly or indepth, nothing about a seige, just states it was captured	8. ^ Parkash, Ram; Sharma, Ram Prakash (1960). The Foreign Policy of Warren Hastings. Vishveshvaranand Vedic Research Institute.

This convinced me there is nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV about the event, nothing confirming a "Siege of Etawah" is a recognized name for this event.

The refbombing is obvious, if an editor finds sources for the "Siege of Etawah" with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, ping me with the refs showing this event merits a stand alone article, just the best three refs, no need for more, I won't read through a refbomb. // Timothy :: talk 05:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the analysis by TimothyBlue above. I was also unable to find anything under "Siege of Itava" and "Siege of Ishtikapuri", using two other names for the city. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 19:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Neom. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oxagon[edit]

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

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

This article is about a floating industrial complex on the Saudi shore of the Red Sea. However, the article does not speak for itself and does not provide any indication that the complex, which is still under construction is notable, because they do not describe what third parties have said. A review of the references was needed. None of the references are independent; they are in the nature of press releases:

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	www.spa.gov.sa, Saudi Press Agency	Announcement of plans for Oxagon	No	Yes	Yes	No
2	www.neom.com	Information brochure about Oxagon	No	Yes	Yes	No
3	www.arabnews.com	Press release from prince about Oxagon	No	Yes	Yes	No
4	saudigazette.com.sa	Press release about a subsidiary company located at Oxagon	No	Not significantly about Oxagon because about Tonomus	Yes	No
5	www.gccbusinessnews.com	Access to web site blocked by malware protection	Probably not	Unknown	No	Probably not

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Saudi Arabia.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. The creator of the article moved it from drafts to mainspace on his own, but clearly rushed it. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Neom. Although there is a bunch of third-party sites covering the topic, a good portion appear to be glorified press releases which don't say much of substance apart from "this stage of construction is progressing" or "here is the PR release for what this district will have". Almost all of them seem to discuss it as part of the wider Neom project rather than anything significant about it. At this juncture, it doesn't justify a standalone article in my opinion. ― novov (t c) 03:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more opinions. It would be useful to see what the nominator thinks of ATD mentioned in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is not kept as a separate article it should certainly be merged/redirected to Neom. There are many independent reliable sources found by this search. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a NPOV version of properly sourced material from all four sub articles into NEOM. These are unneeded CFORKs, a single article is much better than 5 fragments at this point. If in the future there is soucing to support a SUMMARYSTYLE split, the history will be preserved. // Timothy :: talk 06:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then instead of draftifying (let me change my opinion). Suitskvarts (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Milo[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, basically a curriculum vitae of an undoubtedly busy and successful academic. Not sure if any of the claimed awards are significant. I'm struggling to find independent reliable sources about Milo or his work. The article strikes me as being created on Wikipedia for the wrong reasons. Sionk (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: [29] 52,000 cites, h-index of 79. Curbon7 (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Overwhelming pass of WP:Prof#C1 at least. Nominations like this do not add to the reputation of Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Beyond the citation counts, it is not difficult to find major-media coverage of his research (contrary to the nomination statement), enough I think to justify a claim of WP:PROF#C7. Examples: The Guardian on quantifying human-caused destruction of wildlife; Nature on the proportion of bacteria to human cells in the body; BBC on the relative masses of human artifacts and biological organisms. The article is badly sourced but WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like an easy pass of WP:NPROF. As David Eppstein said, WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per all above. This nomination is a clear WP:NEXIST failure. WP:SNOW also applies. gidonb (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW Marokwitz (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This should never have been proposed for deletion. Ron Milo is notable by any reasonable standards and will become more so. Athel cb (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The citation style in the article is one of the worst I have seen for a scientist. Geschichte (talk) 07:52, 11 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Writers Against the War on Gaza[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Per WP:COVERAGE, SIGCOV is not sufficient for notability, and the article subject lacks WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond the news cycle around its release. There have been countless open letters issued supporting both sides during the 2023 Israel-Hamas war. Not all are notable, making a splash at the time of their issue, but most, include this one, fail to have sustained coverage that would establish notability. The coverage from this article can be merged into 2023 Israel–Hamas war protests. Longhornsg (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. Longhornsg (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom JM (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete open letters are by default not notable. This letter is no exception to the rule. gidonb (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's reasons. --Artene50 (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORGCRIT or Merge to International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Marokwitz (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aforementioned merging in my opinion is not justified here. Suitskvarts (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Jayaprakash Narayan. Star Mississippi 15:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaya Prakhash Narayan[edit]

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

Appears to be a duplicate of the famous Jayaprakash Narayan (Gandhi follower and anti-communist as well being associated with Congress of Cultural Freedom (found here and here)). The only doubt is that Hoang Van Chi claims Narayan helped him, which I am not sure is the famous Narayan or this one. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jayaprakash Narayan, unless someone finds a source to show that this is a different person. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: there is also Jaya Prakash Narayana, but he is a former MLA, and so doesn't fit the line "He did not participate in the Indian government". Also, he is alive. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Jayprakash Narayan both are same as Congress for Cultural freedom are common in both as mentioned in this [30] it mentioned “Jayaprakash Narayan had worked with the Indian version of the Congress for Cultural Freedom” so i can say redirect this to the main article. — Quadrimobile(T · C 12:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jayaprakash Narayan.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sher Afzal Marwat[edit]

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

While this individual gained transient prominence through a televised altercation, his overall notability remains questionable. Primarily identified as a legal practitioner associated with political figures, he finds himself amidst a vast sea of legal professionals in Pakistan. The creation of dedicated articles for every lawyer navigating the political landscape would be an imprudent endeavor. Furthermore, his limited achievements in the political arena, lacking victory in any national or provincial elections, and the absence of a judicial role at the national or provincial level contribute to the deficiency of substantial notability as outlined by Wikipedia's specific guidelines, particularly WP:POLITICIAN and WP:JUDGE. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 02:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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.

I'm not closing as Merge as Frändefors is a one sentence stub so I don't see how it could be merged with this full-fledged article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frändefors IF[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, only source in article is the team website. Secondary and reliable sources that do exist are trivial match reports and similar. AlexandraAVX (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, Football, and Sweden. AlexandraAVX (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Frändefors. I have been able to verify their nickname being Fiffen, their celebrating 100 years in 2022, and when they built their clubroom with 5,000 man-hours. Not important events within the sport, but small landmarks in a community. The lack of mention of the women's team is not good, I have also been able to verify that the women's team became district champions in 1977 (pretty early for organized women's football!) and 2010. However, this is all on a pretty low level. Sport on a low level can be considered WP:TRIVIAL. "Fiffen" has never reached the Swedish Cup. Therefore my opinion is merge until further sources may turn up. Geschichte (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:17, 6 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 Human trafficking in the United States. Daniel (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary slavery in the United States[edit]

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

A duplicate article of Human trafficking in the United States. A bunch of sources here talk about "human trafficking" and not slavery. Regardless, their interchangeable use and otherwise unclear distinction in reliable sources fails the use-mention distinction, a stated prerequisite in relevant policy like WP:NOTNEO. So it would make sense to delete/merge this one and keep the other one with a more neutral title and which doesn't have any maintenance tags. बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Human trafficking in the United States. Most of the content of this article is already present there. Some information could be copied over (e.g. section Consequences) --Broc (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Human trafficking in the United States: this is an unnecessary content fork. Owen× ☎ 21:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 15:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freelancer Nadia[edit]

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

Non notable 41 minutes telefilm. There is zero significant coverage, review about this telefilm. All references looks promotional. Also notability isn’t inherited, State Minister for ICT Zunaid Ahmed Palak made a star appearance in this telefilm doesn’t make it notable. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Bangladesh. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If coverage is indeed deemed insufficient, redirect, with the existing refs from the page, to List of Bangladeshi films of 2022.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom. One source: "Palak set for acting debut in 'Freelancer Nadia" indicates it is very likely too soon. -- Otr500 (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nothing found that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 03:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Bangladeshi films of 2022. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shada Private[edit]

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

Non notable telefilm. There is zero significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Bangladesh. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If coverage is indeed deemed insufficient, redirect, with the existing refs from the page, to List of Bangladeshi films of 2022.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NFILM. Source in article and found in BEFORE are mentions, promos, listings, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGOCV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 03:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ and salted. Daniel (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Century Financial Consultancy[edit]

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

The history here is a little complex. A previous version, at Century Financial, was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Century Financial. Liz closed that AfD rightly, but after she did, we found that User:Antonio Vinzaretti wasn't in good faith, which puts its conclusion in a bit of doubt. Then the article was re-created at Century Financial Consultancy and immediately draftified by BoroVoro. Then it was re-created again and speedily deleted by Kuru under WP:G11 (or alternatively WP:G4 although this second ground isn't in the logs).

The creator complained about these actions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 December 19. Deletion review concluded that the speedy deletions didn't meet the letter of either WP:G4 or WP:G11. DRV interprets speedy deletion criteria narrowly and restores if there's doubt.

But there's clearly an appetite among independent reviewers to delete this content. Kuru described it as SEO material with fake sources that failed validation. Several users at the deletion review didn't feel that this content belongs in mainspace, and I rather agree with them. I think we need to have a proper AfD that seriously examines these sources and is conducted without the socking that tainted the previous one. —S Marshall T/C 18:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 18:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In addition to the content of both versions being WP:PROMOTIONAL in nature, the only sources with nontrivial coverage, Gulf News and Khaleej Times, offer branded/partner content services, and aren't suitable for establishing facts and notability: https://www.khaleejtimes.com/advertise, http://reachbygn.com/. PaulT2022 (talk) 05:13, 30 December 2023

Speedy Delete he article on Century Financial Consultancy lacks independent reliable sources to establish notability as per WP:ORG. References provided seem like sponsored content (Gulf, Khaleej), The article's promotional tone violates also clearly violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy WP:NPOV. As for the creator BoroVoro, looking through his history is alarming. He drafties quite frequently, often before he's supposed to it seems, and it appears to be quite a red flag. It seems like this company page is tangled up with sock-puppetry, UPE, and intentional edits of bad faith. No accusations (I will assume good faith), but very strange all of this. Also ref-bombing. All of this screams red flag.

PD Slessor (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I am the creator though I am fairly inexperienced. I am not aware of the respected other editor you have mentioned. (Francisjk2020 (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Keep:

Sir, Multiple Wikipedia editors have commented that the content is not promotional. There are also enough neutral sources available. They were recently voted as the best workplace to work in the GCC(Whole of Gulf)

Sir here are some sources not from gulf news and khaleej

https://www.thestatesman.com/india/dubai-based-companies-invest-hospitality-tourism-health-sectors-jk-1503037147.html

https://www.thenews.com.pk/amp/985638-bal-krishen-rathore-indian-expat-who-turned-from-tea-boy-to-ceo-in-no-time

https://www.arabianbusiness.com/industries/banking-finance/uaes-oldest-investment-services-firm-acquires-new-category-1-license

https://www.thenationalnews.com/uae/2022/05/20/these-uae-companies-have-happiest-employees-according-to-survey-on-morale/ (Francisjk2020 (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Recent achievements Century financial was voted as the best workplace to work in the UAE and the best workplace for women https://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-network/century-financial-tops-the-best-workplaces-for-women-in-the-gcc

Also they made an investment of 100 million dollars into the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir. https://awaamkibaat.jk.gov.in/jk-govt-signs-mou-with-century-financial-for-100-million-investment-in-jammu-kashmir/ (Francisjk2020 (talk) 08:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Here are some sources I could find, I am not too good at selecting which ones are notable

https://gulfnews.com/amp/business/century-financial-vision-passion-and-a-commitment-to-excellence-1.1698302255172

https://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-network/shaping-a-greener-future-collaborative-strategies-for-the-financial-sector

https://gulfnews.com/amp/uae/environment/women-leaders-tackle-ways-to-strike-a-balance-between-growth-sustainability-1.98552371

https://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-network/century-financial-wins-big-again

https://gulfnews.com/amp/business/corporate-news/uae-based-financial-sector-reaffirms-its-commitment-to-spearhead-sustainability-goals-ahead-of-cop28-1.1679900257627 (Francisjk2020 (talk) 08:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]

WP:ORGCRIT is useful in understanding what sources should be used in articles about organisations.

I'd like like to note that my 'delete' opinion is based on WP:TNT and Wikipedia:Verifiability considerations: there's evidence of presented publications offering sponsored publications in their media kits and I couldn't find other English-language significant coverage, but I found that company's spokespeople are being routinely interviewed by Bloomberg on UAE-related matters (search for '"century financial" uae' in Wikimedia Library), so couldn't form a definite opinion whether it's notable or not. What's certain though, is that the sources used in both versions of the article (Century Financial and the one being currently discussed) are mostly inappropriate, as they're neither reliable for verification or helpful to establish Wikipedia:Notability, and the promotional thrust of both articles is unsuitable. PaulT2022 (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Considering the history od this article, would prefer a more definitive consensus either way here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Gulf News is used for multiple references, it's listed as a marginally acceptable source per wiki and is yellow per the source toolbot... Having happy employees is great, but sourcing is usual corporate fluff articles or PR items saying where the company is investing. I still don't see NCORP. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: and SALT for six months, for the same reasons it was deleted the previous time. This is a REFBOMBed corporate promotion piece, with no independent SIGCOV to establish notability. The previous AfD would have been closed exactly the same way even without Antonio Vinzaretti's tainted !vote. DRV didn't reject G4/G11, it simply declined to adjudicate on the matter, and rightly so. The latest incarnation could have--and I believe should have--been speedied as G4/G11. But as the nom says, we're here now, let's do this properly so that we don't have to do it again in two weeks. Owen× ☎ 21:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. JM (talk) 00:56, 6 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. Daniel (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Sannino[edit]

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

Current article reads like a resume and has been listed for notability since 2013. There do not appear to be sufficient independent sources to meet WP:BIO. An extensive list of Sannino's published works can be found here, but it is unclear if his research is influential enough to meet WP:PROF. Uffda608 (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Italy, Denmark, Science, and Academics and educators. Uffda608 (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did find [31] and [32] (both in Italian) about a paper they wrote on the Higgs boson. His university profile [33] also says he's an associate editor for European Journal of Physics. His membership at both the Royal Danish and Finnish Academy of Science and Letters might satisfy WP:NPROF#1. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Danish sources about his work modelling the spread of COVID during the pandemic: [34], [35]. You should find more if you look up the titles of the listings here at his university's research profile. He also has a h-index of 67 which, while not exactly the best measure of notability/NPROF criteria, seems pretty high to me even if his work is related to particle physics. Leaning Keep for now.
Keep. EliteForsk Prize seems prestigious enough to satisfy NPROF#2. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 04:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the Academy memberships mentioned above, seems NPROF#1 is met. Oaktree b (talk) 20:51, 5 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 Ram Kamal Mukherjee#Bibliography. I'd appreciate it if someone could take care of the appropriate tagging. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Dutt, One Man, Many Lives[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOKS. There is only one reliable source: Times of India, which isn't enough for notability. Gazal world (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.–Owais Al Qarni (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book has received an award. that's verifiable, but if it's judged insufficient redirect to Ram Kamal Mukherjee#Bibliography.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the insufficient judgement here. The award went to the biographer, not to the book (which is the subject of article being discussed here). microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source says: "Ram Kamal also bagged the Best Biographer Award for his best seller Sanjay Dutt: One Man, Many Lives published by Rupa Books. " -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with ((r from book)). microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:49, 10 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 Hori7on. I have E/Ced that because of the continued disruption around these band members Star Mississippi 15:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reyster Yton[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Non WP:notable member of a wp:notable band. In all of the references there is essentially nothing on him except a mention that he trailed the band's arrival due to a visa problem. The text said "in an interview with ....Yton cited" but in that reference there is no interview with him. "Filmography" lists two items. One was where he was a contestant on a show,the other was the band, not him. Tagged by other for wp:notability since June. North8000 (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree's post reminded me that IMO a redirect is the best choice. But I think that making the decision here is a good way to solidly do that. You might say "merge" be there is really nothing (sourced material on him or sources on him) to merge. North8000 (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Dance, and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hori7on: I don't think this person is notable outside of the band. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hori7on: Does not meet WP:NBANDMEMBER. no independent activities yet. – robertsky (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hori7on: subject not notable outside of the band. Royal88888 (talk) 05:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hori7on as per others – Abacusada (t • c) 15:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hori7on per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 16:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belén Benítez[edit]

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

The subject played 2 games for the Paraguay women's national football team a decade ago. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2021, 2022, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Paraguay. JTtheOG (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Clearly fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree, notability is highly questioned. Further research may help in local newspapers but I have doubts . FightBrightTigh (talk) 09:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability standards due to lack of significant coverage. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 18:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mariángeles Caraballo[edit]

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, an Uruguayan women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions (2013, 2014, 2015, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Uruguay. JTtheOG (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage to meet notability standards. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. If editors are still set on converting this to a Redirect, you can continue the discussion on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Vanishing of S.S. Willie[edit]

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

Non notable film. Although it has received coverage in the media, it's been because it was immediately released after Mickey Mouse turned PD, but not because of the quality of the work. Bedivere (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bedivere (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disney, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only made the page because of the high volume of media mentions it got including from credible online entertainment sources like Bloody Disgusting and Joblo.com, i would argue that most short films don't nearly get that level of exposure.

Do I think this is a quality film, no, but that is not the thing being discussed. Jonastav89 (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but such coverage is only the result of Mickey entering PD, not because of the actual "film", which is just a YouTube video. Bedivere (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel if a piece of media get's this amount of media-attention, for whatever reason, it transcends "just being a YouTube-video" even disregarding quality.

A similar, but maybe more high profile case, to me would be Absolute Proof which was nothing more then a extended low quality internet video with no cinematic quality, and can not even be seen online anymore. However it got a spike in popularity when it won a couple of Razzies.

This is maybe not a direct comparison but I am just making the argument why I personally think high profile media attention outways "quality" or "viewership". Jonastav89 (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This from Yahoo has links to stories in Deseret News and the Huff Post [36],I think with the Bloody Disgusting and rest, although short, we're ok for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of creative Mickey Mouse works after entering the public domain. As seen here: [37], the video only has 26,000 views at the time of writing, which is relatively small by YouTube standards. If we are arguing in favour of keeping because of significant media coverage, then that would mean any old YouTube video that's been covered by the media would warrant an article. I just don't think this video is popular enough to need its own article. I don't see the harm in redirecting to the list in which it is included, however. Nintentoad125 (talk)
Keep. Notability is not indicated by numbers of views or perceived quality. This absolutely passes GNG. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG, being of poor quality has no relevance to anything with notability.★Trekker (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The things I look for with film related AfDs is this: has the film received reviews in RS? If not, has the film received coverage in RS? If so, is the coverage based on press releases or do they all substantially say the same thing (minus of course any coverage that could be a reaction as opposed to stating that something exists)? I don't have any answers to this, but I will examine what is in the article, what's out there, and what can be used to expand the article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly undecided. I won't fight against it being kept but I do want to note that almost all of the coverage is essentially a reprint of a press release and/or a brief mention in relation to the slew of media that is coming out now that SW is in the public domain. I think it's certainly possible for more coverage to come about, but short films tend to get overlooked pretty regularly. If they don't get coverage when they first release or premiere, then that tends to kind of be it unless the director puts out later notable work. I'm just worried that if more coverage doesn't come about that it won't hold up to scrutiny if this were re-nominated in say, 4-5 months or a year from now. It's the first of its type, but that's not always a guarantee of notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a footnote to a larger story about the original film passing into public domain. It's got coverage, passes GNG. Toughpigs (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 18:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orca Health[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Business, Software, and Utah. PepperBeast (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Digital Universe is a student newspaper, Harvard Health is a blog article, and Boston Business Journal article announces press release style company's partnership. Geeraarts (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability or utility for Wikipedia. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 11:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 18:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baltus Bester[edit]

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

Non-notable Boer participant in the Second Boer War. Google Books and Internet Archive both return zero results for this name, and the article is wholly cited to two user-created genealogy sites. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not establish any notability at all, any content here might survive a merge to Sanna's Post.

Geardona (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I, too, had no luck finding anything verifiable about the man, let alone enough to meet WP:NBIO. Owen× ☎ 17:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Delete as per nom and above. Funny name does not add up to notable. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:38, 5 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 most luminous stars. The anchor can be handled editorially Star Mississippi 16:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G0.238-0.071[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Only one paper appears to mention it explicitly, however, that one only mentioned it three times in the exact same section. Because of this, it fails WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 15:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is still probably the most luminous known star that is not an erupting LBV. Maybe redirect it to List of most luminous stars? Diamantinasaurus (talk) 11:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a good idea. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 13:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: being the most luminous non-variable star known should be enough to make this more than a line in a list. Owen× ☎ 19:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a luminosity estimate in a broader list from a single source (without even an error estimate) isn't enough to establish notability. Per the above and the Sagan standard, I think we should require confirmation from an independent study before allowing the extraordinary claim that this is the "most luminous non-variable star known". Praemonitus (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the luminous star list seems ok. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of most luminous stars and create an anchor where the star is mentioned; the current amount of coverage is not enough to establish notability and justify an article, although this might change in the future if more studies on the star are released. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:18, 10 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walter B. Hargreaves[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and music bio specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, United Kingdom, and Scotland. UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It’s hard to see how this article has survived for so long after being already flagged for notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion due to previously-declined prod.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least tentatively. A Google book search brings up multiple refs but unfortunately they are all snippets. They do demonstrate sustained coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Whether or not they are in depth I can’t say but given the number I think we should err on the side of caution. Mccapra (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra: If they are all snippets, then they do not satisfy WP:SIGCOV and, therefore, fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of Google books, "snippets" refers to the limited amount of material that Google displays for many copyrighted works, not to the significance of the material in total, which can only be definitely assessed with access to the complete work. Jfire (talk) 14:24, 7 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) 12:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is a full-page newspaper profile. The Modern Brass Band has coverage of him and says that a "detailed biography" is available in Sounding Brass, October 1976, pp. 83–85. Jfire (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better link for Modern Brass Band: [38]. In total this book has at least three pages of content focusing on his life and accomplishments as a conductor, and his entry in the book's index cites 20 pages. This is unambiguously significant coverage. Jfire (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet notability guidelines Coldupnorth (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the relable sources coverage identified by Jfire in this discussion such as The Manchester Evening News piece, and reliable book sources such as Modern Brass Band and the Sounding Brass source so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:56, 11 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Handle-o-Meter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and product-specifc notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. UtherSRG (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete this could be merged to Johnson & Johnson, but my merge proposal attracted only one comment and that was against the proposal, as it wasn't clear if this material is notable enough for inclusion in that article. I could find no evidence it was notable enough for a standalone article. Boleyn (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion due to previous AfD's.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NPRODUCT. A couple of journal articles were brought up in a previous nom but I'm unconvinced they demonstrate sigcov. Sgubaldo (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG. Significant coverage can be found in the following sources:

- Hansen Jr., Orin C.; Marker, Leon; Ninnemann, Karl W.; Sweeting, Orville J. (1963). "Relationship between dynamic modulus of thin films and stiffness, as determined by the Handle-O-Meter". Journal of Applied Polymer Science. 7 (3): 817–832. doi:10.1002/app.1963.070070303.

- D H Morton; A Marks (1965). "The measurement of flexural rigidity of thin polymeric films". Journal of Scientific Instruments. 42 (8): 591. doi:10.1088/0950-7671/42/8/327.

- Gordon L. Robertson (2016). Food Packaging: Principles and Practice, Third Edition. CRC Press. p. 96. ISBN 9781439862421.

- The Complete Technology Book On Plastic Films, Hdpe And Thermoset Plastics. NIIR Project Consultancy Services. 2006. pp. 148–150. ISBN 9788178330112.

- Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry. Vol. 48. Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry. 1965. pp. 58–61.

SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 01:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The third and fourth source are purely passing mentions. The other three discuss, via experiment results, the limits of the tool's usefulness. Looking at what I can, and comparing with what's written in GNG, it looks like these could fail via discussion: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I posit that any information gleaned from these sources would simply be an indiscriminate collection of information and so fails GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to consider UtherSRG's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources located by SailingInABathTub (not UtherSRG as the relist note says) are enough to convince me that this is a notable technical device within the paper industry. Following the references from one of the cited papers, I was able to locate a digitized copy of the 1955 trade publication article that announced the product: [39]. It's not an independent source, so it doesn't contribute to notability, but it looks like a useful source to flesh out the article. I'm often astonished what obscure sources can be found on the internet these days! Jfire (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 16:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BespokeSynth[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NSOFT. The only independent sources are this and this - from the Wikipedia article, but I don't think the latter should be considered reliable and the former just writes articles about all musical software, so I think BespokeSynth is there not because it stood out, but because website authors just needed content. I tried to find other independent reliable sources but couldn't. I believe it's not enough to merit a standalone article. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 08:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 08:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both sources Deltaspace42 found are independent and provide significant coverage, so the question is whether they are reliable sources. As far as I know, the reason why a person writes a review/material is generally not relevant to establishing source reliability. If a source just writes articles about all musical software, that does not mean the source is unreliable; that's like suggesting a game review company is an unreliable source because they only write game reviews. website authors just needed content suggests that the source is not reliable due to WP:ROUTINE, but these reviews are clearly more detailed than routine coverage (for example, I consider this as routine coverage since it provides only a short description and quote). This source, while shorter, also helps to establish notability: [40]. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Darcyisverycute, yeah, I consider "cdm" source (the first source I provided) both independent and reliable. This source, which you provided, I missed (probably because I forgot to check with a space between "Bespoke" and "Synth"). I'll wait for someone else to give their opinion whether or not it is enough for WP:NSOFT and I will withdraw this nomination if they think it's enough. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:04, 5 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]} 22:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnikmusic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

All passing mentions or refs to the cite itself. There are some hits on a WP:BEFORE but nothing that seems to meet WP:SIGCOV imo. BuySomeApples (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I am puzzled that this website can be nominated again for deletion for its notability. I just read through the references listed in the article for deletion and I read that the website is cited as a reliable source in published books, academic works and mainstream magazines. After a quick search, I found some magazines and newspapers that cite Sputnikmusic as a reliable source (The Florida Times-Union [41], Classic Rock [42], Verve [43], Loudwire [44]). The website is still listed among the generally reliable sources in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources and in the Metacritic engine. My best guess is that all the parameters for notability are checked. Lewismaster (talk) 11:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that Sputnik is reliable, but I'm not sure about notability. The sources in the article and the ones that you found are very short passing mentions, mostly in articles or books that summarize an album or band's reception with critics and fans, or which namecheck music review websites. BuySomeApples (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that we are talking about a website which provides musical info and reviews, I think that it could also be important to know how much it is consulted, read and used as a source to determine its notability. I checked Sputnikmusic's web traffic with this free app [45] and compared it with some of the websites listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Sputnikmusic's traffic amounts to 42,5K monthly accesses, which is very low in comparison with AllMusic or Rolling Stone, in the same range of Rock Hard and Metal Storm's websites and much higher than Uncut, Rock Sound, The Wire and Metal Forces'. Sputnikmusic is cited in about 400 articles on Wikipedia as a reliable source. Doesn't this fact alone make it notable? Lewismaster (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this fact alone make it notable? No. For example, jazzdisco.org is a reliable, and frequently cited source, but fails WP:NWEB Mach61 (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto the above. A lot of websites, books and articles are reliable sources but aren't notable themselves. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Websites. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 12:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While it is very little, there is some coverage of the website in the books, and I've added another.★Trekker (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm leaning keep, but had to trim some trivia. The section "Stratification and rating systems" needs heavy trimming. Geschichte (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per WP:NPERIODICALS #4. I can find at least 30 scholarly books that cite this website. As I say every time a website like this is nominated, rarely do people write articles about niche, but reputable publications. That's why you always look for how often it is cited in its field, similar to WP:NPROFESSOR. Furthermore, I will always maintain that it is valuable for a reliable source used on hundreds of Wikipedia to have a page. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with this !vote by Why? I Ask. It is evident (and likely incontrovertible) that Sputnikmusic is both highly cited and reputable, and invoking WP:NPERIODICALS is valid. Sputnikmusic is evidently not an inconsequential website, and removing this article from the encyclopedia is, in my view, detrimental to the project. Furthermore we are in the business of presuming notability; being highly cited in secondary reputable sources is a very good indication, and in this case far better than trying to base notability on users trying to do increasingly flawed google searches which may, or may not, find requisite evidence. ResonantDis_tortion 23:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:13, 10 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Center for the History of Women Philosophers and Scientists[edit]

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

No reliable sources. Only cited sources are press releases, primary sources, or passing mentions. intforce (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Philosophy, and Germany. intforce (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as at least some of the refs do appear to be substantive content about the organization or at least some of its specific activities. I'm not sure any of those themselves would be likely to become a well-developed article and/or are of marginal notability. Thus this is a single article for all of that rather than a pile of permastubs. Unlike the usual failure of "notability by association", here the organization is notable because it does multiple (maybe borderline)-notable things. DMacks (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Specific notability of the center itself:
"Europe’s first center dedicated to the study of women philosophers and scientists...the world’s first joint Master’s ERASMUS program on the history of women philosophers and scientists"[46]

DMacks (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a learned organisation. More coverage will turn up over time and these are generally kept. More so, its orientated towards women which are few and far between. It a solid keep. scope_creep^Talk 11:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would not call this a "learned organisation". Looking at their homepage, it more looks like this "center" is a university department. Those are rarely notable and centers like this one are all too often ephemeral. The only somewhat substantial source is a local newspaper/newsletter called OWL Journal. The rest are library-catalog entries and press releases and such. No sign of WP:SIGCOV, does not meet WP:NORG. --Randykitty (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the content to Ruth Hagengruber, a professor at the university that hosts the center and one of the founders. Research centers are commonly created by professors in many fields. This one is very new and could well come to have an impact on the field, which would be shown by articles about its influence. Currently it is WP:TOOSOON for an independent article. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The page has tagged problems with notability and verification. This is a good diagnosis for draftifying. But what makes me doubt it is that it has been live for this for clearly more than half a year now. Suitskvarts (talk) 11:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prob delete - seems like it is a university department with only routine coverage in RS. I disagree with redirecting to an individual, I suspect it makes more sense to merge to the university page. JMWt (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There appears to be significant coverage of this center in [47] and [48], and passing coverage in [49]. In addition this article serves as our redirected landing page for the Encyclopedia of Concise Concepts by Women Philosophers, the Elisabeth of Bohemia Prize, and the Journal of the History of Women Philosophers and Scientists, as we have no separate articles for those topics, and therefore their notability should be counted toward this article as well, including significant coverage of the prize at [50], [51], [52], and [53]. The journal is unlikely to be independently notable but its coverage in [54] also adds to notability here. Not all university research centers pass WP:GNG, but I think this one does. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:52, 1 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) 12:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above JM (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I find David Eppstein's argument persuasive, especially since this article contains notable subtopics. -- asilvering (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jakkur (Bengaluru) Inscriptions[edit]

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

Not ready for mainspace. not have any source Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has many relevant citations and strong sources added. This article is extremely notable as it shares accurate and verifiable information about historic Jakkur. Therefore, this article must be retained and should not deleted. Anusha.Morching (talk) 09:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Draftify, clearly not ready for mainspace. Unclear notability and reads like a WP:SYNTH. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SailingInABathTub what do you think about the changes made since your !vote? The nom wants to withdraw. -- asilvering (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @asilvering, the article has improved. The lede still requires attention but there is no need to keep this discussion open and it can be closed as keep/withdrawn. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 16:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Note that the article now has sources and 17 citations. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, at this time. i am satisfied with the improvements of this article. Thanks you. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I went through and made a whole lot of copyedits. One thing to note is that even though there were 19 references at the time, 12 of those were duplicates. Recon rabbit 17:09, 5 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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rhenald Kasali[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC, no significant coverage found online. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Businesspeople. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He has a profile on Google Scholar and it says that he has h-index of 29 with 7692 citations. I don't know what is the threshold for notability, but for me it seems pretty impressive. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
h-index is not a great measure of determining reputation. The average h-index will vary quite a bit by discipline for example. It's also specifically noted here that h-index is of limited usefulness in determining notability for academics. Sgubaldo (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes W:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. The citation numbers are strong enough for WP:PROF#C1 regardless, but I'm especially impressed that he is getting numbers like that for work written in Indonesian. Usually using localized languages for academic work significantly reduces its citability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further discussion around PROF#C1.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The sources that are currently in the article look very bad. I trust David Eppstein's assessment though. Geschichte (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NACADEMIC. Over 7700 citations per Google Scholar ans 29 h-index.Perfectstrangerz (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Humanitarian Initiative[edit]

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

deletion reason 8. sources are all primary, and don't contribute to notability. possibly reason 4 as well. ltb d l (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom nothing to suggest the topic is notable. Theroadislong (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is not the issue here, given the various humanitarian crises around the world today. This is Harvard's continuing outreach program to address the various crises. The issue is that all that all the sourcing is primary - Harvard's website. Hopefully, one or more editors here can help resolve the sourcing issue. — Maile (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there are various humanitarian crises around the world today, so this deserves an article...? ltb d l (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is exactly the issue here, and the sole basis for determining whether a subject is worthy of a Wikipedia article; veteran editors with over a hundred thousand edits ought not need education on the subject. The proper response to "all the sources are primary, so we should keep this article in the hopes that someone, someday might get around to sourcing it" is to delete the article without prejudice, up until sometime someone wants to create a new article with reliable sources ... as should have been done as a prerequisite in the first place. This article was created sixteen years ago. It's been tagged for nine years. Time to shelve the "hopefully"s. Ravenswing 23:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are found for WP:GNG/WP:NORG. There could be a Harvard Initiative for Notability and Significance, but if Harvard were the only ones making note of it, it wouldn't be WP:NOTABLE. SilverLocust 💬 09:20, 6 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. The event is within the six month window and can potentially be improved with sourcing connected to it. Star Mississippi 16:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manny Pacquiao vs. Buakaw Banchamek[edit]

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

future, WP:CRYSTAL sporting event, insufficient independent and WP:SIGCOV sources Andre🚐 07:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Andre🚐 07:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and China. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 07:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft I guess we could draft until the event happens (in less than a month), but it looks to be a fight between tow "has beens" in the boxing world, from my limited understanding of that part of the sports world. Happy to be proven incorrect, but I'm wondering if this would even be notable after the event. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, as of the present moment, the existence of sourcing available for this event appears to fail WP:PERSISTENCE, since I only really see two brief bursts of coverage (one in mid-July 2023, and another about 1-2 weeks ago). However, it's very plausible (even likely) that there will be more depth and persistence of coverage as the event gets closer, as well as during/after. It costs little for the encyclopedia to hang on to this as a draft, and a lot of useful work can be saved. Left guide (talk) 08:54, 8 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. Although given the very lengthy previous AFD discussion, it's interesting to see a unanimous vote for Deletion in this second AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Jammu (1399)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I couldn't find anything online, and from previous AfD, strong attempts have been made to find information in published books. The article remains without one reliable source. If we have been looking this long, and cant verify it, it shouldn't be in the mainspace. Boleyn (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am also unable to find any sources for this. Timur certainly invaded Jammu in this year but that does not give a licence to Wikipedia editors to extrapolate a non existent “battle” of Jammu and hope it sticks. I mean the Germans repeatedly bombed Limehouse but I can’t just create a battle of Limehouse article with no sources and then argue “but the Luftwaffe!” Mccapra (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No effective sources. scope_creep^Talk 23:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, strong feeling that this is a hoax. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No mention of "Battle of Jammu" in any of the WP:RS. Fails GNGImperial ^[AFCND] 12:30, 10 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auliepterix[edit]

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

I couldn't find references to confirm its notability, or the information in the article. Boleyn (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES and https://ftp.funet.fi/pub/sci/bio/life/insecta/lepidoptera/zeugloptera/micropterigoidea/micropterigidae/auliepterix/. There's probably more, but that's what I could find quickly before work. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 12:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Descriptions readily available; original ref and later family placement added. Little more WP:BEFORE please? For paleotaxa, I suggest starting off at PBDB. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:NSPECIES. We only need one reliable source for verifiability. Owen× ☎ 17:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per comments above. Boleyn (talk) 20:04, 5 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. Withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dhuleta[edit]

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

~~A village should meet WP:NPLACE or WP:GNG, but I couldn't find reliable sources to add to this unreferenced article to prove it.~~ Boleyn (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added a ref now which shows that this meets WP:NGEO. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Indian geographical area passes WP:NGEO. Macbeejack ☎ 15:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GEOLAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination thanks to convincing comments above. Boleyn (talk) 19:04, 11 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. Nominator has withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deenamma Jeevitham[edit]

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

The film is already released but does not have any reliable reviews. The only sources that exist are about normal pre-release buzz/trailer release: [55] [56] [57]. The first three sources in the article are not reliable. DareshMohan (talk) 09:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year. ~~If no reliable reviews are published, redirect to List of Telugu films of 2024.~~-Keep, as reviews have been presented. My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC) (edited, after Monhoroe's edits, thanks)[reply]
Speedy keep: There are 2 notable reviews i added Monhiroe (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination. DareshMohan (talk) 20:05, 5 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. I see no support for deletion. I recommend that this nominator slow down their numerous AFD nominations as I'm closing a lot of them as Keep or No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gestrins[edit]

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

Delete All of these pages are minor hamlets in Povoa de Varzim that I am unable to find any sources for that satisfy WP:NGEO. As far as I know these are minor neighborhoods.

I am also nominating for deletion:

Tooncool64 (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have removed some stray syntax that appears to have been left behind when the nominator was fixing up the nomination. No opinion or further comment at this time on any of the articles involved. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there a reason these can't be redirected to the parent entity? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If we compare to the numerous AFDs on locations in the USA, they are usually kept if there are sources stating that someone lived there or is from there (I am invoking WP:OUTCOMES, not WP:OTHERSTUFF here). After all, Portugal has a very long history, which could mean that the place had greater significance in the past. So while not being Portuguese, I tried to check Rio de Fornos (which is nowhere near Povoa de Varzim!). On the map, it's some 3 kilometres north of Vinhais, clearly separated geographically, and has a cemetary and two inns. This speaks about a film portraying "pilgrimage of 11 women from the village of Rio de Fornos". There is a book about a "morgadio" there, also mentioned on the municipality website. Now, This is of course not a WP:RS, but would there exist a blog "so that everyone who loves the village can show it here through comments and news. It is open to everyone, giving an account of events or simply portraying the history of the village and its (re)charms" if it was not a village? I'm not staunchly opposed to a merge to Vinhais either, though. I do however sense this AFD going the way of WP:TRAINWRECK. Geschichte (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I contested the proposed deletions as it didn't seem to me that these hamlets, which appear to have population census reports according to some corresponding articles on the Portuguese Wikipedia, would fail the WP:GEOLAND part of WP:NGEO, i.e. "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." However, without knowledge of the language or the country's administrative structure I'm not quite able to locate documents that clearly demonstrate the case. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose delete ~~Procedural Keep,~~ on all, in the hope that the potential closer grants a relist to allow more time to look into this bundled nomination, especially as sources are likely to be in Portuguese and not easily found. So far I've looked at Fontainhas which I'd !vote keep anyway based on verification of the place name on maps, mentions in connection with the railway-now-cyclepath and the presence of shops, schools, a bank and housing. Gresufes is a hamlet so populated and the article states at one time it was its own parish so it could be kept, or perhaps redirected to its current parish, which is presumably Balazar but I haven't found a definitive source stating it is, only an assumption based on it being a named settlement within a boundary on a map. Rupples (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Amended to emboldened recommendation. Rupples (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2011 populations found on citypopulation.de [58]. Fontainhas given as 641, Gandra is 219, Gestrins is 296, Passô is 425, Sejães is 349 and Têso is 569 (all in Póvoa de Varzim municipality). Rio de Fornos is 85 [59] in Vinhais municipality. No figure for Gresufes. Rupples (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It would appear that these are recognised settlements and meet WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source. This book [60] in Portuguese on the parish of Balasar has 17 hits for Gandra, 12 for Gestrins, 51 for Gresufes, 8 for Fontaínhas. Not claiming all the hits are about the villages, could be people's names but it looks to be a good source if someone is able to translate. There's a glossary towards the end that looks to have definitions for the place names. Rupples (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all with prejudice, in light of how this discussion has developed. Geschichte (talk) 13:31, 11 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 Lavrion Square–Strofyli railway. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strofyli Station[edit]

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

Delete A defunct railway station that does not satisfy WP:GNG. Tooncool64 (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possible merge to Lavrion Square–Strofyli railway, where it was significant, being its terminus. Geschichte (talk) 07:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lavrion Square–Strofyli railway Djflem (talk) 08:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Greek Wikipedia article is better. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CommentArgument is listed as arguments to avoid [[61]]. It also would be nice if you gave a link so we can go translate it and check whether it provides any evidence of notability. I tried to find it without luck. I might even copy it over if it checks out.James.folsom (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what WP:OTHERLANGS actually says. I can't really believe you're asking me to provide a link, given there is a clear interwiki link from the article, but if I must. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to Lavrion Square–Strofyli railway WP:Geoland is clearest about train stations when it says they have no inherent nobility and must fully meet WP:N. Train stations are much to commonplace to have their own article, unless they are very notable, WP:run-of-the-mill. I haven't found anything, but would consider anything the keep voter wanted to present.James.folsom (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the Greek article is already linked from the English one - el:Σιδηροδρομικός Σταθμός Στροφυλίου . Ingratis (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apologies, I can't believe I missed that.James.folsom (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The greek article is also unsourced. It states that the opening date and closing date are unknown and implies they are shrouded in confusion. I feel if something has notability, these are the sort facts that would be clearly known. Additionally, if it were notable there would be sources that were easy to find. Furthermore, it is a station on rail line that was built simply to move rock to somewhere else, so I don't believe that the rail line is notable either.James.folsom (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Greek Wikipedia article is not unsourced; they just didn't use little blue clicky numbers to provide the source. They link to https://www.mixanitouxronou.gr/enas-xechasmenos-sidirodromikos-stathmos-mesa-se-ikopedo-stin-kifisia-sinedee-tin-periochi-me-tin-n-erithrea-ke-ton-dioniso-ke-ipirxe-progonos-tou-diasimou-thiriou-pou-eftane-stin-athina-ke-to-l/ as a Wikipedia:General reference. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That link is provided not as a source but as "related info", the material at the url doesn't actually mention this train station.James.folsom (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riviera Estates, California[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was "no consensus" kept in a group deletion which ended up with someone redirecting it to the county after the fact. That redirect was put up for deletion for the excellent reason that county articles as a rule don't say anything significant about this sort of place, but perversely everyone decided just to put the article back. After all that, it's still the same NN development that it was the first time around, entered into GNIS very late in the game from some Occidental College "map" (that's all it says) and therefore stuck on the topos. There's some ten of these from the original discussion which were either turned into the same sort of redirect or are (still) around for some reason, so I'll be back with more. Mangoe (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Assuming the coordinates are accurate, Street View shows that this subdivision is named "Konocti Bay Estates" as of 2023. I can't find any significant sources covering the subdivision under either that name or "Riviera Estates". Fails WP:GEOLAND. Jfire (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gnis is the only evidence this place has. I cannot find anything at all.James.folsom (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

● Delete - The Location obviously exists as per all the search results. But the only actual coverage besides real-estate listing sites is the GNIS which is unreliable. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:52, 8 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. There is clear consensus here that a standalone page is not viable. A merger has been proposed, but doesn't have consensus, and two targets have been suggested, one of which doesn't exist at the moment. So I'm going to delete this for now, in the understanding that if a list article is created, or consensus is reached to expand a different page with this information, we can redirect this title: also, that I will gladly provide a draftspace copy for anyone who wants to develop this toward a merger. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murad Abu Murad[edit]

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

There is no WP:SIGCOV of this individual in multiple sources that is required under the GNG guideline. VR _talk 02:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. VR _talk 02:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added more news sources, there's significant coverage stating his involvement in the October attacks, as well as numerous articles noting his death. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You added this Jerusalem Post article that supposedly gives him WP:SIGCOV. All this article says about Abu Murad is "IDF personnel eliminated Murad Abu Murad, the head of Hamas's Air Force, in Gaza City on Friday, Hebrew media reported. Murad largely took part in directing terrorists in the murderous attack last Saturday. Murad's death came as the IDF attacked Hamas's operational headquarters in the region." That's it. Nothing more. How's that SIGCOV?VR _talk 05:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

to me that sounds somewhat notable, at least worth merging into something or having as a list. Irtapil (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources are about the event, and contain very little information beyond this, simply stating they were involved in the terrorist attack/org. The event itself obviously happened, there are sources for the event, but again they contain very little information and I don't think they amount to WP:SIGCOV.

Ping me if someone makes a strong case with sources for converting this into an event article. I strongly considered this, it would provide a good redirect target for the current title. The exact name for the event should be determined by reliable sources. My issue here is finding WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject (the event) directly and indepth, just because it happened doesn't make it notable. No objection to a consensus redirect. // Timothy :: talk 07:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue: I think we should start a list article, there are a lot of cases like this, where there's a notable amount of news coverage, but not enough information to be a whole page (see below). Start with a big list that includes everything, then split off if it gets too big. But, journalists already have their own page and I'm not sure how to frame it for that?

Irtapil (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a BIO1E. Also little known about him because lacking SIGCOV. Not mentioned anywhere else so should not be redirected. Not ruling out a merge, yet it should be noted that organically nobody deemed Abu Murad important enough to be included in a more comprehensive article and there are many of these. So don't force it. gidonb (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades#Leaders killed by Israel or other causes as an WP:ATD. Readers might be searching for the name, and there is at least potentially some information we could give them (meaning there is enough sources for expanding the target with content about this subject, even if no one has done so yet). Seems like a typical situation where we'd have a redirect. Levivich (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Murad is not mentioned at the target so not a valid option. gidonb (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares, easily fixed. Levivich (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but that fix isn't a redirect. 15:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok I changed my vote from "redirect" to "merge and redirect." Easy. Levivich (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much better! gidonb (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the target? Irtapil (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's right there! Including the section at target! gidonb (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to see if there is more support for a Merge or if a straight Delete is preferable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of course. A stub with no potential to expansion, no notability. Nothing to merge there. Hamas has thousands of killed members and we have a NOTAMEMORIAL to not list them all. Only the ones who were notable. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oleg Yunakov: Not all, but this guy got news coverage in at least 3 countries, Israel, India, and Germany.

Actually, that combination makes thus article weird, most of this topic have too many USA and UK sources, but this page has none? Possibly there is a another article about him with a different spelling of his name?

Irtapil (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also @Oleg Yunakov: I'm tentatively skeptical of "Hamas has thousands of killed members". As far as I can tell, that figure includes ALL males over 15 years old who've been killed in Gaza? when the number of militants was previously estimated as just 40,000 out of the half million men in Gaza, and the war has kilted thousands of adult female civilians.

The only way I see that adding up is if nearly all of the missing are dead combatants that Hamas are refusing to report, which is fairly plausible (under reporting combatant casualties is very common, and would be a lot easier than the over reporting of civilians they keep being accused of), but that's pure speculation. So currently I'm filing "thousands of dead Hamas militants" as "one side said", the same category as the number of Israeli tanks Al-Qassam claim to have destroyed?

But there is a slight bias towards adult males in the deaths so it could be one or two thousand, just not quite as many thousand as the IDF claim.

Irtapil (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you however an individual who receives only temporary news coverage doesn't meet the BIO1E guidelines. For instance, not every victim of the October 7 mass murder committed by Hamas has a dedicated article, despite multiple news coverages for each. I have done research when I wrote over 100 articles on this topic in ruwiki (including all major October 7 events such as all but one here, articles on Hamas members, settlements, victims and etc.). To warrant an article, sustained interest over a longer period and potential analytics, along with adherence to notability criteria is necessary.

I'm not referring to all males over 15 and 40K, but specifically focusing on the 8K killed Hamas members. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oleg Yunakov

I know exactly what your are referring to. I was saying I don't believe the "one side says" unless there's some other evidence (you seem to have my even read to the end of the headline, "says IDF spokesman"?) There is no independent source verifying tower 8,000 dead people exist, unless you count almost every dead man and dead teenage boy in Gaza. So,

The IDF just made up the number
The IDF are counting dead civilians as militants (seems most likely, the USA has often counted every adult male as a combatants, "military aged males", people write whole PhD theses on that)
The Hamas government in Gaza are hiding thousands of the deaths of combatants (quite common, Ukraine and Russia are both hiding the numbers)

18:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC) Irtapil (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disagreeing with you and I do not think that anyone would disagree that those numbers can only be used with an attribution. But I am missing the point regarding how such number is related to the notability of Murad Abu Murad? IMHO it's unrelated. Regarding the potential list of little stubs it has to comply with PEOPLELIST. If the guy has another name you are welcome to find it and prove notability. Otherwise we can say that anyone can have other name with potential notability. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oleg Yunakov And as I was saying below, I thin best solution is to make a list page complying all these little stubs. But, "Abu" is very common in militant pseudonyms, e.g. the spokesmen, so this guy possibly has another name…

18:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Second choice, Keep or merge with an existing page, but I would prefer…
Start a list page - There will probably be a lot of these little articles?

To begin with I would include all factions and Hezbollah (not just Hamas). We can split it if it gets too long. Some entries can refer to a ((main)) page, but most probably won't. But what do we call it? And should we include notabe civilians?

📝 "List of Palestinian and allied militants killed in the 2023-2024 Israel-Hamas war"

But that is too long?

📝 "Palestinian and allied militants killed in the 2023-2024 war"

Which war is probably implied

📝 "Alleged militants killed in the 2023-2024 Israel-Hamas war"

Some (e.g. Ali Bazi) seem to be officially unconfirmed and recently dead people probably warrant similar caution to WP:BLP? Possibly we could just make it comprehensive?

📝 "List of notable deaths in the 2023-2024 war"

That would include journalists and any other civilians whose deaths got substantial news coverage?
But the 1,139 deaths on the Israeli side at the beginning probably belong on a different list, the level of detail about them could easily fill an entire wiki page?

📝 "Notable non-Israeli casualties in the 2023-2024 war"

But I have never seen "notable" in an article title before, is there a better way to say that?
The 3 hostages who got shot seem like they belong in that list, but "kilted by Israel" is obviously going to cause problems. Possibly it could just be 8 October onwards? But the IDF soldiers seem like they belong elsewhere?

Irtapil (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of either having a list of casualties for the war in general, or split lists for Israeli/Palestinian sides, although the list of 'Notable' people may not be long enough for split articles. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:BIO1E applies. Probably worth making a list page. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OurGrid[edit]

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

Couldn't find any independent sources covering the subject. Some seminars, paper "OurGrid: An Approach to Easily Assemble Grids with Equitable Resource Sharing" - but I believe that they are not independent sources. Withdrawn by nominator because of new sources found by SailingInABathTub (thank you!) Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 06:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 06:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep - Changing to keep due to SailingInABathTub's edit. Thanks for finding reliable sources. ~~Unable to find independent or secondary coverage. There are some papers on academic sites and a seminar slideshow but they all come from people directly associated with the program and the university.~~ StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG. There is significant coverage in the following sources that appear to be independent of the developers:

Nikolaos Preve (2012). Computational and Data Grids: Principles, Applications, and Design. Information Science Reference. pp. 14–16. ISBN 9781613501146.

Šimon, M.; Huraj, L.; Siládi, V. (2013). "Analysis of performance bottleneck of P2P grid applications". Journal of Applied Mathematics, Statistics and Informatics. 9 (2). Sciendo: 5–11.

SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A review of these new sources would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Concur with User:SailingInABathTub that those sources demonstrate significant independent coverage. Jfire (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Other Girl (film)[edit]

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

Non notable film (per google search). Jax 0677 (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. All tags, declined Prod and Afd by the same user today....for a Oliver Hardy film, stating bluntly that it is ’’non notable (per google search)’’ is in my view a bit extreme. At the very least a redirect should have been considered. Still, my !vote is that this being 1 of the few films Hardy directed for Vim it can have its own article. So Keep. Added a few sources for verification (and removed the 1 source tag that had been added today...) . The film plot was added and adding it to Hardy’s filmo would not be easy, which is one more reason to keep the page as a standalone article.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: for a film as old as this, the likelihood that Google is going to find coverage is unlikely. You're gonna wanna check US newspaper/magazine archives for this one. Also worth noting that WP:BEFORE says the bare minimum isn't just a regular Google search, but also Google Books, News, and News archive, plus suggesting Google Scholar and The Wikipedia Library. Not to assume anything, but "per google search" doesn't immediately suggest to me that you were as thorough as asked. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the pagename The Other Girl is also subject to a primary topic rename. See Talk:The Other Girl -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 08:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the AF1 reference here shows contemporary coverage in The Moving Picture World Atlantic306 (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's about another Other girl, though. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, struck comment Atlantic306 (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nomination. बिनोद थारू (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any Oliver Hardy film is by definition notable and, in this film, he is both the star and director. Also, there are a number of sources, as listed under The Other Girl (film)#References that confirm the film's release and its positioning in film history. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Mushy Yank and User:Roman Spinner above. While existing coverage is thin its role in Hardy's career is extensive enough it definately shouldn't be a red link and for a film of this vintage hard copy sources are likely to exist so a simple Google search is abviously inadequate to demonstrate non-notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:32, 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!} 04:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, decent sourcing and article, and the nomination statement "Non notable film (per google search)" is one of the worse. Geschichte (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added. Toughpigs (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ranch House Estates, California[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG per NGEO. Unneeded CFORK of Pine Grove, Amador County, California. BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. I don't think the title is a good redirect, but if there is a consensus I have no objection. – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:11, 5 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 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

● Delete - This is a non-notable neighborhood located in Pine Grove, Amador County, California. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable, no evidence to be found.James.folsom (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. // Timothy :: talk 22:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unnecessary WP:CFORK of parent article that does not expand any further other than mentioning it exists. Neighborhood is non-notable and there is nothing expansive that can be said about it. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 04:48, 6 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. It would be wonderful if these sources could find their way into the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Gehrke[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:N based on review of internet presence, and does not appear to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC either (closest criterion would be #1, but the awards and works do not seem to rise much beyond the level that one would ordinarily need to receive tenure, which is not sufficient to satisfy the guideline) Go Phightins! 14:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Minnesota. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:POET. Coverage includes:

Barkan, Leonard (2008). "Picture This". Parnassus: Poetry in Review. 30 (1/2): 419–438. Perhaps what is needed is simply a richer narrative than one in which the poet soliloquizes or in which pictorial subjects are given a chance to exorcise their silence. Steve Gehrke's Michelangelo's Seizure represents a dazzling success in this vein. In one sense, the book takes the form of the familiar picture gallery, from the Sistine Chapel to Mapplethorpe, but in this instance the poet has done his homework before coming to the museum. He has immersed himself in the lives of painters and subjects, so that they take on some of Lucrece's fictional multi-dimensionality, which is the proper province of language, and which enables us to see both into and through the images on the walls...
Kaufman, E.M. (2007-08-01). "Michelangelo's Seizure". Library Journal. 132 (13). This is Gehrke's third book of poetry; the first two won prestigious prizes, and this one was selected for the National Poetry Series by T.R. Hummer. These brawny, ekphrastic poems trace the artistic endeavors of several great artists... [T]his poet's powers extend considerably beyond the easy metaphor. Recommended.
Beaven, Craig (2007). "The 2005 National Poetry Series". Gulf Coast: A Journal of Literature & Fine Arts. 19 (2): 308–312. Among poets, the oeuvre of Steve Gehrke has become something of a legend. Gehrke's first collection of poems, The Resurrection Machine, won the John Ciardi Prize from BkMk Press when he was just 29 years old; his second, The Pyramids of Malpighi, was published by Anhinga Press four years later, receiving the Philip Levine Prize (judged by Levine himself). And now his third book, Michelangelo's Seizure, has been selected by T. R. Hummer for the 2005 National Poetry Series.
Welch, Kathleen (2002). "Book Review: Life, Death and Love in the Hum of Medical Technology: The Resurrection Machine, by Steve Gehrke. Kansas City, MO: University of Missouri-Kansas City Bookmark Press, 2000". The Journal of Medical Humanities. 23 (3/4): 272–274. Selected for the 1999 John Ciardi Prize for Poetry, Steve Gehrke’s poetry book, The Resurrection Machine, poignantly discusses issues such as disease, degeneration, death, love, transplantation, and loss... It is refreshing to read a poet who unusually captures the essence of current medical ethics without polarizing the moral dilemmas of modern medicine.

This is sufficient coverage to establish that Gehrke meets WP:POET, which requires that [t]he person's work (or works) has ... won significant critical attention. Jfire (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, thanks to sufficient sources provided by Jfire. TheOmniDex (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:14, 5 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 22:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Miller[edit]

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

Only wo references, one to a table and one to a database, neither of which establish notability. I can't find any sources outside of press releases from the team or general lists. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Miller appears to meet the WP:GNG with sources such as [[62]] and [[63]]. Let'srun (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 1 is a puff piece, but it does (somewhat) help to establish notability. Source 2 is a quote, from him, which fails at providing WP:SIGCOV GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That first source is not a puff piece, there's no undue praise and it includes some criticism. It reads like a typical feature story and should easily count towards GNG. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's agree to disagree over what the actual story counts as- but what criticism? It hardly matters in an AFD discussion whether the piece is critical or not- but I've re-read the piece a few times and I'm having a hard time seeing anything that could be taken as critical. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Someone who played 39 games in the modern NFL is always going to be notable, there's plenty of coverage available, e.g. the ones above and a bunch more at Newspapers.com. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link any particular examples? I've looked through quite a few and I'm still having a hard time that aren't just trivial mentions mentioning that he played or didn't play in any particular game. I'd really appreciate it if you could share the ones you've found. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Clearly notable.-- Yankees10 04:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Passes GNG with coverage like (1) a two-page feature story in a major metropolitan daily (part 1/part 2) as well as (2) the Dayton Daily News piece linked above by User:Let'srun. However, the article at the time of the nomination failed WP:SPORTBASIC: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Hopefully, this can be promptly remedied by someone by adding at least one piece of SIGCOV to the article. Cbl62 (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional SIGCOV (3) here, (4) here, (5) here, and (6) here. Cbl62 (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thank you to User:Alvaldi for adding SIGCOV sources to the article. That resolves the SPORTBASIC issue. Cbl62 (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG comfortably with the above sources (I took the liberty and added many of them to the article). For most modern-ish day American athletes who reach that top-tier professional stage, they were notable college players before and Newspapers.com is usually a treasure trove for sources for those kind of players. Alvaldi (talk) 09:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets GNG. Rlendog (talk) 00:50, 7 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. Two relistings and no new comments means it's time to close this discussion. But you can continue the discussion of a possible Merge or Redirect to another article on this article's talk page. I don't think you two editors are that far away from a decision given a little more time than what's allowed here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MicMac (software)[edit]

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

I believe it doesn't merit a standalone article. No reliable independent sources indicating notability of this software, thus it doesn't meet WP:NSOFT. Was PROD'ed before (reason: No indication of noteworthiness, no evidence of notability.). PROD was declined with the summary: as per Wikipedia:Notability (software)#Inclusion. Not sure how it satisfies any of the criteria listed in the "Inclusion" section. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 05:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 05:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it satisfies WP:NSOFT (inclusion criterion #4) as it's a topic convered in the "Photogrammetric terminology" (doi:10.1111/phor.12314), an authoritative source published in The Photogrammetric Record, the official academic journal of the Photogrammetry Society (UK). fgnievinski (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fgnievinski: It is just mentioned there (as terminology), the inclusion criterion #4 says It has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources. It's not WP:SIGCOV, so doesn't count. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a selective source, not a comprehensive listing. Thus, mere inclusion automatically satisfies recognition of historical or technical significance. The academic editor already exerted their judgment by selecting which software to include and exclude from the terminology. fgnievinski (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a good idea to redirect MicMac to Photogrammetry#Software section and add a line about MicMac there. Because I don't think it deserves a standalone article, but it definitely deserves to be mentioned in relation to Photogrammetry. What do you think? Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's Comparison of photogrammetry software. Depending on one's inclinations (good will or ill will), probably most of the software mentioned there could be challenged on the basis of WP:NSOFT. fgnievinski (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fgnievinski to be fair, the section is called "Comparison of notable packages" and MicMac isn't there (though it is in the "See also" section) Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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]} 22:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ATV News[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete The article has been unreferenced for 16 years, and I cannot find any sources that would demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. Maybe this article could be merged with ATV? Tooncool64 (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep...from a cursory look the Chinese article has plenty of sources? Not all of them are perfect but I spot a lot more than 3 decent ones in there. Sources don't have to be English. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with PARAKANYAA, not sure if WP:BEFORE was properly done, especially the B7 section. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider the sources in the Chinese Wikipedia article for GNG/SIGCOV etc.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the nom had nominated this inexplicably for speedy deletion as a hoax to start with along with this response on why they're deleting articles irrationaly, I don't feel this is a proper nomination at all and there's no issue with the sourcing in the article. Tooncool, please stay out of deletion discussions until you understand the process a lot more. Nate • (chatter) 03:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no sourcing for the article as current, that is the issue. Tooncool64 (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That certainly doesn't answer my concern that you thought this was a hoax, then prodded, then took this to deletion when it's self-evidently notable as the network's news division. Why did you think this was a hoax in the first place when it was obvious ATV had a news division? And why are you asking for deletion when sources in its native language are easily available? Nate • (chatter) 15:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Initially I made a mistake tagging it has a hoax. At the time, I was not clear on WP policy, since then I have read much more about it since I first nominated this article for deletion. I still stand by it however, as I believe that the sources available on the Chinese Wikipedia do not demonstrate proper WP:SIGCOV. Tooncool64 (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as I have already voted. I added sources to some stuff in the article, which discuss this station in depth - a lot discuss the general woes of ATV but a lot are about their news channel in specific. I would recommend future editors look through this for future expansion of this article, as there's a decent amount to expand on. I'd do it myself but rn i am very sick (and i am very lazy). PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New sources hint at SIGCOV, and there is probably much more in Chinese. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PARAKANYAA. 三葉草SanYeCao · Talk 01:04, 8 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 Tetra Tech. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tetra Tech Coffey[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All but one of the sources are promotional, and the same appears to be the case for any sources that I could find online. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Engineering, and Australia. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it again to Tetra Tech. Not independently notable. Geeraarts (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 03:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajnesh Singh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was 16 years ago with a no consensus result. Hardly any articles link to this. Almost all of the sources are primary. Note there are 2 Indian academics with the same name (and only a minor number of citations). Fails WP:BIO LibStar (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, Oceania, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find any significant coverage. Most of the references are 404 not found. Macbeejack ☎ 14:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 5 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article but improvements, as suggested in this discussion, still need to be made. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Stretton[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST. Most sources are from http://www.rosekorberart.com/ which appears to be a primary source. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Visual arts, and South Africa. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I recovered the dead links to the citations and added more details. Although it looked like all the sources were from a gallery website, they were actually reviews of her work from other publications; the content of the reviews was reposted on the gallery website. Thus, there are ample examples of significant coverage. Included is a review in The Sunday Independent, the magazines Contempo and Art South Africa, and a review in Monday Paper. I also added missing citations and looked into the awards listed in the Infobox. She was a finalist for the Absa L'Atelier Art Competition three times and was selected for the Spier Contemporary Competition and Exhibition which appears to be a big deal in the South African art scene. Rublamb (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the work put in by Rublamb. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per comments by Rublamb to meet WP:NARTIST. WP:DINC, even if most sources at the time the article was nominated were primary. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article relies mainly on primary sources for biographical and exhibition/collection information. I am not finding reliable sourcing for the information presented. The entire content about Stretton at the VISI citation is The series by Pamela Stretton, who was born in South Africa and now lives in the U.K., focuses on the female body, and is to a large extent autobiographical. This press release was cited multiple times. Fails WP:ARTIST. Not part of any significant exhibitions or collections, and does not have significant RS coverage. WP:TOOSOON --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks like you missed part of the VISI article. The full content to consider is: "Featuring three extraordinary artists – Lyndi Sales, Pamela Stretton and Eris Silke – the exhibition showcases a collection of artworks from colourful abstract creations to images built up from pixilated digital ink-jet prints and sensitive paintings of dreams and fantasy. ...The series by Pamela Stretton, who was born in South Africa and now lives in the U.K., focuses on the female body, and is to a large extent autobiographical. Issues such as beauty ideals and the body’s relationship with popular culture, fashion, health and food come to the fore in her works, which take the form of pixilated digital inkjet prints. Each 20 x 20mm pixel contains iconography drawn from the food, fashion, consumerism and health and fitness industries, such that the viewer is forced to stand at a distance in order to make the image visually resolve." This could be used to replace primary sources in the article. Also, it is allowable to use primary sources—they just don't apply toward notability. The key here is that there are potential secondary sources that can be used to expand the article. The review in The Sunday Independent proves notablity and is not yet used. Rublamb (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To reinforce the point about primary sources, note WP:PRIMARY#3 and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like Rublamb missed the point that the VISI article is a press release put out by the gallery. No byline, and the bottom states Catch this showcase of the power of women in art at Cape Town’s Barnard Gallery until 13 April. For more info on the exhibition or artists, visit www.barnardgallery.com.. I understand primary sources can be used for some facts, but I do not think they can be used to establish notability. Nor can native advertising. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability. I hadn't noticed that was a press release (normally I'd expect to see press releases published in multiple locations), so I'm changing my !vote to a weaker keep. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As someone who used to write press releases and do PR for a living, reporters often end an article that way,, especially when writing about exhibitions and shows. I never assume something is a press release unless I see the same content in several places. But let's assume @WomenArtistUpdates is correct and remove VISI from the list of articles toward notability. These sources remain: The Sunday Independent, the magazines Contempo and Art South Africa, and a review in Monday Paper. Rublamb (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the remaining "sources", there is the Monday Paper - the newspaper for University of Cape Town , and Art South Africa, which I can find no reference of existence. Are you familiar with that publication or has her gallery presented a typo in the title? Again, not much help in establishing notability. ~~Contempo Magazine is a pretty weak source as well.~~ Whoops wrong magazine. No Idea about the South African publication. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is what Art South Africa look like. A typical art journal that is significant/notable enough to be sold through the used book market. I have also added a link to a PDF of the Spier catalog.Rublamb (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A search found reliable sources that show notability, including the subject's participation in the 10-year Spier national art project, which Smithsonian Libraries noted was juried. I have added that to the subject's article. This clearly passes WP:GNG and meets WP:NARTIST. AuthorAuthor (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trying for one more relist before closing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Rublamb and above. dxneo (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per AuthorAuthor, in addition the The Sunday Independent's review. Qaqaamba (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still think the article relies on primary sources. Nothing in the citations added have shown this artist's notability. All material from https://web.archive.org/web/20110306175509/http://www.rosekorberart.com/exhibitions/stretton/stretton.htm should be removed. Most of the reviews point to the subject being a recovered anorexic as the hook. Doesn't make her a notable artist. As the college newspaper says It was time to package the experience^[1]. There is nothing notable about the Spier Contemporary award. It appears to be a showcase for a winery.^[2] Hoping another editor familiar with notability requirements for a living "creative" will take a look and agree with me. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Rose Korber Art". web.archive.org. 8 March 2011. Retrieved 9 January 2024.
^ "The Spier Art Collection". Spier Wine Farm. Retrieved 9 January 2024.

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 03:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1900 South Bend Howard Park Club football team[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NSEASONS. Played only 2 games. Let'srun (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Indiana. Let'srun (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks WP:SIGCOV of the type needed to pass WP:GNG. This is not a college football team. Nor is it notable in any other way so as to warrant a stand-alone encylopedia article. Howard Park is and was a municipal park in South Bend, Indiana, and the article is about a club team that apparently was affiliated in some way, shape, or form with the municipal park. The 1900 Notre Dame football team scheduled three preliminary games (probably more accurately scrimmages) against two local high schools and this group from the local municipal park. Not surprisingly, the Notre Dame team crushed the two high schools and the local park team by obscene scores. The Indianapolis Journal piece that is cited (here) only contains the briefest passing reference to Howard Park as the patsy who got crushed. Cbl62 (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cbl62. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hardly a "season" so can't meet WP:NSEASONS. Geschichte (talk) 07:46, 11 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 appears to be that sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 03:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E.V.A. (band)[edit]

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

Unsourced and absolutely not notable. Fails WP:BAND. Sgubaldo (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Italy. Sgubaldo (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: There appears to be Italian language coverage of this band in these three sources. Left guide (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The second two sources are press releases. Here is another source: [64]. It does not say much, though, and I wouldn't consider it significant coverage. If more sources come up, I will reconsider. Broc (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's also coverage in Il Piccolo (p. 27, bottom left) and La Stampa (centre of the page). I also found it:Girodivite (link) but that doesn't seem reliable. toweli (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Toweli: thanks for finding those sources. In my opinion it still does not fulfill WP:SIGCOV as Il Piccolo is a local newspaper and the mention in La Stampa is on the local section of Vercelli and not on the national newspaper. --Broc (talk) 08:47, 5 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 as there is no merger target that currently exists. @BeanieFan11: if you (or anyone else) end up creating it, just ping me and I'll restore the history under a redirect for you to merge. Star Mississippi 03:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC) ETA: Have subsequently draftified per request. Star Mississippi 03:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1903 Academy of Idaho Bantams football team[edit]

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

This abbreviated season fails the WP:NSEASONS. Only 2 games played, with neither of them coming against another college. Let'srun (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and Idaho. Let'srun (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Create and merge to Academy of Idaho Bantams football, 1902–1909 – strongly oppose outright deletion for this historical season of a Division I program. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes it historical, exactly? Please provide evidence if you are going to make such a claim. None of the other seasons within your range currently have articles as it stands, so I'm not sure what would be included besides this season. Let'srun (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes it historical, exactly? Please provide evidence if you are going to make such a claim. Idaho State is a Division I program. This was one of their seasons. It's that simple. As for the merger, if no one else would, I would add the additional season data. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What notability guideline gives all Division 1 programs seasons inherent notability? Let'srun (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per the relist comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1926 Delaware State Hornets football team, merge is not a viable close result unless the proposed target article already exists. If someone cares enough about Idaho State football to create the proposed target article in the next few days, and if that target artice has sufficient sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG, then a redirect would be a viable option. Absent that, nothing of particular value will be lost if the current two-sentence micro-stub were to be deleted. Cbl62 (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cbl62: Do you believe that an article of the Idaho State Bengals' first eight seasons would be notable? The reason I have not yet created such an article is that I prefer to not risk putting "the cart before the horse" / I prefer to know if there's consensus for such an action first. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say without doing the work to see if there's sufficient SIGCOV. Personally, I don't feel so strongly about Idaho State football that I would be willing to put in all the work needed to create the decade article only to then find out that there's not enough SIGCOV. A Newspapers.com search is probably the place to start to see if the coverage is there. Cbl62 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a quick look, there seems to be some decent coverage just for one of the 1903 games, see [65] - a decade one looks like it'd be notable. I'll try to do one if no one beats me to it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS as things currently stand. This season was not part of intercollegiate football, consisting instead of games against a local high school and an unknown squad (possibly a local military company). Moreover, I do not agree that every Idaho State season is per se notable, as even today, Idaho State is a second-tier team (FBS is the higher tier with the 133 top teams, and Idaho State is part of FCS which consists of 128 lower-level teams). If someone cares enough to add SIGCOV to the article or to create an appropriate (and reasonably well-sourced) redirect/merge target, I could be persuaded to change my vote, but no such redirect/merge target currently exists. Finally, deletion does not result in any great loss as this is a sub-stub sourced only to the regrettably defunct CFBDW. Cbl62 (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 03:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Chang[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:NPROF, WP:GNG, etc. Some previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#Carolina Chang (and h-index). –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Computing, and Venezuela. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The changes since mid-December when the article was a draft and when I participated in the discussion linked above have done nothing to change my opinion: "WP:PROF#C1 is out of reach currently and there seems to be nothing else; I think that if the draft were made an article it would be surely be deleted." Despite this advice, the author promoted their own draft, so now here we are. A university-local prize (present in the article at the time of that discussion) and an administrative position that is far from head of an entire university are also not enough to pass any PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: As a disclaimer, I want to clarify I have no disregarded this input, it's just that I'm not sure in which other ways I can continue improving the article and an inactive draft will be deleted regardless, meaning I preferred an AfD, as I commented in the article's talk page. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NoonIcarus: Incidentally, if you have any connection with Carolina Chang, you might suggest that she clean up her Google Scholar profile. All of the publications listed there more recently than 2015, and at least one earlier one from 2013, appear to be by someone else, Catie Chang of NIH. Two more of the top six papers by citation count, "Canine vagus nerve stores cholecystokinin-58" and "A model of operant conditioning for adaptive obstacle avoidance", appear not to be by Chang, dropping her h-index from 11 to 10. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: I don't have any connection with Chang, as that evidently would create a conflict of interest. She gave classes at my university, but I never received classes from her nor have I personally met her. I appreciate the feedback, at any rate. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'd argue that the closest criteria that Chang meets is WP:NACADEMIC, specifically #2, receiving awards for outstanding academic work twice at the Simón Bolívar University, where she has been a prominent faculty and held administrative positions. Her H-index is 11. Another discussion is Talk:Carolina Chang#H-index, but one of my concerns has been how the index can be affected by the region, with Chang being from South America, and I've read threads at WP:NPROF's talk page expressing similar fears for women. A recommendation I could give is to compare Chang's index with other Venezuelan academics.

I'm aware of the article's issues, but as the article's creator I also wished to provide some context about its history. The article was first created in the 2018 VenezuElla edithaton, and had previously listed as a suggestion for the March 2018 100 Chicas Wiki edithaton and April 2017 ChicasWiki edithaton. I translated this article into English and uploaded an image as part of the Women in Red's Women in STEM editathon in October. The WikiProject has at least three missing articles lists where she's included, like Scientists and Venezuela. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: NoonIcarus (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Delete. Citation levels are below what I'm looking for even in a low citation field (and this is a higher citation one) for WP:NPROF C1. Local university awards are not the type of award discussed by WP:NPROF C2. No other assertion of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply fails WP:GNG, lacks notability and the citations are relatively unreliable and poor. Noorullah (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. NoonIcarus (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citations not enough yet: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Subject doesn't meet C1 of WP:NPROF at the present time. Also agree that local university awards are not relevant to C2. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed that the citations are nowhere close to enough for this field, regardless of her being in Venezuela or being a woman (and would it really be better to have markedly lower standards for inclusion of academics from minority groups?). That some wikiprojects or other editions of wikipedia have her listed as a redlink does not mean her notability has actually been evaluated WRT en.wiki standards. If you want a list of STEM women who likely do meet NPROF C1 you can look at my userpage. JoelleJay (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Citations aside they fail WP:NPROF. I checked Google Scholar, Google, the newspaper archives, and was unable to uncover anything to meet WP:NPROF. Dr vulpes (Talk) 20:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 03:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bodrida[edit]

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

This appears to be the name of a field. I have searched back through the OS archives and, where this name occurs, it always appears to reference a field. I cannot imagine that Wikipedia's notability policy extends down to individual fields. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 00:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 00:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete An old OS map seems to indicate that "Bodriga" is the name of the farm that the current label sits in. That it is a farm is obvious from Gmaps, and unless someone can find a source showing it is a historically notable farm, the article needs to go. I especially like the pretentious "insular hamlet" as if it were a term, when the two words are WLed separately: yes, it is "insular" in being on an island, but no, it's not only not a special kind of hamlet, but the most cursory look at the thing from the air or on Streetview shows that it's not a hamlet at all. You really have to look at these things when writing articles on them. Mangoe (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete - per Mangoe, it is a farm, not a settlement. Streetview: [66]. Thus does not meet WP:GEOLAND. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is just a farm that does not meet WP:GEOLAND as established above. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep, just a farm. An archeological survey in 2013 (the landowner wanted to install a wind turbine) uncovered not much of note. Essentially all that is available in RSs about it is the names of the 19th century landowners and tenant. Jfire (talk) 18:45, 6 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.