Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 1: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 15:51, 9 December 2023

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< November 30	December 02 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even though these were redirected by the author to circumvent deletion, WP:IAR applies due to copyright concerns. Any editor is free to create fresh redirects as needed. ✗plicit 01:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Call Me A Donut Wall

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

Fails WP:NTVEP & WP:GNG, non-notable tv coverage. ASUKITE 18:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 18:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related articles (sorry...) ~~It will take me a moment to tag them, but I should have them tagged in a while.~~

Merge and redirect all to Call Me Kat. BD2412 T 20:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that in my nomination, but that's the outcome I was hoping for myself, just a bit much for me to be bold about and do. Just wanted to note that I support this idea as it might save a lot of the editor's work (even if it creates a bit more) - I could see an episode list with the synopses included in a column, or perhaps a separate episodes list article. nevermind, I'm leaning towards delete again, but it looks like the user already started redirecting the articles anyways. ASUKITE 20:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The likely target already has such a structure, it is just not well-filled in. BD2412 T 21:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. The only sources I could find are routine coverage of the fact that it was the series finale or commenting on the guest appearance of Russell Dickerson. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Striking my !vote as I voted using the XFD tool and didn't come to this page first where the other episodes are listed. I will weigh in after evaluating those articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge all to Call Me Kat I have found very few RSes that have reviewed individual episodes, and each episode I found appears to be covered in only one RS. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article creator has changed all of these articles into Redirects to the TV series. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every one of these is a copyright violation: Orma.iasfbo.inaf.it:7007/~mauro/TV/PDF/CALLMEKAT.pdf

Redirecting them is insufficient. They need to be deleted. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oof. I never found that. I'd say this could be speedied at that rate. Having had a second look at the creator's talk page, there have been some similar issues. Edited my reply above, I should have just given this more time. ASUKITE 03:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see whether there is more support/insistence that a Deletion is necessary or if these pages can exist as Redirects.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect all, per COPYVIO and other issues noted above.

JoelleJay (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect each — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Obimo. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akpotoro

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

I couldn't find the sources to confirm WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND. It has been in CAT:NN for 3 years. Boleyn (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this is verified to exist as a community, it should redirect to Obimo. BD2412 T 18:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Obimo per above. Fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 12:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Coalition combat operations in Afghanistan in 2008. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lowara Madi incident

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

Too minor an incident for a stand-alone, why do we need this? Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Minor incident a decade ago, no lasting effects. You can barely find mention of it now, likely not notable. Coverage at the time was scant. Oaktree b (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge referenced text into Ghulam Khan and Coalition combat operations in Afghanistan in 2008 and then delete. Why throw away the data? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above sounds reasonable, but notably "merge and delete" is not a possible result. As such, something needs to be done about the original article as well. I'd suggest redirecting to Coalition combat operations in Afghanistan in 2008, but I've no strong preference here. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Coalition combat operations in Afghanistan in 2008. There is sourced info that could be useful in the parent article, but no independent notability exists for this event using criteria in WP:NEVENT. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable on its own. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this seems to be a non-incident whereby one party fired some shots and the other turned around and retreated. Quite how this is an article I am unsure, but I also don't think it's sufficiently close enough to being a notable subject that there is not any need for content retention. Hence, I don't think there is an appropriate case for any merging. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see whether there is more support for a Deletion or a Merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Coalition combat operations in Afghanistan in 2008. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 10:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1001–1011 Jefferson Street

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING ("Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.") This has been in CAT:NN for 2 years. Boleyn (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Geography, and Delaware. Skynxnex (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only source cited is a dead link -- and when that link was live, it was to a page on the building developer's own website. So there are no independent sources provided, nor can I find any good sources myself. This building is described on this page merely as a "vision" since 2017, and there is no indication here that it is actually going to be built at all, much less any time soon. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bratenahl Place

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING ("Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.") Has been in CAT:NN for over 6 years. Boleyn (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A shame there are no sources, because this is a well written starter article. However, nothing is substantiated by secondary sources, so verification is an issue. So too is notability, as significant and indepth secondary sources are required to establish notability. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

André Duval

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

He doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Bo-ik

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Her only claim to significance is being related to some famous people, the cited references are neither reliable sources nor substantial coverage, and nothing better has been found on searching. JBW (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. JBW (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is not inherent. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD"d so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned above, not inherited, and this is article is also just a genealogical policy violation. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Zhengyan

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

Fails WP:ARTIST and I can't find any significant coverage. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and China. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For those searching for sources, the subject's name is 吴争艳 / 吳爭艷. I'm hoping to get to this over the weekend. Folly Mox (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found two articles (both suspiciously by the same author) that demonstrate SIGCOV. The subject has also had a collection published in print. Those are probably the three best sources, although I had a few other leads where the connection timed out on me, so who knows. There's also this 2013 dual exhibition which doesn't contribute to notability. I'm not able to assess notability here. Folly Mox (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We could use additional analysis of newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The claims to multiple independent sources has been acutely debunked by Uncle G with no reply in nearly a whole week. Consensus exists to delete. Daniel (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crimean tunnel

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

TOOSOON. A proposed tunnel project that hasn't been built, despite several years of discussions, is not notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Russia, and Ukraine. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recently there has been a lot of news about building a Crimean tunnel due to a leak^[1] This should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxsmart50 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. this isn't a current project, but is an inevitable project. Current discussions of the project are important to document. Thor gunthorson (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - A project that has supposedly been in development since 2018 but for which there are no finalized plans, no budget allocated, and no ground broken is not "inevitable". voorts (talk/contributions) 20:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there are articles where these plans can be mentioned. Delete Marcelus (talk) 09:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/11/24/russia-crimea-tunnel-china/

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't enough sourcing. Inasmuch as most of the other sources are for background that couldn't possibly be about this subject, because they pre-date it by years, this is basically all hanging off one news cycle on 2023-11-24, and that in turn is almost all people re-reporting a Washington Post article. (I went and had a look. Everyone reported the Post's reporting.) There really isn't a second independent source for this, yet. As such it fails the requirement for multiple independent good sources. And this wouldn't be the first time that no-one else is able to back up some breathless exposé by the Post on what China is supposedly doing. We always need multiple independent sources for good reasons, and the Post on China exemplifies one of them. There hasn't been a "lot of news". There has been one story. And this isn't a newspaper. Uncle G (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There are numerous different independent sources including the Kyiv Post an Moscow Times (a Russian newspaper in exile) which were both cited on here. I have another link to The Telegraph which is definitely a reliable source. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/11/24/russia-china-discuss-building-underwater-tunnel-crimea/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxsmart50 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - You claim of independence is clearly falsified by the text of The Telegraph piece, which has "the Washington Post reported" in its second paragraph, and by the text of the Moscow Times piece that not only says "and reported by the Washington Post" even hyperlinks the word "reported" to the Post's piece. Simply put: you are double-counting things to inflate your sourcing. Uncle G (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There is a disagreement on whether to keep or redirect, but as far as rationales that directly address the issue of notability and sourcing (rather than cleanup-related issues like the unsourced portions or fancruft) there appears to be a general consensus that the sourcing is sufficient to show notability. Aoidh (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mach Five

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

AFD requested at WP:AFD. Rationale: Does not appear to be independently notable. NotAGenious (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. NotAGenious (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The current article is pure WP:FANCRUFT, poorly referenced too. My BEFORE shows this is a minor popculture icon (at the level of many similar things that appeared in the background of Ready Player One, for exmaple), but I can't find any WP:SIGCOV analysis of it. The best source I found is this local news piece (fron The Everett Herald) about a fan building a replica: [1]. I don't think this is enough. (there is a two-page description in this self-published book, not very helpful given its nature). This could be redirected to Speed_Racer#The_Mach_5 for now per ATD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport, Transportation, and Japan. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References 5 and 8 appear sufficient to meet GNG, although the former needs to be located in archive. The sheer number of cultural references should be a clue that this is too iconic an element to be redirected or merged anywhere. Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The cultural references are pretty minor and unsourced; 5 and 8 don't seem to indicate cultural significance (they are more about the movie and the car they made for it than anything) 38.75.235.237 (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... and they wouldn't be real-world transformations of the fictional vehicle if it weren't already notable. Jclemens (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, there is no real analysis of this in sources; they're talking about it in the context of the franchise 38.75.235.237 (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Non-sequitur. Fictional elements are almost always talked about "in the context of the franchise" but doing so non-trivially by independent RS'es establishes notability. Also note for the record that this IP address is the one for whom this nomination was originally opened, so should be understood to not be a separate individual than the nominator. Jclemens (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not going to !vote on this AfD, as I have a decades-old-and-thus-now-minor WP:COI with regard to the Speed Racer franchise. However, I thought I should note that there has been at least one publication focused on the Mach 5. The Speed Racer Special, published in 1988, had a car-focused comics story followed by 10 pages of history and technical specs about the Mach 5. I don't know if this moves the needle for anyone's consideration. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that the "real" Mach 5s, which we are currently using an anime website for as a reference, got mainstream newspaper coverage. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a primary source 38.75.235.237 (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per WP:TNT, with no objection to recreation if the article can be improved with sources, or during this discussion per WP:HEY. Right now it is completely unsalvageable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ https://www.forbes.com/2008/05/07/fastest-fictional-cars-forbeslife-cx_mn_de_0507fictional_slide.html?sh=4605943936de is all I could find. Dream Focus 15:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Speed Racer#The Mach 5 - The current article needs a complete rewriting, and even then, I am not convinced that the car is notable enough on its own that a separate article from the series main article would even make sense. The sources both in the article and presented here are not great - even the ones being noted as being the best ones here are simply on the fact that real life props/replicas of the car have been made, rather than any kind of genuine analysis or reception of the actual fictional car the article is about. Rorshacma (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens's sources and the "In popular culture" section. It does need more reception and more sources but AFD is not cleanup. I also agree that "The "real" Mach Five" would not exist if the fictional Mach Five was not notable. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jclemens make a good point. Dream Focus 05:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This clearly passes the GNG and there's coverage in Japanese. WP:NOENG applies here. DCsansei (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one more time. Opinion and arguments are split right down the middle on whether or not sources are sufficient to establish notability. Let's see if another week can tip the scales between Keep and Redirect. Thanks to those participants who took the effort to go looking for additional sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per WP:TNT. Article is mostly unsourced. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 01:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG with 2 sources noted by JClemens and the 2 newspapers.com clippings by Nat Gertler. Current article doesn't require TNT and can serve as a basis for an improved article. —siro χ o 22:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Speed Racer#The Mach 5. Fails GNG, Nothing with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from WP:IS WP:RS found in article or above. If SIGCOV sources are ever found, it would take WP:TNT to create a proper article, as written this is just WP:OR fancruft. // Timothy :: talk 00:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ due to lack of participation. This can be renominated immediately if so desired (ping User:Let'srun). Daniel (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

North Louisiana Football Alliance

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

Subject lacks the needed independent, in depth secondary coverage to meet the WP:GNG. Most of the current sources merely are from the league website or are quoting press releases and are not in any way independent. Let'srun (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, American football, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LetsRun, do you have a semi-pro league that you feel is being threatened by the North Louisiana Football Alliance. I ask because im wondering how, out of the 74,919,671 wiki articles did YOU decide this one article should be deleted? Leave the NLFA wiki page alone. 2601:3C8:C000:62B0:3AA:C84C:624:E35 (talk) 01:01, 5 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!} 23:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain? Your claim reads more like your personal opinion and lacks facts. You stated that each source was taken from the league website when it clearly came from independent news sources. Also, take note that any and all non-creditable news sources were removed from the article months ago. So if regional newspapers and the local news aren't creditable news sources, nearly half the articles on Wikipedia should be removed. If it reads that bad, help improve it rather than delete it. 152.132.9.72 (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, @Let'srun

I'm just getting a chance to look at my notifications and I noticed that you tagged my article for deletion. I'm curious to know why you felt the need to randomly nominate an article I've worked almost 2 years on to maintain (along with the help of other creditable editors might I add) for deletion.

If the "subject lacked the needed independent coverage" as you claim, why didn't you make the necessary additions to it like everyone else who came across the article?

Did you even do any research to support your claim? Or do you just like picking random articles to nominate for deletion because you don't agree with the subject material or how it's written?

Since I've been a wiki editor I've always researched and provided citations for the material included, and if the source goes against wiki guidelines there has been no issues with wiki BOTS making the proper changes.

So I'd appreciate it if you'd remove your tag and leave my articles alone please. Thank you in advance. DLabS3 (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it can be upsetting for a article of yours to be nominated at AfD, but I always look to see if there is coverage for a subject via a WP:BEFORE check, and unfortunately here I couldn't find much WP:SIGCOV with which to add. Here is the source analysis I have for this article based off of the sources listed here. #2 is a profile about the founder and has independence concerns. #3 is the same as the first source reposted, #4 is not WP:SIGCOV, #5 is not WP:SIGCOV as a single paragraph that appears to be directly reposted from the league website, #6, #7, #9, #10, #11, #12, and #14 are all league press releases and are not independent of the source. The only source that may possibly qualify for WP:GNG is #13, but I am not certain about the reliability of the source.

I also never said "that each source was taken from the league website". I only said that most of them are, which I maintain is accurate. Let'srun (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist since I gather there is at least one unbolded Keep vote here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dust Waltz

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources other than this short review in a Vernon Press published book: [2] Mika1h (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Mika1h (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this. It barely looks like a publisher's release information. No sources indicate notability of any kind. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 09:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage at [3]. It appears in the index of [4] so I assume there's something usable there. Notability does appear to be marginal so a merge could also be a good solution. ~Kvng (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now, looks like No consensus. If it was a Merge, what would the target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NBOOK. No sources in article, above or in BEFORE showed WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from WP:IS WP:RS. // Timothy :: talk 17:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lizandra González

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

The subject, a Cuban women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions like 1, 2, and 3. JTtheOG (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable athlete microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Monokroussos

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

He exists, but I couldn't establish sources showing he meets WP:N. In CAT:NN for more than 13 years. Boleyn (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Sportspeople, Journalism, Internet, Indiana, Nevada, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Contested WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The name is familiar to me and the article has been around for a while so I thought he might have written a few books... but no, just a few articles on websites like chessbase. Hasn't played in a US championship or represented the US at anything, hasn't won anything important. Doesn't meet the threshold of notability, per the informal WP:NCHESS criteria. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Let'srun (talk) 04:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NAUTHOR. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Bakani

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

The subject, a Papua New Guinean women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions like 1, 2, and 3. JTtheOG (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:GNG Svartner (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – GNG concerns as identified by NOM. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Kenya women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Lumasia

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

Redirect to List of Kenya women's international footballers. I am unable to find anything more than passing mentions such as 1 and 2. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Kenya. JTtheOG (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 10:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Rakul Preet Singh

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

Redirect ~~move to userspace then merge the salvageable content~~ to Rakul Preet Singh. This page is a disputed draftify. It still contains formatting errors, and is nearly entirely unsourced. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 21:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC) Updated and stricken, per Jeraxmoira and Siroxo microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 00:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 21:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previously G5'ed at Special:Diff/1187854967 by @Jeraxmoira: so this might not even go the distance. I'll re-add. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 21:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~And...~~ Ponyo's ethics ruined my reference. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 21:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I acted on the G5 in error. I checkuser blocked the account for socking, but there is no evidence that the Anankiaushdud was evading an active block or ban when they created the article, so G5 does not apply.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Do not merge as the sourced list already exists on Rakul Preet Singh. This list is copied from IMDb as indicated by the creator themselves [5]. ANI report [6]. Jeraxmoira (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rakul Preet Singh. Does not seem to be a copyvio of IMDB. —siro χ o 22:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For ref - [7] Jeraxmoira (talk) 05:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The whole thing is pretty much unreferenced but, taking it at face value, the awards here seem to fall into two categories: Ones which are notable and ones which are not. Of the ones which are notable (i.e. where the award has its own article) I think they are all already included in the main article. As such, I don't think there is anything here to merge. The main article lists 13 notable award nominations/wins and that's enough. Bulking it out with a load of non-notable awards doesn't make it seem more impressive. If anything it dilutes the impact of the notable ones. No need for a redirect. The article has no incoming links from article space. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DanielRigal, list article adds nothing to main article. Wikishovel (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As above, not enough to warrant standalone article Ravensfire (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources not adequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Just a quick comment in favour of the redirect: redirects are WP:cheap and there is an Awards and nominations section at Rakul Preet Singh § Awards and nominations. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no reason for redirecting a WP:SDNONE-named page orphaned in mainspace. Suitskvarts (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I had to look up "nomen dubium". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hebia cinerea

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

Back and forth with edits/reverts so to AfD we go. Hebia is a monotypic genus with Hebia flavipes as the only species, per Preliminary Checklist of the Tachinidae (Diptera) of the world. Hebia cinerea is a nomen dubium (as per the only text in the body of this article) and should be deleted/redirected; where it should be redirected to is less clear. Kazamzam (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nomen dubium. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nomen dubium (also per diptera.org) without GNG coverage to make up for that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsford Smith Drive, Canberra

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

The only way for readers to verify this is to go to the road, contrary to our verifiability policy. There was only one source ever cited, and that was supposedly to support the long-standing claim in the article that the "latest road accident" here happened in 2006. That was altered in 2022 without a source at all. There are sources documenting the generalities of road construction projects in the A.C.T., but none that go to the level of anything as specific as what's in this article. "prro sourcing" seems to be gibberish that I cannot make head nor tail of, but doesn't seem to be a counterargument to our content policies. Uncle G (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom and I could not find any RSes to support the claims made in the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GEOROAD. TarnishedPath^talk 02:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With no significant coverage from independent, reliable sources provided, I don't see a reason to keep. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chexo

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

As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xabbatog: only one source exists AFAICT, suggesting this is not notable for its own article. -sche (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and China. -sche (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

307 (number)

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

None of the sources contain more than passing mentions of the subject, with none focusing in-depth coverage on the number. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly meets WP:NNUMBER#Integers. There seem to be at least 3 unrelated interesting mathematical properties listed on the page. (307 is the number of one-sided octiamonds, 307 is the third non-palindromic number to have a palindromic square, 307 is a central polygonal number). If not sufficient, most of that should be merged into 300 (number)]. —siro χ o 20:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on this one. Seems to fit the three unrelated properties point. ThatOneArizonan (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, 307 is not a central polygonal number. 301 is a central polygonal number, because $(24^{2}+24+2)/2=301$ . 307 is a centered 2-gonal number, being $18^{2}-18+1$ , but since it's so far down the list, I doubt it's been used as an example of such a number. XOR'easter (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, interesting enough number. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be interesting enough to have its own article per WP:NNUMBER#Integers. V.B.Speranza (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are currently 3 properties cited to OEIS sequences that are designated "nice". It's further down the list in each case than I would generally like, but one of those lists is finite. We could also mention A006300, where 307 appears early on, but there doesn't seem to be an article to wiki-link for that. XOR'easter (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's surprising how little content we seem to have on the subject: a few articles touch on the relevant topological/graph theoretic concept (Graph embedding, Toroidal graph, Combinatorial map, Rotation system) but apparently there's nothing substantial on enumerative aspects (Hurwitz number is a redirect to ELSV formula, nothing about the Harer-Zagier formula that I can find, etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayBeeEll (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenia Railean

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

The subject, a Moldovan women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Moldova. JTtheOG (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As above. Perhaps if she'd appeared on a late episode of Dynasty. MisterWizzy (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shenzhen NORCO Intelligent Technology

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

Fails GNG and NCORP. Has been an orphan since 2014. Sources involved are not RS or SigCov. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Tunisia women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marwa Abidi

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

Redirect to List of Tunisia women's international footballers. I was unable to find any coverage on the subject, nor is there any indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Tunisia. JTtheOG (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 10:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon universe

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

While the settings in Pokemon are memorable, I'm not entirely sure this article is necessary. Information from each specific "region" is available in a given article's information (For instance, Kanto is described in depth in the Red and Blue article) and all of the other in universe history is very specific information that isn't really too important to the series' summary. I'm sure there's some discussion on regions individually (Likely lacking for a full article, but still) but the whole fictional universe doesn't seem to be individually distinguishable from a general summary of the series in the main article or the descriptions in individual articles. Don't really think there's a good AtD here, maybe a redirect/light merge to the main series article? I don't know, really. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if nothing else, per WP:TNT. This is one giant wikia-grade WP:GAMECRUFT violation. If this is somehow kept, it should be renamed to something like Universe of Pokemon or Setting of Pokemon, as "Pokemon universe" makes it sound like some sort of official name or brand, which it isn't (which is why I don't even really support a merge/redirect to the series article.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- If you see that it's going to be deleted due to the amount of deletes, you can feel free to salvage the information while you still can. I'm just making a suggestion here. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could see this being notable, but per WP:TNT it needs a total rewrite. Right now it is very unsuitable for Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: TNT per Sergecross73. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Redirects for Kanto (Pokémon) and Johto should be retargeted as they target here. Curbon7 (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the heads up. It'd be easy to retarget them to the main article/see also links included in their respective sections. Sergecross73 msg me 21:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I almost !voted keep. But there is no verifiable "Pokemon universe". Each game takes place in a new location. Not a single location is separately notable from the game it appears in. The rest is just WP:SYNTH, and the common elements are already covered at Gameplay of Pokémon. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per User:Shooterwalker, as well as the "Pokémon world sausage" confirming that even the food in the Pokémon universe is retconned and handwaved. QuietCicada - Talk 02:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the few relevant referneced sentences to Pokémon, creating a new section called 'setting' there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to it's own section on Pokémon in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you be more specific? Beyond giving zero rationale for keeping, what would you merge, and where? It's all already covered in better quality in other articles. Sergecross73 msg me 03:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - There should be a settings section on that page where the information can be placed. Right? --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but I mean, like, what would you merge? It's all unsourced, shallow in-universe observations about the fictional Pokemon locations. Sergecross73 msg me 21:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mizuno sponsorships

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

Same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Puma sponsorships, primarily WP:OR, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, Sports, Lists, and Japan. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is WP:NOTPROMO. Let'srun (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Is this necessary? SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as other AfD outcome mentioned in the article, and the others currently nominated. Ajf773 (talk) 09:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Gurza

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

Promotional, not notable Orange sticker (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: coverage in the CBC [8], this Vice piece [9] and the BBC article already used in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Disability, Sexuality and gender, Internet, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above sources ^, and I've also added some more independent references which show Gurza has received press coverage over multiple years for different projects, which seems to indicate notability. ForsythiaJo (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources now present in the article establish WP:BASIC/GNG. Possibly nominated too quickly after creation. —siro χ o 19:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Photos are more than likely copyvios, I've reported them, so don't be surprised if they aren't there anymore. Oaktree b (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article now establishes notability. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valda Berzins

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

I'm of the view the article should be deleted primarily due to lack of verifiability. The "Biography" section is written as a detailed narrative with no cited sources. I also could not locate any of this information when searching myself. In addition there are a number of clean up issues on this article that have been present for roughly a decade without being resolved. I feel the way the article has been written leads to a false sense of notibility Rg9444 (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources currently in the article are the subject's blog and other non RS sites. I can't find mentions of this individual in Gnews. Most of the prose currently in the article could be OR. Oaktree b (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some mentions like [10][11][12] in Australian papers. Does not seem like subject meets WP:BASIC. —siro χ o 19:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update, delete, while there may be print sources, I don't believe we can presuppose BASIC given the dearth of coverage in the internet era. —siro χ o 04:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the first 2 citations are dead and the next 2 are blogs. Can't find anything good on the subject.Royal88888 (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, noting the aforementioned link-rot, I am unable to identify any sigcov to establish notabilty.

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nour Al Hassan

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

Refs are PR and profiles. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 10:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Language, Technology, and Jordan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, and my search for sources; this seems to be WP:PROMO without substantial independent and reliable sources to support notability at this time. For example, this CNN Money source is primarily based on what Al Hassan says; the article is also largely built around materials produced by Al Hassan and her company, a blog post, and various promotional sources. Beccaynr (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nour Al Hassan's biography is not a public relations page but a testament to her impactful contributions to women's empowerment in the Middle East. I have made changes to the page according to your feedback, and I would like to explain why I believe it should not be deleted.

I understand that the page can be further amended to meet Wikipedia's standards, and I will contnue to do this. Nour's advocacy for women's rights and her role as a role model for many in the region are key aspects that warrant inclusion on Wikipedia.

Advocacy for Women:

- Nour Al Hassan's commitment to advocating for women's rights in the Middle East is well-documented in various reliable sources.

- Her efforts extend beyond rhetoric, as she actively engages in initiatives aimed at improving the status and opportunities for women in the region.

Role Model for Women:

- Nour serves as an inspiration for countless women in the Middle East, with her story resonating as a tale of overcoming challenges and breaking barriers.

Job Creation for Mothers:

- An integral part of Nour Al Hassan's legacy is her commitment to creating job opportunities, particularly for mothers who face constraints in leaving their homes.

- This goes beyond mere business accomplishments, showcasing a socially responsible dimension that aligns with Wikipedia's emphasis on documenting positive societal contributions.

Incorporating these aspects into Nour Al Hassan's biography not only adheres to Wikipedia's standards but also enriches the platform by recognizing individuals who contribute significantly to societal progress.

Thank you very much. Wwat2023 (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since it bas been relisted, it is worth examining the references. I'll look at the first two blocks.

Ref 1 [13] That is a image of Nour Al Hassan. Non-RS
Ref 2 [14] "She spoke to The Arab Weekly via WhatsApp." That is a WP:SPS source.
Ref 3 [15] This is a Forbes profile on a X of Y list. It is non-rs.
Ref 4 [16] This is a press-release. It states its a press-release. Non-rs.
Ref 5 [17] Another profile. Non-RS
Ref 6 [18] Another profile. Non-RS
Ref 7 [19] An event listing. Non-rs.
Ref 8 [20] An executive interview.
Ref 9 [21] Another profile. Same image as used above in the other profiles. Non-RS
Ref 10 [22] Another profile. Same image as used above in the other profiles. Non-RS
Ref 11 [23] A short interview.

So there you have it. Three interviews and another 8 non-rs references. Two of the interviews are primary and one is a whatsapp chat is non-rs. This is all PR. scope_creep^Talk 12:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think if we had one more decent source this would be at notability. I agree with the assessment given above, not quit notable, yet. Oaktree b (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy‎. ✗plicit 14:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Himalayan Institute of Cultural and Heritage Studies

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

Zero third-party coverage Sohom (talk) 10:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True that. Not much third party coverage as of now. Can an article on this organisation be created again in a few months/a year or so, since more coverage is likely to come in this period? Apandeyhp89 (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, Education, and Himachal Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy if Apandeyhp89 would like to keep on working on it, in the hope of finding new reliable sources in the next few months. Otherwise it's a delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Per Chiswick Chap. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 13:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Jalpaiguri

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

zero tird-party coverage found. Sohom (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG Rasel Hasan🇮🇳 (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. Rasel Hasan Can you explain why you believe it meets GNG (specifically it's best to link to atleast three reliable third-party sources that would show that the subject is notable). Sohom (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing out there as far as references that can show WP:GNG or WP:NORG. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom.I don't think the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NORG and reference are n't showing reliable.~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 11:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to University of Peradeniya. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gal Bangalawa

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

No refs on the page, nothing found to showthat notability standards are me. Incidentally the si.wiki seems to have even less. Possibly as an AtD could be a redirect to University of Peradeniya JMWt (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Sri Lanka. JMWt (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the university as suggested seems fine, I don't see much sourcing discussing the building, beyond simply mentioning it. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - As suggested. Information is not adequate to keep this as a separate article --L Manju (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Sri Lanka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Peradeniya.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Peradeniya, as fails to satisfy WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the usable content and then redirect microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Jews in Gaza City

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Gaza City

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines for the topic to have a standalone article. There is no significant coverage, no independent sources, and no reliable sources dealing directly with the topic. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep historical facts are obviously notable. Many sources exist on the topic. JMWt (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reliable and independent source in the article that has significant cover of Jewish history in Gaza specifically, so this does not satisfy WP:GNG. However, as you said historical facts are obviously notable, in the appropriate article: History of Gaza. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean. Have you done any WP:BEFORE? What you are claiming as being absent is clearly in the academic record. Sources exist. Many of them. JMWt (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did. No independent, reliable and secondary sources that report significant coverage seem to exist; certainly not plenty of them. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry - you are trying to tell me that there are no RS about the history of Jews in Gaza? There clearly are. Jews have left archaeology there going back thousands of years.

It is distinct from a general article about the History of Gaza just like every other article that shows the history of an ethnic group in an area such as History of the Jews in Wales. Your replies do not reflect normal practice on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23729416 this is an extensive history of the area, the best so far. Oaktree b (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"No independent, reliable and secondary sources that report significant coverage seem to exist". My words are clear, so please do not play with them. Please do not engage in ad hominem if you are unable to defend your position. I saw the JSTOR article, and since I am not a Hebrew speaker, I cannot comment on what it means with "Jewish settlement" or what the scope of the article is. I have commented on the rest of the sources presented. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Easily notable per WP:GNG. Suggest speedy keep as not to waste time of other editors on a pointless vote. Some sample sources:

- "The lost history of Gaza's Jewish quarter". Hadeel Al Gherbawi.
- "Gaza’s Rich Jewish History Includes Decades of Friendship with Local Arabs". Nadav Shragai.
- Ancient Jewish communities in Gaza. Schwartz, Joshua. (1999, Dec 15).
- Kidron, Anat, and Shuli Linder-Yarkony. “A Hebrew Community in a Mixed City? Acre during the British Mandate.” Israel Studies, vol. 24, no. 3, 2019, pp. 50–74.
- Handbook of Oriental Studies: Handbuch Der Orientalistik. The Near and Middle East. Corpus inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae (CIAP). By Moshe Sharon · 1997. p.28-29
- "Gaza, like you never knew it". Nadav Shragai. Israel Hayom [24]

Marokwitz (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before we begin to analyze these sources and what they say, please present links, because this purported article by the Washington Post doesn't seem to exist. [25] Makeandtoss (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It can be found on Proquest; however, upon a second check, it is was published under letters to the editor section and cannot be considered a reliable source. Striking it out. Marokwitz (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Five of the six sources you cited are problematic:

First source while it is useful, is about the quarter in the city, and not about a 2-3 thousand history of Jews in Gaza.

Second source is a magazine affiliated with Tikvah Fund, a neoconservative foundation [26]

Third source doesn't seem to exist either. [27]

Fourth source is not available for online reading so no verification is possible.

Fifth source: nothing about Jewish history in Gaza pages 28 and 29 [28]

Last source: Israel Hayom is a tabloid.

If you want to convince us of this article's notability, then a higher standard than this has to be met.

Makeandtoss (talk) 08:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are pages upon pages of information about the history of Jews in Gaza in the Handbook of Oriental Studies. You can search within the book, which is available on Google Books for easy verification. [29]

Israel Hayom is a wide circulation newspaper (the most widely circulated in Israel) used extensively in Wikipedia and is considered a reliable source. It is a Tabloid only due to its printing format, this term is used only to describe size, not to refer to other qualities of the publication.

Being associated with a neoconservative foundation does not make a source unreliable. Reliable sources are not required to be neutral.

You can't convince me that the article about the history of the Jewish Quarter of Gaza is not about the history of Jews in Gaza. It is not required to discuss a "2-3 thousand year history." Marokwitz (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The last source is extensive, seems ok. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Literally the first source, about an ancient synagogue in the city, is proof. The photo at the top of the article is proof of the long history they have in the city. Unsure why this wouldn't be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are not meaning israelandyou.com, the shabby blog? We are not discussing if Jews have a history in Gaza, we are discussing if this warrants a standalone article per Wikipedia guidelines; it doesn't. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know now, it's been removed from the article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it, unreliable sources like that one are not acceptable for usage in WP. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop removing things as we're trying to review the suitability in AfD, you aren't helping the situation. "because I say it isn't" doesn't help me review the source for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would have assumed it was a travel site, but now that you've removed it, we can't evaluate it. Please undo the changes. Oaktree b (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, as a Veteran Editor, I'd expect better from you. You can't change things you don't like while they're being discussed, it's borderline disruptive and not helping the case here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a veteran editor, I can identify unacceptable sources as soon as I see them. You are better off expecting better from the editor who used these blogs to create a Wikipedia article. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This source is fine [30], this provides background [31], this in French [32], this traces the history of a young Jewish individual in 1665 in the area [33]. Oaktree b. Page 93-94 mostly here, but the rest of the volume is useful [34]. (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This from a 1943 newspaper gives context of the area [35] and this is the history of the Jewish settlement in Gaza [36]. Not sure how much more we need at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Israeli settlements are covered in the Israeli settlements article. The Almonitor source is about the Jewish quarter which is a different topic. The rest cannot be considered as significant coverage. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of "Significant coverage" in WP:GNG is "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Can you elaborate why the sources provided by Oaktree (except for #8) cannot be considered significant coverage of the topic "History of the Jews in Gaza City"? Marokwitz (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Judaism, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one minute of WP:BEFORE on JSTOR shows https://www.jstor.org/stable/23729416 and https://www.jstor.org/stable/23723826, in addition to the links above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources here are in-depth reliable and verifiable references that clearly establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has several books cited which by nature provide deep material + direct online sources including by other countries' for International and further neutral coverage - and the ad-hoc pro-palestinian magazine "This Week in Palestine" as the 1st source which merited it's own English-Wiki article and describes (at flaky glance) Jews situations-population such as during the Hellenic period 2000 years ago; probably more when reading the entirety of it. (* Side-note: comparing the magazine old-issue source to the Wiki-link shows a same writer, so same magazine). WP:FORK - Big amount of material with vast sections for different periods from biblical lands of Israel-Judea times up to 20th century, and the "history of gaza"'s length (and "GA" status BTW), satisfies WP:SPLIT + as said about independent notability of a nation-population history in X-place. *BTW, another flaky glance: doesn't seem to be much info on Jews in "history of gaza", so support adding few summary-lines (where/if missing) on that general article's period-sections. אומנות (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on verifiability grounds, not on notability grounds. Almost entirely unsourced. Only a few sentences in the article have any source cited, and a not insignificant percent of them are merely small factoids, e.g. one of the only sentences with a source is one claiming that one rabbi was from Gaza, but scholars disagree that this means a Jewish settlement existed in Gaza City at the time. The vast majority of the article is unsourced material that must be deleted. Where is this material coming from? Is it a verbatim quote from an unknown source? Is this a copyvio? Is this an original research essay? We don't know. But if you were to trim the article down to only what is sourced, it would not warrant a WP:SPLIT, and I do not know of any appropriate target for a merge. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One editor above has been removing items as sources during the course of this discussion, we had 14 items as sources at one point. Oaktree b (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True as that may be, having reviewed some of the sources removed, them being in the article would not change that the material is unverified. Citing a source listed at WP:RS/P as unreliable is no better for establishing verifiability than having no source at all. Though I should also add that when I wrote my !vote I didn't even have in mind all the CN tags where a source used to be before the nom removed them, I was referring to the vast majority of the article that never had any sources in any revision. Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly adding onto my !vote: I also support draftifying per the side conversation below. No denying that good sources exist on the subject, but I feel like I must not be looking at the same article as the keep !votes that suggest that the article is well-sourced right now. An article with almost 20K bytes of text, only a minuscule percent of it sourced, is not ready to show to readers. Vanilla Wizard 💙 18:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have been enough sources invoked in this discussion to make me believe this is a notable topic of scholarship Zanahary (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe there is no doubt that the topic is important, in my understanding the article is quite detailed and full of reliable sources. There is always the possibility to improve the article, And it would be good to do this instead of opening another deletion discussion. Eladkarmel (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote the majority of the article, correct? It might have been wise to say that. JMWt (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was pretty clear to those who are here in the discussion. So yes, I created the article. Eladkarmel (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is a lot of important and sourced information here. Dovidroth (talk) 09:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So far the only verifiably reliable sources presented have been these two: [37], [38]. Neither can be described as having significant coverage of Jewish history in Gaza, however, they could be used for an article on Jewish quarter in Gaza. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the article will be kept, which seems very likely, a cleanup process is in order after the AfD ends. I will wait until after it's closed to delete the aforementioned paragraphs of text that never had any sources to verify any of their sentences, but sooner or later we do need to remove all the unsourced material. An article with this much text and almost none of it sourced being in mainspace isn't acceptable. Perhaps an alternative to deletion is draftifying? Vanilla Wizard 💙 18:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per above, there is ample sourcing for an article shown above and in the article. // Timothy :: talk 11:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for all reasons listed above. The corresponding article on Hebrew Wikipedia (which the English article appears to borrow from heavily) is fairly well-cited; it would be worthwhile to go through the references there and incorporate them into the English article. Ploni^💬 16:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Annakili Sonna Kathai

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

Cannot find any RS for this film at all. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found some sources. DareshMohan (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: Good work DareshMohan. I also found this, please see how to use it. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Pasuruan. Daniel (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Untung Suropati Stadium

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

Non-notable stadium for a likely non-notable team, definitely doesn't pass WP:GNG. No sensible redirect target unless the team article is kept at its AFD. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Indonesia. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, would the other team article Persekap Pasuruan be a potential rd target? I am on the fence to !vote as I sense that could also go towards an afd too. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ~~to Persekap Pasuruan~~ as possible search term but not independently notable. Giant Snowman 10:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Pasuruan, @Bungle and GiantSnowman: Pasuruan United F.C. (which is at AfD) also plays at the stadium, and it appears to be owned by local government, I feel it's better served to merge and incorporate both teams into a sports section on the Pasuruan article. Govvy (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement with this. Giant Snowman 12:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Participants determined that the coverage in the sources presented do not amount to significant coverage to satisfy notability guidelines. ✗plicit 02:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arianit Shaqiri

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

Arianit Shaqiri doesn't pass WP:GNG, only notable for being the brother of Xherdan Shaqiri as noted in the lead. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsKesha: The subject of this article has been independently covered by reliable sources, so why does it not pass WP:GNG? --Λeternus ^(talk) 19:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Kosovo, and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clear case of WP:INVALIDBIO Dazzling4 (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dazzling4: Well, if the person A has sources which cover them independently, then their relation to person B is irrelevant, isn't it? --Λeternus ^(talk) 19:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't anything in his page at the moment that satisfies notability requirements, so I'm assuming his inclusion was likely due to his brother. Dazzling4 (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @GiantSnowman: What about sources present in the article? --Λeternus ^(talk) 19:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Which ones? Giant Snowman 21:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  [39] by Telebasel (seems not to work at the moment); [40] by RTV21; [41] by Blick; [42] by Annabelle (magazine); [43] by Blick; [44] by Abendzeitung; [45] by Albinfo; additionally [46] also by Blick. Some of these sources deal primarily with his brother, although they also cover Arianit Shaqiri in great length. --Λeternus ^(talk) 22:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1 doesn't work, 2 is "The special feature of this academy is that this football school was opened by the brother of the famous footballer Xherdan Shaqiri", 3 is "Xherdan Shaqiri has opened a football school. "I don't want the kids to be lounging around on the couch all day."", 4 is "Xherdan Shaqiri: a meeting with Switzerland's best footballer", 5 is an article written by Arianit about Xherdan, 6 is an article about Xherdan, 7 is an article about 5, 8 is an interview with Arianit talking about Xherdan. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  As I mentioned previously, some of these sources deal primarily with his more notable brother, but they cover Arianit significantly as well. According to WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Source 2 is about the academy opened by Arianit (which yeah, we know happens to have a more famous brother); 3 covers Arianit in more detail (in German): "Arianit Shaqiri (28), Xherdan's big brother, only makes it to FC Basel's U18 team. He has to choose between trying to become a professional and becoming an apprentice car mechanic. He chooses the apprenticeship and completes it...And yet he never wanted to give up football. His wish is to work with children. His brother's football career helps him. Xherdan Shaqiri (25) says: 'I always thought it was a good idea. Ari was always informed about supporting young talent, and I was happy to help him fulfill his dream.'"; 4 deals with all Shaqiri brothers and covers Arianit specifically (in German): "Arianit came to the U18 team at FC Pratteln...Arianit became a car mechanic...At 23 years old, Arianit is the oldest and quietest of the three. He was in the military for most of last year. As a fusilier. Cannon fodder, as they say." 5 was not written by Arianit, but by Max Kern, and deals almost entirely with Arianit; 6 also covers Arianit in some detail (in German): "Arianit, the eldest, lives with the 21-year-old in Grünwald, not far from the Ribérys' house...When things got serious, Arianit went to the U18 of FC Pratteln...Arianit tore the cruciate ligament...Arianit became a car mechanic..." 8 deals with Arianit himself as well (in German): "Arianit Shaqiri (28), Xherdan's big brother, only makes it to FC Basel's U18 team. He has to choose between trying to become a professional and becoming an apprentice car mechanic. He chooses the apprenticeship and completes it. And yet he never wanted to give up football. His wish is to work with children...The training is led by brother Arianit and Stefan Kohler (ex GC, Winterthur and U21 national player)." --Λeternus ^(talk) 20:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject of this article has been independently covered by reliable sources. It is irrelevant if he is related to someone who is more notable than him. --Λeternus ^(talk) 19:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage is significant, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the coverage mentioned can be deemed as WP:SIGCOV. As some other users noted correctly, they all cover his brother, both directly and indirectly, and, to make it clear: WP:INHERIT is not an argument for deletion discussions, and this one is an example. Angelo (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 09:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of sources that actually cover Arianit specifically, and not his brother. Right now, even half the biography in this article is about Xherdan. Unless significant independent coverage of Arianit can be demonstrated, what little information there is can be at most be rolled into Xherdan's article. Cortador (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have done some searches online and found less that don't even satisfy WP:SIGCOV.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing above, BEFORE, or in article meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing, WP:N is not inherited. // Timothy :: talk 05:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Music Awards (Music Resource Group)

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

Spam for non notable defunkt award farm. Refbombed to PR, reproductions of routine notices and primary sources. Lack coverage in independent reliable sources.
Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent Music Awards. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Awards. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Source 2 and 14 are green per source tool, I guess it's ok. Notability is established. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't even make the effort to actually look at the sources the you really shouldn't be !voting. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source two is a list of the winners, source 14 has now been removed. Oaktree b (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you still haven't bothered actually looking at the sources. No it is not a list of winners. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:23, 5 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the existing sources are any good. They're all either routine announcement presumably reproduced from the subject, or "X teams up with" type articles which are not independent. If these awards are to have any notability there really ought to be something written about them (rather than merely relaying who won) by someone truly independent of them. Elemimele (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There don't seem to be any sources about the actual Awards, and at most press release-style announcements of them happening. I think this article needs at least one or two independent sources actually focussing on the Awards themselves as an event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador (talk • contribs)
Delete Not really seeing any good independent coverage of the awards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta Energy

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are blogs, mentions and even WP:FORBESCON. A WP:BEFORE search found the same along with a ton of press releases. CNMall41 (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Texas. CNMall41 (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was not done creating the page when I published it in order to be able to attach a graphic. Sorry about that. I am still adding the cites and links to it. Modwiki (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. Is there additional information to wanted to add to the page to show notability? Do you feel it is a notable company and if so what references per WP:THREE would say count towards WP:ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my observations:

1. There is a case on Zeta Energy in Strategic Management: Theory and Cases, one of the world's most widely used strategy textbooks and used in thousands of business schools around the world.

2. CleanTechnica, which published an interview with Zeta Energy's management, is a top rated news source for clean tech news, and is rated "generally trustworthy" and "High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record" by MediaBiasFactCheck.com.

3. Zeta Energy won a $4 million dollar award from the U.S. Department of Energy ARPA-E program, and news of this award was widely reported, including on ABC13 Eyewitness News and several Houston newspapers.

4. Sandy Munro, the auto industry's most famous tear-down analyst did a one-hour segment on Zeta Energy for his show, Munro Live, which has over 387,000 subscribers. He is famously unbiased and became the leading source for cost breakdown info for Tesla vehicles and other EVs. This was the source of his interest in Zeta Energy because Zeta Energy makes batteries that are expected to change the cost structure of EVs. The episode got 271,000 views. Modwiki (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Support nom, scarce sources BoraVoro (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see an evaluation of the sources brought into the discussion. Also, there is an unbolded Keep here so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete references [2-8] seem to be trade publications.

Reference [11] is unable to be accessed or assessed.
Reference [14] is trivial coverage that reads like a press release and provides no original or independent analysis or coverage of significance. It is routine reporting of capital raised. Think this clearly fails WP:CORPDEPTH other sources seem to be primary or unreliable, such as reference [9] which is a YouTube video. Delete or draft

Cray04 (talk) 08:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lithium–sulfur battery where the company is currently mentioned, as WP:ATD. —siro χ o
Delete Unable to find any references that meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted‎ by Bbb23 per criterion A7. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Kelly

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

No references SlightlyToastedCheesecake (talk) 04:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Politicians, Disability, and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of viral videos. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking Out Your Gyat for the Rizzler

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

A 15-second TikTok audio clip of a child singing a parodied version of a song that doesn't have an article to begin with. All relevant sources I could find are really just articles that explain Gen Alpha/Gen Z slang to parents and use this song as an example of such lingo. Regardless, even if there was an in-depth review of this song from the most credible of sources along with a Wikipedia article about the song it's parodying or its artist, I still don't think this deserves its own article because it remains in the end as simply a child singing various slang and meme phrases, but that's just my opinion. Maybe it warrants a mention in a relevant article at, but it does not have enough notability or proper coverage to warrant its own article. Waddles 🗩 🖉 04:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Internet. Waddles 🗩 🖉 04:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of viral videos per NOPAGE. This is notable, but all the coverage of the song uses it exclusively to segue into discussions about gen alpha slang, or lazy "look how other people reacted" churnalism. There isn't enough meat on the bone for a standalone article.Mach61 (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've wrote it into List of viral music videos now. Mach61 (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mach61. This article reads more like a joke entry than an encyclopaedia article and there's no notability here for it to be saved. Buttons0603 (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Wikipedia does not measure notability by level of "seriousness", and just because the topic of an article seems "absurd" or "ridiculous" does not automatically exclude it from the encyclopedia.
In Wikipedia, what matters is whether a song has had more of an impact on culture (measured by both quantity and quality of sources), and in this case, it arguably has. That impact is larger than that of the original song, maybe not enough to grant an article of its own (at least at the moment), but certainly large enough to not be scrapped altogether but at least merged into another article. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 11:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that very absurd or ridiculous topics can be covered on the site, but this is a run-of-the-mill meme that does get some coverage (whether its reliable coverage or SEO spam disguised as journalism) but eventually goes no further than that. The defacto consensus for when a meme is notable enough for an article appears to be when itself gets parodied or reinterpreted in another piece of media or is spun-off into something like a brand, TV series, an actual song, etc., but that's based on my judgement looking through articles of internet memes.

I disagree that this has had an impact on culture in the same sense a newly-released song would, considering the coverage of this is exclusively "what is [x]?" mush that gets printed out for every TikTok meme or trend simply to cash in on the success or take advantage of SEO to drive traffic into their sites. It's a very common pattern that those sort of sources get used for every internet-related article on Wikipedia that inevitable gets deleted or draftified. That being said, if its notability is not enough to sustain an article but is noteworthy of being mentioned one way or another, I am not opposed to a brief section or mention within a relevant article like Mach61 made. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage in the New York Times is not routine. This meme meets the GNG, it's just that it makes more sense as part of a list. Mach61 (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 46.162.68.151 (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why you wish to delete this article; this isn't a vote Mach61 (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge A merge may be a good option for this song, but it definitely does not deserve its own page. There is really no encyclopedic knowledge to be had with this song, it is just a 15 second audio clip with little notability. Hungry403 (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that many people want to know about, especially gen alpha teens who might want the meanings of the words to use them properly in context with friends. The article provides that information. I don’t see why it should get deleted. 141.157.217.57 (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@141.157.217.57: Well, you'd normally go to a dictionary if you were looking for the definition of words, Wikipedia isn't one. I'm sure you could even find these words on Wiktionary if not Know Your Meme or a Fandom article which might go more in-depth. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They can read the urban dictionary definition for it then. Hungry403 (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to list of viral videos per nom, WP:NOPAGE, and what Sr. Knowthing said. Though it could be argued the information in this article is somewhat encyclopedic (good snapshot of the internet both ironically and unironically for the past 365 days) and the sources are good for an article, this stuff can be summed up and put into a list pretty easily, and honestly an article like this is just inviting a new vandal each hour. Also, do note that because all of this is a meme, this discussion might be derailed by IPs trying to keep it because it's funny; not adding the notice since it hasn't happened yet, but just giving a heads up. AdoTang (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Should this article be deleted, I believe it should be redirected to the list of viral music videos element talking about the song. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 00:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've done just that now (which is allowed, just usually proscribed) since that's the clear current consensus, and because it might reduce vandalism of this AfD. Mach61 (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MEHL Hockey

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

Removed WP:PROD.

Non-notable league for non-notable sport. No non-WP:PRIMARY sources to be found. Simulated ice hockey is not even notable enough to have an article. A412 (Talk • C) 03:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. A412 (Talk • C) 03:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey, Internet, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable organization. I found no independent reliable sources on Google or in newspapers for "MEHL Hockey" or "Minor Elite Hockey League". The article is supported only by two primary sources, neither of which establish notability. Flibirigit (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is not even the most notable hockey league called MEHL. I couldn't find a single secondary source, unfortunately. Akakievich (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per NFT. Who thought it was a great idea to start an article for a fantasy league? Ravenswing 22:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that WP:MADEUP applies here. User:Sportsnhorns created the page, whose username matches the reported CEO of this league. Flibirigit (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I added the text confirming Sportsnhorns was the owner, for what it's worth. It's the first of its kind to be on WP as no one's thought of it yet. Mehkhali (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources are present to indicate notability. Fails WP:GNG and appears to potentially have some COI. Let'srun (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per others. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 06:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. Seems to be an article someone created for their personal fantasy league, has no place on Wikipedia. The Kip 22:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona–Texas Tech football rivalry

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

I cannot find any WP:SIGCOV showing that this subject meets the WP:NRIVALRY (or WP:GNG.) Let'srun (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, Arizona, and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm finding isolated articles labeling this one-sided (26–5–2 in favor of Tech), long-distance (10 hours driving) series as a rivalry (e.g., here, here, here, and here), but nothing in-depth to satisfy WP:GNG or to suggest that this was an actual, notable rivalry. And per WP:NRIVALRY, "[s]ports rivalries are not presumed notable." Cbl62 (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was created in August 2023 after it was announced that Arizona would join the Big 12 Conference, creating the potential for the "rivalry" to be renewed. We're way WP:TOOSOON to use that as a basis for this as a stand-alone piece. Cbl62 (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON should only matter for articles that take place within a few years. Sports rivalries are built over decades. Decades these two colleges have been around but no WP:SIGCOV. Come back to me in five years when these two teams have ESPN and newspapers outside their respective states. Conyo14 (talk) 05:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. It's TOOSOON. glman (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These two teams were conference mates between 1932 and 1957 as members of the old Border Conference, however this, which is probably the best source that I was able to find from that era, pretty much confirms that it was a one-sided affair that only Arizona fans ever thought of as a rivalry. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ejgreen77: I also did a "before" search and didn't find anything better than what you found. And the one passaage in your source where "rivalry" is mentioned is where the Texas Tech coach said he didn't really care whether a contract was signed to continue the series, noting "rivalry should be friendly and worthwhile." As you noted, this actually tends to undercut the notion that a truly notable rivalry existed even back in the Border Conference days. That said, a notable rivalry may develop in the future with both teams in the Big 12, but it's too soon to say whether that will happen. Cbl62 (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to create a Redirect from this page title, feel free. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endless-piston principle

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

No indication of notability. Zero sources. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My searches picked up some info [47] [48] [49] but it's not independent RS coverage and just shows this is a WP:NEOLOGISM coined by a single company. SmartSE (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources you provide are from different researchers at multiple companies so your WP:NEOLOGISM argument does not fly. Also just because the researchers are employed in the private sector does not make their papers unreliable. ~Kvng (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Smartse's argument is that they are not independent, and so do not show that the no original research bar has been met. I could publish a company paper making up a name for something, but it wouldn't be appropriate for Wikipedia unless third-parties acknowledged my newly named concept and it had become part of actual human knowledge. And even then, as in this case, if I'd just made up some we-have-reinvented-something-old-and-made-it-seem-new name it would only belong in Wikipedia if others had explained that my new name was really just the old thing. Uncle G (talk) 08:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Progressing cavity pump. Further research reveals these to be synonyms. Definitely a notable topic under either name. ~Kvng (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chua et al. 2021, pp. 161, 206 are convincing. The authors cite one of the commercial WWW-site sources for the "endless-piston principle" and say that they are rotating displacement pumps. Chua et al. are engineering professors. Amusingly, the first sentence of the article outright says as well that these are rotating positive displacement pumps. Alas, from that our readers only get to progressing cavity pump via screw pump, when really they should be able to get there directly; but progressing cavity pump is where we have this by its actual non-commercial-puffery name, and that latter is where this commercial-puffery name should redirect, as a credible, but not proper, alternative name.
We should not merge any of the content. It's a cleaned up version of the original version of the article which is a almost a straight lift, with some word changes here and there, from ViscoTec's own self-promoting commercial blurb. "Our pump technology provides additional benefits compared to other conveying mechanisms" becomes "Compared to other conveying methods, this pumping technology has even more advantages to offer", for one example. Wikipedia has copied and lightly re-worded an advert. Ironically, this copyright violation is of the very same page on ViscoTec's WWW site that the engineering professors cite and explain.
In fact, deleting all of this copyright violating and advert-repeating edit history first and then putting a redirect in place seems the best outcome, to remove temptation.
Uncle G (talk) 08:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

references

Chua, Chee Kai; Yeong, Wai Yee; Low, Hong Yee; Tran, Tuan; Tan, Hong Wei (2021). 3d Printing And Additive Manufacturing Of Electronics: Principles And Applications. World Scientific Series In 3d Printing. Vol. 3. World Scientific. ISBN 9789811218378. This type of material extruder belongs to the category of rotating displacement pumps […]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to expunge the advertorial material and then create a redirect, as suggested above. XOR'easter (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then create new redirect per Uncle G. I wasted time looking for good references; this is just engineering spam for one company. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per @A. B., there are no sources. @Uncle G has found one source but it isn't very descriptive. I don't think this article can be rewritten without violating copyright, single source or notability. I think a paragraph or two written into the positive displacement or progressing cavity articles using Uncle G's source will be enough. Matarisvan (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Bosco

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

Procedural nomination following closure of this RfD. The page was created out of a redirect by an anonymous editor in April 2023; the redirect was then restored by Xexerss hours later without any explanation I can find. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Anime and manga, and United States of America. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I only reverted this IP edit given that the article didn't cite any source at the time, so there was no reason to remove the redirect. Well, it's not like the article has any reference now anyway, but I sincerely ignore whether the subject is notable or not. Xexerss (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bosco is not a notable figure. Blubewwy (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not locate any reliable sources to establish notability. Esw01407 (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaCommons

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

Lacks SIGCOV. Google returns a single news article plus a couple of blog posts. NM 04:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a weird one. I'm not seeing the coverage to keep this, and I don't see any plausible redirect targets either despite the range of organizational collaborations here. Plausibly WP:TOOSOON, but as a publishing project it seems pretty dead, it's basically a blog these days. Suriname0 (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I've read through all of the comments (naturallly) and the only consensus I see is that this article needs some attention from a knowledgeable and competent editor. There is enough support for Deletion that I can't close this as Keep and I doubt that relisting would help as this discussion has lost momentum. So, I'm closing this as No consensus as I believe that reflects the entirety of the discussion. Here's hoping this article draws the attention of an editor interested in the art of wood carving. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of wood carving

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

I am nominating it on behalf of User:Drmies and User:Uncle G (the former has redirected this a while back). I think it merits an AfD discussion, and I restored it, an action that has been criticized by them. Their criticism of the article can be seen here. I am not convinced this needs a WP:TNT myself (IMHO the topic seems notable, and the article needs a rewrite, since it has been noted it is significantly based on dated Britannica 1911 content, and contains some problematic statements), but clearly, we need more opinions, and I dislike redirecting things without even a PROD. So here we go. PS. Unreferenced content can be removed per WP:V. Perhaps someone interested could try to rewrite it, even into a referenced, neutral and up to date stub? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and History. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is an article that could be written about the craft's history, but dated Brittanica copy isn't it, and it would be easier to start over than try to fix this, which folks have tried for a decade. Since the copy is accessible, there is no need to preserve the history as a redirect either. A redlink may also help encourage creation Star Mississippi 03:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indeed this is an important artistic medium (not a "craft"), but nobody seems interested in doing it up on WP; it should be much more than a "stub" Piotyrus. In what ways (other than prose style) do think the "Brittanica copy" is "dated", User:Star Mississippi? Johnbod (talk) 05:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Read my comments and the 13 years of additional criticism on the article's talk page. We were having a further such talk page discussion, and no-one wanted deletion. I explicitly suggested a rewrite, and even started looking around for sources on the same, and this deletion nomination in my name is dishonest. Drmies did not advocate deletion, either. This is abuse of AFD, and a dishonest nomination. Uncle G (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That ~ 75% of the article is about Europe and barely touches on anything contemporary or outside of the West. Someone reading this would easily think it's a dead art (no offense meant by craft, bad phrasing on my end) or that it's exclusively western, neither of which is true. It is important, and this article doesn't come anywhere near our standards. So yes, TNT. Star Mississippi 13:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the majority of the article is about europe, lets remove the parts that are not and rename it to The history of wood carving in Europe. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this 10,000 word article cites a whole one source, and admits that its in large parts lifted from Encyclopedia Britannica. The history of wood carving deserves an article, but not this piece of open plagiarism. Cortador (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has always been tagged as using EB1911; most of Wikipedia on arts subjects started this way, this has just developed less than most. This vocab is inappropriate. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an abuse of AFD, and far from this being on my behalf I pointed out beforehand that AFD isn't for this. AFD is not "votes for rewrites". Rewrites we just do, just like this text was just rewritten in 2005 once before when it was our wood carving article; with normal talk page discussion, which we were having. It doesn't need the administrator deletion tool, Drmies didn't use the administrator deletion tool, I simply started a discussion of a rewrite (a middle path between an editor who redirected this text back to the article that it came from and an editor who reinstated it in toto) and pointed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica#The good, the bad and the ugly and didn't even edit the article (but simply asked whether we should rewrite it because it is really bad), and AFD is entirely wrong for this. This is dishonest. Uncle G (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hang on a moment, no. The discussion appears to be whether there should be a TNT deletion based on the extent to which this article is derived from the Britannica material. Uncle G commented "I am strongly tempted to just kerrrzappp! this one."Special:Diff/1187674965 and kerrrzappping sounds like an admin tool deletion to me. For the record, I'm very much of the opinion that the appallingly lazy "One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain" which is cropping up more and more in Wikipedia articles, is going to be the death of Wikipedia. It is an unreference, a comment that some (but what??) of the above text is probably, but not guaranteed to be, a cut-and-paste plagiarism. It's an excuse rather than a source, a get-out-clause that in this case it's okay to plagiarise. And if all we're going to do is partially-plagiarise stuff that's conveniently not a copyright violation, why would anyone come here rather than simply Google? Go to Wikipedia, the place where humans who haven't even got the brains of an AI application will indiscriminately show you stuff that they possibly didn't even read, let alone write! Not a great look. So yes, there's a case for TNTing, but basically Uncle G is also right: it'd be a darned sight better if someone simply trimmed out all the copied material and got on with writing a better article. It didn't need AfD, but it was valid to bring it here. Elemimele (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not in my name it was not. And not when no-one wanted or said anything about deletion it was not. No-one did, and this is abuse of AFD. I even used the word "rewrites" twice in that very diff, alongside "editing, not deletion", so it's abundantly clear what I'm talking about even if one doesn't know the jargon. kerrrzappp! has been this sort of edit since 2005. This is not deletion, nor is it "TNT", coined years later by someone else for something else. It has been that way for approaching two decades, and I am mildly well known for this. Even to the point that someone made a WP:KERRRZAPPP shortcut after about 7 years of my doing this. Please catch up. Uncle G (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Then rewrite it. The article was ~~stealthily~~ boldly redirected. I reverted the redirect since I believe this merits a discussion (also given my experiences with proposed deletion - I do not believe deletion or redirect here would be uncontroversial). You objected to my actions, clealry implying you would prefer a redirect over the current article. Since I am not sure about that (this article is poor but it is not obvious to me it is so poor as to merit a WP:TNT treatment), we need to discuss it what to do (keep, delete, redirect, merge, rewrite, etc.). This is what AfD is for. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Piotrus, I hope your reply was to Uncle G. I don't have a problem with you bringing the article here for discussion. I agree with your assessment; I don't think it's poor enough to merit TNT. I personally would delete the blatant copying because I personally don't like blatant copies even if they're legal, but I haven't done so because I don't currently have anything better to substitute for what I'd be deleting, and I think deleting legally-included text might be controversial without some consensus. Elemimele (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - You should have a problem. This is "Articles for deletion." It's not a hammer for rewrite discussions, which we were happily having. Uncle G (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - ... on reflection, it might have been better had all concerned discussed this at Talk:History of wood carving instead of Piotrus' talk-page. Elemimele (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        It might even have got there, although there's 13 years of discussion there already in the same vein, as well as some more discussion by Scope creep (e.g. "imperial bias") prior to that back on Talk:wood carving when it was that article. It was a perfectly fine discussion amongst the three of us, trying to find agreement on what to do (or at least I was) until this dishonest AFD nomination. Sometimes these happen on user talk pages. Sometimes they move into discussions on WikiProjects and article talk pages and RFCs. Sometimes they just get agreed and get done. Uncle G (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elemimele It was (in reply to Uncle). I think you and me are on the same page. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it is not. It is for deletion. It's in the title "Articles for deletion". There was nothing unclear about asking "Should we start again?" and talking of rewriting rewrite this from scratch. Nor was it unclear that it was Drmies, not me who asked about starting again and said "rewrite" several times, who made the redirect. This is an outright abuse of AFD, and to do it falsely in my name when I explicitly said beforehand that it would be wrong is worse still. Uncle G (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Uncle G, I don't dispute for a moment that it was wrong of Piotrus to bring it here in your name. If you've got a problem with that, and Piotrus can't settle it with you, then ANI is the place to go, and it's certainly worth an enormous trout and an apology. The problem I have with the discussion that was supposed to be going on is that I can't find it. That might be my stupidity, but all I'm seeing at the article's talk-page is a few people complaining over a long period that it's a rubbish copy, with no suggestions what to do about it. Elemimele (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - We have a whole WikiProject at Project:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica#The good, the bad and the ugly with suggestions, the problems of 1911 Britannica text not being at all unknown to us for many years, and rewriting is one of the tools. "restructure and rewrite the whole article" is the very first item. You even just linked to one person making a suggestion — me! I quite clearly suggested starting again and rewriting from scratch. And on the other side I was at the same time talking to Drmies about sources that I had found. I have even linked to where this was already rewritten once, years ago, above. (I'm not seeking administrator tool use of that form, either, by the way.) It's wrong to seek administrator deletion tool use in my name here, but it's doubly-wrong to just throw editorial discussions at AFD at all. Articles for deletion is not a general discussion forum for cleanup, rewrites, and editing 18-year-old EB1911 dren. It is for deletion. AFD is not Project:cleanup is another long-standing piece of jargon. Uncle G (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        @Uncle G: I'm sorry, I seem to have caused offence. I'm sorry, I was unaware that this Britannica project existed, nor that it was discussing the History of wood carving article. I linked to you only because I came across this discussion at AfD. I think it possible that there will be other editors who are interested in wood-carving but not in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, so the question is how to arouse their attention to do something about the article? Yes, AfD is not clean-up, but AfD is a reasonable place to bring things if TNT is a reasonable and justifiable outcome. Unfortunately it can be very difficult for those of us who are fairly recent editors to know about the multitude of projects. So far as this AfD is concerned, my !vote is Not bad enough for TNT, so carry on the discussion in an appropriate place. Elemimele (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uncle G AfD is for deletion as well as for estabilishing when deletion is not appopriate. Since I objected to this being deleted without a discussion, we are here to judge the consensus for deletion or retaining the article. It's as simple as that. And yes, I brought it here for you because you said on my talk page that this article... should not exist on Wikipedia. If you were not asking for an AfD, think more carefully what you write next time. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnbod and the fact that Wikipedia uses the eleventh edition of Britannica as a valid source. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is there really any doubt that ~20 minutes good searching will turn up good sources? Hyperbolick (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, we're now in a bit of a mess because we've got a rapidly-forming keep-consensus on an article that no one actually likes. There is a discussion about it on Piotrus's talk-page, User_talk:Piotrus#History of wood carving in which no one likes the article, Uncle G writing "This is biased, myopic, tripe from the British Imperial era; and shouldn't stand in Wikipedia", while Drmies writes "This article is a piece of crap and you know it". Uncle G has reasonably suggested starting again, but I think doesn't want a TNT deletion. The article's own talk-page has no concrete suggestions what to do (except changing AD to CE). If we close this as "keep" at the moment, all we end up with is a few discussions buried in places where no one will find them, and no actual change, and still an article that no one defends (I believe the keep-!votes are based on the subject being notable rather than the quality of the current article, but feel free to contradict me!). I will start a discussion on the article's talk-page asking for concrete suggestions about how we can proceed. Elemimele (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele The best outcome would be if someone were to boldl rewrite this. Or at least remove unreferenced/dated parts. But it is easier to vote than to (re)write, and sadly it is not a topic that motivates me. As for nobody liking the article, the related issue is whether we like not having that poor article more or less. I.e. is the current poor article better than the redirect would be? We don't need to like what we have to like not having anyting even less. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that bad - the topic has hardly moved on since 1911, & the text from then complains that there was little to report from the 19th century. None or very little of it is "unreferenced". The basic story is covered, & most concerns relate purely to ye olde prose style, although if you do know anything about the subject there are some odd omissions - where are Tilman Riemenschneider and Veit Stoss? The non-Euro coverage is very poor, sure. Imo the current poor article is still much better than the redirect would be. I agree a full rewrite is best, though some sections like Italian_Renaissance_sculpture#Wood can be slotted in. The article tries to cover wood as a material in sculpture and practical woodcarving for furniture, choirstalls etc together, which is probably a mistake. Most of the article really covers the latter. Some or all of this should probably be split off/left and a new Wood sculpture done. The furniture etc could be restricted to "in Europe", vastly reducing the extra work needed. But the Afd needs to close as keep first. Johnbod (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a notable topic based on the mammoth Britannica article, which is almost all history. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. There are inadequate sources for a BLP article and none have been brought into this discussion. This article can be restored to Draft space if additional sources can be located. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naoto Hori

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

The article has issues with notability and sourcing. Single ref to a Japanese sports stats catalog that does not seem to confirm most of the information here. ~~No ja interwiki~~. The user who created this on en wiki has been banned for socking, and according to some related pl wiki discussion is responsible for cross wiki spam, mass creating articles on Japanese-related soccer players, many of whom do not meet NBIO. Someone on pl wiki suggested in the deletion discussion about this person (Naoto Hori) that the stats cited here suggest possible notability if sources ca be found (but said sources may not exist outside Japanese). My BEFORE yielded nothing, but perhaps someone with access to Japanese sources or a deeper knowledge of the sports field can find something to rescue this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Japan. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous sources are listed at Japanese wiki. There's no reason to suppose they're falsified, even if they're hardly available offline outside Japan. Also even if no other sources are given, the only one listed in the article confirms he has played 5 matches in JLeague in 1993. Which was a professional league at that time. Therefore there is no valid reason for deletion, although, of course, improving the list of sources, preferably by someone from Japan, who could reach the books cited in the Japanese wiki, is more than welcome. Avtandil (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I did miss he has an entry at ja:堀直人. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although there seem to be more sources on the Japanese version of the article, most of them are just sports databases with player statistics. Even the articles that are linked to include only a trivial mention of him, e.g. the SoccerKing source (I can't even link to it, it's blacklisted on enWiki). Perhaps most of the media coverage of Naoto Hori might be in print (pre-internet ?) given his age. I think an editor fluent in Japanese would need to take a look around. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he's from the pre-internet era so a bit hard to find anything although photo archives do bring up images. Given his professional career, it strains credulity to suggest that he wouldn't have substantial coverage in Japanese newspapers from the time (imo, Japanese newspapers are far more prolific in detailing athlete's lives than US newspapers). DCsansei (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per DCdansei. Made almot 100 appearances in Japan top flight in pre internet era so deniftely has offline sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Das osmnezz WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not a great arguments. Where you able to locate any sources, or is this just hope? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:13, 5 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!} 03:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per above Svartner (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Single source in article is a database record, no sources above and BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 17:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brunello Rosa

AfDs for this article:

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

This article appears to fail WP:GNG and it was deleted a few years back for that reason. The Bloomberg article seems to be the only reliable source with significant coverage but the others quote him briefly or are non-reliable sources. I did a Google search but couldn't find anything additional to support notability. Delete. Citrivescence (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Italy, and England. Citrivescence (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He has held some moderately high positions but seems barely to have been noted. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. fails NPROF as well as GNG from what I can see. Being quoted a few times is not enough for GNG. Also, nothing has changed since 2019 when this was last discussed. --hroest 20:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - almost all citations are mentions or profiles so there is no deep coverage. A couple are behind paywalls, so I could not read them, but even if these were good, they may not be enough. Royal88888 (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Except for the fact that the sources are now listed as footnotes, my deletion rationale from the first AfD still applies. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maristania Mengana

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

The subject was named the 2017 Cuban women's footballer of the year, and received a couple of sentences worth of coverage for this (1, 2). Other than that, all I can find are passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. This was relisted for another week by Liz and no further input was achieved. Daniel (talk) 04:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No Pants Day

AfDs for this article:

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

I have reviewed the previous deletion discussions and it seems like the sources for this are few, and many seem to trace back to Wikipedia. The Knighthood of BUH itself seems to taken down it's website. I am sure the sources prove that events have occurred at the UofT at Austin, but not sure about anywhere else. It's honestly possible the knighthood themselves created the initial article. Since this is localized to one University as far as i can tell, it should either be merged with the University of Texas at Austin article or deleted.

Do not confuse this with the No Pants Subway Ride, a much more popular unrelated event that happens in January. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A reasonable voice (talk • contribs) 00:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep BUT I think the best thing to do would be to delete the meat of the article related to UT Austin and have it be about the aforementioned No Pants (Subway Ride) Day itself, which is what I've seen the term refer to more often. Kazamzam (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kazamzam, what do you mean by "soft keep"? I've closed a lot of AFDs and I've never heard of a soft keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out over 2 AFD discussions and the article's talk page, the No Pants Subway Ride, which is how editors have repeatedly tried to rescue this, has its own article. We are at the point where we really have to determine whether some day invented by a comedy club in a university in Texas is actually properly and independently documented in depth and has escaped its creators. "By a comedy club?", you ask. That's how a university magazine characterized it, and really didn't say much in depth about this at all. It was less well documented by the university magazine article than the Knighthood of Buh (AfD discussion) itself was, which we deleted, and which the magazine article was mainly about. Ironically, there is more text in the rants on the talk page about students making up stuff than there is about this day in any source that I can find. One of the sources in the article is an interview with the inventors describing this. After all of other editors's searches on the talk page and and in prior AFD discussions, we collectively have managed the Houston Chronicle as 1 independent source and that's it, after 18 years. Uncle G (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to No Pants Subway Ride. LuGus DeclanBiba ElodieBarnaby 01:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There is not a lot of RS coverage here, but there is enough between Austin and Berkeley to make this viable as a subject [50], [51]. The Chronicle article [52] on newspaper comics confirms my own (non-RS) recollection of that event. The article is in sad shape, but WP:DINC. If this were a new article, I'd probably suggest draftify, but it is referenced independently just enough to sustain an article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources on Newspapers Extended. If anyone looks at the article now and thinks it's not WP:HEY enough, I can add a few more, but the Boise and Billings events (no subway involved) should be enough WP:SIGCOV. Cheers! BBQboffin^{grill me} 07:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was going to close this as No Consensus as a bold NAC closure, however given the history of this subject I refrained and will simply provide an opinion that it seems no clear consensus has been achieved here. I am not myself entirely satisfied this is an article worthy of inclusion based on gut instinct. Coverage does not automatically warrant inclusion, we must consider whether on the totality, the subject itself needs coverage in a standalone article. However, there is no question that on its face, the article does appear to meet the general notability guideline. I do not think a clear-cut, unequiovcal argument for either Keep or Delete can be made. I believe that based on the discussion which has taken place, and considering the AFD history of this subject, no clear consensus has been reached, and never will be reached. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 'delete' arguments were that there's "1 independent source and that's it, after 18 years" and the nom thought the May events were localized to Austin. Clearly those arguments are refuted by the text and sources that have been added to the article since. We have more than WP:THREE strong sources, and WP:SIGCOV of non-subway events in Berkeley, Billings, and Boise. As for your "gut instinct", with all due respect, that is not a Wikipedia policy; WP:GNG is, and 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. BBQboffin^{grill me} 03:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see more assessment of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed because this is actually Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan and Akdkdidm938493938!87 (talk · contribs) seems to be just messing around at this point. The rationale is copied and pasted from a recent edit summary by Wcquidditch. Uncle G (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Howard River (disambiguation)

Make shorter (WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE): most references to the program outside of the opening title card still call it just "Face the Nation", as do most TV listings — and there's no real good reason to title this in a way that we would have to change it every time the moderator changes

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza Now News Network

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

Not seeing WP:SIGCOV of this news network that would establish notability. There's reporting in Arabic [53] about the head's family being killed in an airstrike during the 2023 Israel-Hamas war, and they got in trouble with Hamas in 2017 for livestreaming a public execution,[54] but not enough to establish notability. Longhornsg (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, Websites, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are more sources about Gaza Now including Al Jazeera, NBC, Washington Post, TASS and many established news agency. Some of them are given on the article. So the agency becomes popular during the war. So there is no way to remove it. Showib Ahmmed (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : I see no objective reason to delete this article which, moreover, is correctly sourced. Sg7438 (talk) 09:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on improvements to the article since the nomination, happy to withdraw as nom.

Longhornsg (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First United Methodist Church (Peoria, Illinois)

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

Declined db-A7. This is an ordinary, non-notable church building / congregation. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCHURCH for inclusion in wikipedia. Structure is not on the historical registry and is outside of the boundary of Downtown Peoria Historic District per IL HARGIS[55]. Refs are just routine local coverage and doesn't indicate notability. Dual Freq (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Illinois. Dual Freq (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Historic significance to Peoria: the church itself has its roots in the Methodist circuit riders. The first building was constructed in 1840. Prior to that, the Peoria Methodists met in individual homes. President Martin Van Buren visited the church in 1842 (source 4). — Maile (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, the 1840 structure that was built by Methodist Episcopal Church, a predecessor organization, no longer exists. A single visit from a president, after his presidency, to a building that no longer exists, is interesting trivia, but doesn't really demonstrate notability. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - It's a historically important building in downtown Peoria. Wikitehedia (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to clarify that the current building is not listed in the state or national historical registers.[56] --Dual Freq (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it does have a claim of significance as the oldest protestant church organisation in a city of 113,000 people. The church is also a historic structure built in 1916 that may be listed in future. There are sufficient references already in the article for WP:GNG which allows local references for a church as WP:CORPDEPTH does no apply to churches unless they pass it as well as GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I may be biased because I added a lot of local sources (I'm interested in local history.) I agree with the reasons listed above. I believe the institution is notable even if it has changed buildings a few times. It is the oldest Protestant congregation in the city, has connections to the Methodist circuit riders, a presidential visit, started one of the main local hospitals, etc. There may be other sources available to improve the article and further demonstrate notability. 04:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatFee (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎ per Fermiboson's apparent withdrawal. (non-admin closure) Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 16:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patsy O'Connor

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

Fails NACTOR. Previously deleted as expired BLPPROD. No secondary sources could be found. Fermiboson (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United States of America. Fermiboson (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NACTOR based on roles in current article (eg. It Ain't Hay and You're a Lucky Fellow, Mr. Smith), and was verifiably a well-known vaudeville (stage) performer at a young age as well. While we'll definitely find more offline, there are sufficient secondary sources online to use the presumption of notability from NACTOR. Eg. [57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64] —siro χ o 05:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've begun working on the article, and I think with the sources I listed above we also have WP:BASIC —siro χ o 06:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Additions of multiple reliable sources by Siroxo demonstrates notability. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources are in place to demonstrate notability. She is also linked in numerous Wikipedia articles. Rublamb (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NACTOR guide Lightburst (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page has been vastly improved by Siroxo and Rublamb, so that notability according to Wikipedia guidelines seems more than fairly established. Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. The sources on the page which have been kindly added show clear notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with an admin speedily closing as keep, if they wish to do so. Fermiboson (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Fully sourced at this point, can't see any reason to delete. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elsa Shala

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

YOUNGATH fail. Article has an unlinked draft which has been rejected twice at AfC. Fermiboson (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Kosovo. Fermiboson (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a creation from the hoaxer behind Kosovo Air Force and they are an admitted sockpuppeteer (see here). Policy might even permit a speedy under these circumstances, as this is a BLP. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- CSD per G5 given that Eron Lushaj is blocked. Kazamzam (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kazamzam: Technically doesn't qualify as a G5 as it "applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block" (bolding original). The CU did not reveal any previously blocked socks and Eron Lushaj was blocked post-creation, so this was not created in violation of any block. But if an admin drove by and deleted the page, the SNOW standard would apply and the CSD would probably still stand. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 00:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without commenting on the ban analysis above, I will agree with nom it fails WP:ATHLETE microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/11/24/russia-crimea-tunnel-china/

[1]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auburn–UAB men's basketball rivalry}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Call Me A Donut Wall}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akpotoro}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lowara Madi incident}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1001–1011 Jefferson Street}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bratenahl Place}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/André Duval}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auburn–UAB men's basketball rivalry}} --><!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Bo-ik}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wu Zhengyan}}<!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Saul (2nd nomination)}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Saul (2nd nomination)}} --><!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Grill Collective}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Grill Collective}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crimean tunnel}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mach Five}}<!--Relisted-->
@@ Line 23: / Line 29: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizandra González}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Monokroussos}}<!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the United States, Wellington}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the United States, Wellington}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgina Bakani}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylvia Lumasia}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Hawk, Louisiana}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Hawk, Louisiana}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of awards and nominations received by Rakul Preet Singh}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hebia cinerea}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crime in St. Louis}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crime in St. Louis}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingsford Smith Drive, Canberra}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hashem Al-Ghaili}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hashem Al-Ghaili}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chexo}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/307 (number)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignirtoq}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignirtoq}} -->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First International Bank}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First International Bank}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugenia Railean}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shenzhen NORCO Intelligent Technology}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marwa Abidi}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon universe}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippe Étienne (athlete)}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippe Étienne (athlete)}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mizuno sponsorships}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Gurza}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valda Berzins}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international trips made by Mahathir Mohamad post-premiership}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international trips made by Mahathir Mohamad post-premiership}} -->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chawarin Perdpiriyawong}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chawarin Perdpiriyawong}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nour Al Hassan}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Himalayan Institute of Cultural and Heritage Studies}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Jalpaiguri}}<!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kladara}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kladara}} --><!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Government Mamit College}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Government Mamit College}} --><!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Launceston Players}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Launceston Players}} --><!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gal Bangalawa}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Gaza City}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annakili Sonna Kathai}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untung Suropati Stadium}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society}} -->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Harvest (audio drama)}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Harvest (audio drama)}} -->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hatim El Otmani}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hatim El Otmani}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arianit Shaqiri}}<!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AC Ventures (2nd nomination)}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AC Ventures (2nd nomination)}} -->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State Bank Archives and Museum}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State Bank Archives and Museum}} --><!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent Music Awards (Music Resource Group)}}<!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cypres}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cypres}} --><!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeta Energy}}<!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xab Pagri}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xab Pagri}} -->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xabbatog}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xabbatog}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garrett Kelly}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sticking Out Your Gyat for the Rizzler}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Language Academy of Canada}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Language Academy of Canada}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MEHL Hockey}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SAFE Credit Union}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SAFE Credit Union}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arizona–Texas Tech football rivalry}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endless-piston principle}}<!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibrahim Qusaya}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibrahim Qusaya}} --><!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss American Beauty 1963}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss American Beauty 1963}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Bosco}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sasi Shanker}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sasi Shanker}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MediaCommons}}<!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Corporate Counsel}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Corporate Counsel}} --><!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of wood carving}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naoto Hori}}<!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Monroe Winter}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Monroe Winter}} --><!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aberffraw (cantref)}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aberffraw (cantref)}} --><!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brunello Rosa (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maristania Mengana}}
@@ Line 91: / Line 97: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First United Methodist Church (Peoria, Illinois)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patsy O'Connor}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turtle Pond Model Yacht Club}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turtle Pond Model Yacht Club}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elsa Shala}}