Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 13: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 10:42, 13 December 2023

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 12	December 14 >

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 speedy keep. It took the nominator one minute to open this random AfD. The rationale is largely incorrect. Closing it before it wastes scarce community resources. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Air France KLM Martinair Cargo

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

No notability, no reliable sources. Delete. Looks like promotion and advertisement 25lucky (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, France, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 13 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. This AfD was started 1 minute after nominator's previous AfD and without a valid rationale. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Yar Gharany

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

Hoax, not notable person; promotion 25lucky (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Afghanistan, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Being a hoax and promotion at the same time sounds like nonsense. Geschichte (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's a source cited from Khaama Press, the largest news agency in the country. Why do you think it's a hoax? Wikishovel (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Created by a sockpuppet of User:Abbasshaikh124 but I think other editors have done enough work on it that it's not eligible for CSD G5. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 14 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 close‎. Per User:Liz: Agmaz & Luk Maz (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Schandona) in violation of ban or block) (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agmaz & Luk Maz

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

Fails WP:NCORP, not independent coverage and not notable company by its own 25lucky (talk) 10:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 13 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 12:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zenarmor

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

Fails WP:NCORP; no reliable sources and independent deep coverage; clear promotion 25lucky (talk) 10:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Internet, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it does seem promotional and fail WP:NCORP. Haven't found secondary coverage. DFlhb (talk) 13:13, 15 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 Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hibox

AfDs for this article:

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

After the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hibox, an existing draft was amended and moved to mainspace. The sources still look like the same kind of press releases masquerading as business reporting ("Throughout the day, the students, facing financial challenges, radiated happiness as they received mystery boxes containing a wealth of educational resources"), there still is apparently not a single news source even mentioning the founder Le Van Hai, which one would expect from a neutral source about the company.

It still has the same kind of sources which contradict the basic facts in the article as well, e.g. the first source[1] claims it isn't an Indian company but a London-based one which was active elsewhere before it started in India.

All in all, very fishy (articlewise and businesswise), much hype and not a lot of substance, almost as if it is some pyramid scheme or scam. Fram (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and India. Fram (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fram, I request to some Indian author to check the article as it's in Hindi. Secondly, Times of India is the biggest publication in India and you are saying what they have written is fake? Seriously!! All the information provided above is all legit. Sparsh1220 (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:TOI and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. What they publish is often not something they have actually written, but content delivered and paid for by the covered subject. Fram (talk) 08:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is one article, which says they completed 500k installs on google play store and I verified on the playstore, they actually hit 500k, that's legit. Find the link here https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.hibox.in

Also for the education article, I saw the video on youtube, where they have given the gifts to 250 + students, so that's also true.

So what information is fake?

I would request you to verify the information yourself and question accordingly. Sparsh1220 (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not said that anything in the TOI articles is "fake", I said that it is just press releases, info from (and probably paid for by) the company, not independent journalism. The really dubious info is from the india.com source. I also wonder how "legit" it is to get 500K downloads and not a single review on the Google Play Store, but there may be a good explanation. Fram (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fram, I guess you are not aware of this point that you need to have an android phone to check the play store reviews after the new update pushed from google where reviews are not available if the app is viewed from PC or IOS device. Also there are 1000+ reviews on the play store with 4.3 rating. I feel so you are really very confident without even actually verifying the information Sparsh1220 (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also Fram, I have read it thoroughly it cleared stated the company is from Vietnam, who founder/director is Le Van Hai, Confirmed from Vietnam's company verification website. And also the company's headquater is in London, England. I don't find anything fishy in the article read it again. or if the article says something I'll remove that article. I have written the information on what I found on the web. Sparsh1220 (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The info in the article has been changed from what was there when I nominated it for deletion. And yes, I find it thoroughly fishy that all sources are from India, that ndia.com[2] claims "HIBOX is a global e-commerce mystery box company, headquartered in London. The Vietnam branch was established in the second quarter of 2023", but there are no sources to be found from anywhere but India. I don't believe for one second that an article which with a straight face claims that the start of some mystery shopping box application "has opened up opportunities not only for business but also for regional partnerships in India. With the rapid growth in the e-commerce industry, the entry of HIBOX opens up possibilities for collaboration between India and neighboring countries, which will boost regional economic integration. " or that "“HIBOX” is known for its unique mystery box shopping mode. Its entry into the Indian market symbolizes India's integration into the global supply chain." is an actual, journalistic article and not an extremely overhyped press release. And sure enough, the text is nearly identical to their "official" press release[3].

Not one source seems to be actually independent of the company, which is a basic requirement to establish notability. Regurgitated press releases only show that the company spends money on advertising, nothing else. Fram (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article source from abplive which you mentioned above is not even added as a reference here in this article, The information I have added in the article is what I have understood from the press release which are all organic. There is a proper author as well who verified the information and then published the same on India.com article. There are multiple six main articles I have attached in the references. India.com ( All the information is publicly available on google as well ). cnbctv18 ( All the information is properly verified ). Times of India 500k article. ( there is nothing in the article apart from that the app hit 500k ). Times of India education article ( All the information there is verified and legit, the ngo and school where they did the program is all legit, 250 + students got the educational gifts in mystery boxes ). Another TOI article where mystery box is added ( They have told about mystery box and added only that hibox is one of the platforms in India ) And the last is Economic times article ( It said the same that Hibox is one of the platforms in India). There are multiple paid ones from the company, but none of them are here. Sparsh1220 (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also What do you want to say about this company right here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyOperator Go through their article once and let me know, All the articles are explaining about how their system works. How are their page available on wikipedia? Do author's on wikipedia get paid from brands to publish article here?

I added such a basic information, Their is not a single exaggeration on the whole wikipedia article, but to you it seems all fishy. Sparsh1220 (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And do let me know, if we can make some changes and we can keep the article or you want to be biased and delete it. Reply to this accordingly, I'll remove it from the mainspace and will bring it back. When accordingly this brand has tons of "Neutral articles" according to you Fram!!!. Sparsh1220 (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added international references fram check now Sparsh1220 (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You added three "EIN PressWire" sources, i.e. three press releases by Hibox. As it says right at the top of these "NEWS PROVIDED BY HIBOX COMPANY LIMITED". Value for this discussion: zero. And no, I didn't say that the abplive link is in the article, I said that the India.com article is taken nearly literally from the press release at apblive. I am not interested in discussing WP:OTHERSTUFF, we have tons of shitty articles (or good articles on non notable subjects), none of them have any bearing on this discussion whatsoever. Fram (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying that it’s fake, but none of the sources satisfy WP:SIGCOV—The CNBC one is one sentence sourced entirely from Hibox’s own release, nothing near significant; The one from Economic Times does not mention Hibox at all, therefore cant be used in order to establish notablity; and the two articles for Indian news sources cannot be used for SIGCOV as there is a high chance that they were paid for, and this means that they fail the “Independent Source” criterion of SIGCOV. None of the sources are necessarily false, they simply do not indicate that the subject is notable for a Wikipedia article. Delete.

AriTheHorse^{talk to me!}

22:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete. No substantive sources have been added to the article since the last AfD, nor have I found any that provide significant indepth coverage of this company/application. Sources are by and large about the mystery shopping concept. One of the ToI sources (not in the article) reports the donation of a few educational gifts by Hibox to deserving children.[4]. While commendable this can also be viewed as promotional. Why did ToI report this? Does it generally report such donations? None of the sources reach WP:NCORP standards in respect of WP:CORPDEPTH. This is a company seeking credibility and brand awareness; the WP:SIRS critera were put in place to prevent the use of Wikipedia for this. To be clear, I'm not accusing the article creator of intentionally promoting the company or in any way knowingly acting against Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Unfortunately, the article has been brought back from the previous AfD draftify closure with little or no improvement in sourcing. Rupples (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Rupples, I also felt that promotional and have removed it. Sparsh1220 (talk) 19:04, 17 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. Daniel (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hanno Essén

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

Subject does not pass WP:GNG or WP:PROF. An associate professor with an h-index of 15 (WoS), and a single high-impact paper with 1390 citations coauthored with Richard Bader. The paper is about atoms in molecules theory, Bader's forte. Essén's second most highly cited paper only has 52 citations. His involvement in E-cat cold fusion controversy does not seem very notable either, but could be mentioned on the E-cat page. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Sweden. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is probably designated around him being a skeptic in the public debate, rather than an accomplished academic. He was also active in arguing against the existence of electromagnetic hypersensitivity. I did search the Swedish Mediearkivet, and didn't come up with the most compelling pieces, although the Mediearkivet isn't complete either. The "controversy" did get lots of coverage, but understandably more focused on Andrea Rossi with Essén as a side figure. Geschichte (talk) 09:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the best you could find in the Mediearkivet to satisfy WP:NBASIC? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single well-cited paper and retired associate professorship aren't going to be enough to pass WP:PROF, leaving only his work both debunking and pushing fringe topics, for which we would need WP:GNG notability. The two sources in the article aren't convincing: they both merely discuss Essén's role as an observer in someone else's experiment, and I don't think New Energy Times can be used as a reliable source, especially in a BLP (see RSN). The best other sourcing I could find was a Fox News piece on constant-force roller coaster design, but it barely name-drops Essén rather than having significant coverage of him. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 16 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 Melchior Ndadaye. Daniel (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ndadaye Day

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

Fails WP:GNG. All I can find on this topic are brief mentions such as this, which note that this is a Burundian national holiday to commemorate the death of Melchior Ndadaye, something which is already encapsulated by a single sentence on the Ndadaye article. I do not see how this subject is independently notable or that this article a necessary fork owing to the amount of content available. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:56, 13 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 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As said above this doesn't need to be an standalone article. killer bee  08:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant content into the Melchior Ndadaye entry. I found two book citations and included them in the entry, but they are passing mentions and insufficient to have this holiday clear notability guidelines.

KangarooGymnast (talk) 11:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Melchior Ndadaye: Put a section about the day on the target and redirect this one there. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:51, 16 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 12:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tamriko Kvaliashvili

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

The subject, a Georgian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Georgia (country). JTtheOG (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:40, 13 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 Moldova women's international footballers. ^Complex/_Rational 13:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Trofimov

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

Redirect to List of Moldova women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions (1, 2, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 07:51, 13 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) 07:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I support listification. This is probably the way forward for several minor football nations. Geschichte (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:41, 13 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 Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Tudor

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

Subjects fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Just another run-of-the-mill video game employee lacking in notability that fails to assert notability besides being a non-notable musician. As for reliable sources, one source is through a paywall and is to promote a video game he was involved in, which I doubt highly asserts notability. The other is an announcement of his position as a director. The article has been created by COI editor who has since been banned for sock-puppetry, who since continues to ban-evade as an IP user. This has been dePRODded and recreated despite a successful PROD nomination in 2010 but was recreated in 2011; despite this, issues still remains unaddressed since 2017. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Comment - The action above does not formally nominate Stephen Baysted for deletion, as there is no notice at the top of his article. Trying to tie nominations together just because they're both video game guys is unnecessary and awkward. Simply create an entire new AfD for Baysted if you think it's appropriate. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this advice, done it since. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if anyone has a response to this nomination. Already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage about Tudor as a subject. That said, he has a public-facing development role and has been interviewed widely in primary sources covering his work as the creative director of the Project Cars series (e.g. [5][6][7][8][9]) and co-penned an article on game design [10]. So he may not quite be a run of the mill video game employee, but it's clear he lacks the sort of coverage that warrants his inclusion as an independent article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:32, 14 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!} 08:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Milasha Joseph

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. The references I find are all from the same time period (within two weeks of each other) and read similar so likely an issue of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Only one that isn't is from Keralakaumudi Daily which I am unsure is reliable or not. Seven Summits have been attempted by many so not likely to obtain the significant coverage required for notability until after she completes it. CNMall41 (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:TOOSOON. Theroadislong (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the argument of WP:NCLIMBER and WP:TOOSOON may not be applicable in Milasha's case. Her journey is not solely about climbing; it's about overcoming adversity and inspiring others. Deletion based on being "too soon" could hinder the representation of achievements by individuals facing unique challenges. Milasha's chronic asthma, an incurable condition, adds a layer of complexity to her mountaineering endeavors. Her story goes beyond climbing mountains; it's about breaking societal constraints and empowering women to pursue their dreams irrespective of health challenges. Benraphy (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per WP:NCLIMBER that warns on Seven Summits BLPs (i.e. people who are non-notable climbers using seven summits projects to generate publicity); wasn't aware of WP:NEWSORGINDIA but makes sense as there are several weak Indian climbing BLPs that have zero climbing notability but who somehow got coverage in Indian news media (e.g. Anil Vasave). Aszx5000 (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Milasha Joseph's pursuit of the Seven Volcanic Summits is a unique and challenging endeavor. While it's acknowledged that many attempt the Seven Summits, Milasha's journey is distinctive due to her chronic asthma. Her determination to overcome physical challenges and empower women makes her a notable figure. WP:GNG The concern about references being from a similar time period may be a result of the prominence of Milasha's achievements within a specific timeframe. The uniqueness of her story might have garnered more attention during certain periods, and this does not diminish its significance. Reliability of News While questioning the reliability of Keralakaumudi Daily, it's crucial to note that regional newspapers can provide valuable insights into the achievements of local individuals. Benraphy (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NCLIMBER, the Seven Summits is not only not notable in climbing but is actively used to manufacture notability on Wikipedia, particularly via WP:NEWSORGINDIA to generate "inspiring stories". The "Seven Volcanic Summits" is a much easier feat than even the non-notable Seven Summits as it doesn't include Everest. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. And as user Aszx5000 said, this article is most probably used to manufacture notability on Wikipedia. killer bee  09:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass SUSTAINED and the promotional tone of the current coverage and SPA article creator suggest some degree of publicity-seeking going on.

JoelleJay (talk) 06:24, 14 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. Daniel (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arif Mehmood Alam

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

Fails WP:NBIO, WP:1E.

Sources are either trivial coverage or non-WP:RS

1) Wikipedia mirror
2) Mentions event but not article subject
3) Forum post
4) Does not mention article subject
5) Trivial mention. WP:NOTNEWS coverage of his death. Information about article subject limited to the two sentences "Colonel Arif hailed from Punjab and was serving in the Frontier Works Organisation".
6) Literally same link as 5
7) Two sentence trivial coverage, and not WP:INDEPENDENT as a military PR wing
8) Again, coverage of the event, not the article subject. "FWO also lost one of his officers, Col. Arif Mehmood, during the excavation process." A412 (Talk • C) 06:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. A412 (Talk • C) 06:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable armed forces member. CharlesWain (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet !votes removed The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep He was the commander of Attabad Lake Project officially hired by FWO Pakistan Army. He received Tamgha-e-Basalat and Tamgha-e-Imtiaz and Yaadgari Shield by Chief of the Army Staff (Pakistan) which you can check on ISPR official website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teeti7 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really do you think that he is non notable army person??

Cadet college Jhelum mentioned him in honourable mentions as Army Officer in Pakistan Army.

In 2010 he was appointed as Commanding Officer of a well-known project by Pakistan army. [11][12]

In 2011 Express News (TV channel) runs a program about her Attabad lake project In which colonel Arif gave briefing on project.

In 2011 he gave his life during saving his soldiers. [13]

On his death ISPR give a honourable press release about Arif Mehmood his sacrifice for her soldiers as well as his works and services.[14]

After his death Express News (TV channel) again runs a program on Arif Mehmood to honour him. He shows iff camera scenes and his story.

In 2012 he was awarded by Tamgha-e-Imtiaz and Tamgha-i-Basalat. [15]

In 2012, Pakistan Defence Tribute to Commanding Officer [16]

After some years he was awarded by yaadgari shield from Chief of the Army Staff (Pakistan).

In 2019 92 News runs a short program "Hamary Heros" an autobiography of him on their channel [17]

All tunnels around Attabad Lake were named after Col Arif Mehmood Tunnels to honour him.

[18]

Defence Housing Authority, Islamabad record a short program to honour him with his family to talk about him and her services.

In 2020, PAMIR TIMES, honour him by recalling his memories as Commanding Officer. [19]

In 2021 his brother received his Framed picture as honour from Inter-Services Public Relations from Asif Ghafoor. Teeti7 (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable person. His previous page was a reviewed reviewed article through AFC but later it was deleted by an Administrator due to sockpuppet case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.62.18.194 (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable: passes General notability criteria. According to sources: Firstly he was not only a Colonel, he was a Commander of the Attabad Lake Project. And on his death, news channels, news papers and ISPR break the news that Commander of Attabad project gave his life. And third, he was awarded by Tamgha-e-Basalat , Tamgha-e-Imtiaz by President and Yaadgari shield by Army Chief of Staff as above mentioned by Teeti7 (talk). Kkb091 (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Kkb091 mentioned reliable resources [20] [21]. 223.123.86.5 (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: After review, nearly all the comments were from sockpuppets of a banned user. I've taken the unusual step of semi-protecting this AFD page, and relisting it to generate consensus from real editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, based on the above analysis. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 20:01, 28 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 to delete, but encouragement of the consensus here is to re-scope and improve the article via editorial processes. Daniel (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One-off vehicle

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

Besides the poor quality of this article, this article is also completely arbitrary and not encyclopaedic. It makes dubious claims as many of those in the article are not one-offs at all.

Sources are from it as dictionary term and about the cars itself, not the subject.

It is not unusual for these to be produced as one-offs. A notes to add to my rationale to delete, this is because of the questionable nature of this article.

Speed record vehicles are one-offs too and so are race cars before the 1990s
Experimental aircrafts are one-offs also. Ships are too as well as ocean liners and warships.
Concept cars are one-offs too.
Can cars that have been heavily modified from its mass produced version, such as feature cars in magazines such as Max Power, be considered as one-offs too?
It was not unusual for luxury cars built prior to the war to be built as one-offs. Many cars, pre-Ford Model T, were one-offs.
Does making a sole road version of race cars make it a one-off? (Porsche 911 GT1) Do sole racing version of production cars make it a one-off? (numerous)
Do making extensive modifications to a production car make it a one-off? (Some Ferrari Special Projects cars)
Do movie cars make them a one-offs too? (Chitty Chitty Bang Bang movie car)
Does making slight alterations make it a one-offs? (Britten V1000)
Making more than one does not make it a one-off (Moto Guzzi V8)

Question is, should we include land speed record vehicles, ‘home-built’ racing cars, soap-box derby cars, modified cars, experimental aircrafts, luxury yachts, ocean liners, concept cars into this list? If we allow a list like this, then we’ll end up with an over-cluttered list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems like the nom has an issue with the article scope which could be better discussed on the talkpage. The problem of the list becoming cluttered could be addressed by consensus on scoping; for example by agreeing to only include models produced by recognised manufacturers. JMWt (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

my argument is, are they any different to custom cars, concept cars and custom cars for rich people? I don't see any. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with user "JMWt".. May be the problem is in the title translation and should be changed to "unique vehicle".. that does not "exactly" mean, a ONE-OFF piece fabricated.. Mcapdevila (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't answer to my criticism of that article. SpacedFarmer (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
leaning delete If nothing else, I see no good reason to lump together different types of vehicles. Mangoe (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would not be opposed to a dynamic list of one-off cars that have articles with a brief explanation of what "one-off" refers to, however as was explained, it's a very vague term that could mean anything from concept cars to movie cars to cars that were built by manufacturers with the intention of being sold, and a lot of the categories overlap. Making one for "vehicles" on the other hand means you would have to include things like space shuttles and cruise ships which are vehicles that are obviously not mass-produced. Regardless, this article needs to be WP:TNT'd. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Vehicle únic or vehicolo único vs. ONE-OFF.. May be the problem is in the title translation and should be changed to "unique vehicle".. that does not "exactly" mean, a ONE-OFF piece fabricated.. I am adding the translation of the comments of the original autor in catalan wiki, based in the idea of the italian article: "vehicolo único", with vehicles wich are "unique" in its dessign, but "sometimes" with more than ONE-OFF fabricated.

This article allows to centralize many cases that do not have an article but they deserve one. Whether they have an article on other wikis or they don't have it. It is not easy to find some of these "unique items" that can make all together an interesting article.--Mcapdevila (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcapdevila Have you forgot to declare that you are the article creator? In case you don't know, they do have their own articles. With your argument, are we going to document every one of them starting with the Benz Patentwagen? I can point this out, one-offs have existed since the dawn of the automobile. I cannot see your reasoning being a valid argument. SpacedFarmer (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to "declare" something obvious and evident to editors with a couple of weeks editing? Mcapdevila (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well you're the one who created that article and voting keep rings bells. Still, any different to coachbuilder? SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article creators have as much of a right to participate in AFDs as any other editor and doesn't it seem natural that most would vote to keep articles they created? They don't need to post a disclaimer and SpacedFarmer, you're in no position to make demands of other editors, especially ones that started editing in 2008. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The article needs a better scoping statement in the lede, a lot of copy-edit work and perhaps a better title, but WP:DINC. The subject is encyclopaedic and RS exist. I see no policy-based reasons for deletion. I would wonder if the article might be better restructured into a stand-alone list with a strong intro, but (again), that's cleanup and not a reason for deletion. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My criticism of this proposal is that the article of coachbuilder exists (as they were called then) and has that same principle. SpacedFarmer (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
coachbuilder coexists in parallel with custom car, or customized car wich are similar..

One off, maybe we shall rename it to "unique vehicle".. deals with vehicles in general.. not only cars Mcapdevila (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest '''one-off production car''' for 1) it should be about production cars with the pure intention of being produced as one, not 2 or more 2) cars always take the limelight 3) motorcycles are typically customised by a customiser because they are cheaper to do so - 2 of those of your entries are not one-offs and how do you know the OSSA was a one-off? Because it is a sole-surviving model, it doesn't mean it is. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per above. The article requires improvements, but has an encyclopedic scope. Svartner (talk) 04:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.. I've done a little of copy-edit, to start with.. obviously more work is still needed.. Mcapdevila (talk) 12:36, 15 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 Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of all Formula One Grands Prix in order

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

Fails WP:LISTN and technically untenable on the longer term. Also an unnecessary content fork of the season articles. T v x1 23:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. T v x1 23:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Essentially a content fork with no added independent value; there is nothing gained from this page compared to the season articles, which additionally include non-championship races. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (updated primary recommendation based on concerns that merge target may grow too large) or Merge to List of Formula One Grands Prix. While this list meets the purpose criterion of WP:NLIST as an informational and navigational list and is also an acceptable WP:DIFFORK, I think a merge by WP:NOPAGE to page containing related lists probably makes sense. —siro χ o 18:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose criterion is not a trump card to a list. Notability (or in this case lack thereof) cannot just be ignored. Also this is way too large (and increasing endlessly) to be actually of navigational and informational use. This is list also does not add any new information whatsoever to what already is present in other articles. As for merging with the other list, that would only make it worse size-wise and would go against a consensus achieved there no to include such lists there.T v x1 21:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NLIST and being a WP:CFORK. Listing GP this way has no value, indepedent of the season articles.06:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSSB (talk • contribs)
I'm leaning weak keep. I agree with Siroxo that this meets both WP:NLIST and is a totally acceptable WP:DIFFORK. The page is, however, a bit unwieldy. I'm not sure what content could be merged without ballooning the List of Formula One Grands Prix out of control.--Cerebral726 (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you actually substantiate that it meets WP:LISTN then? Notability doesn't exist because you say so. You need to prove it with acceptable sources.Tvx1 21:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Specific examples:
Smith, Roger (2019). Formula 1 All The Races: The First 1000. Poundbury, England: Veloce Publishing. ISBN 978-1-787115-66-8.

The Formula One Record Book (2023): Grand Prix Results, Team & Driver Stats, All-Time Records

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH COMPLETE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF FORMULA ONE by Bruce Jones
Additionally to these, in a more general sense, the guidelines call for the subjects to be "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Few things are discussed more in motorsports than the set of all time results of Formula One Grands Prix. Everything is always discussed in the context of the results dating back to 1950, such as milestone in this list always specifically mentioned in the news: [22][23][24] Cerebral726 (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The three weblinks you provided don't "[discuss all F1 races] as a group or set". They talk about one event in isolation just because it happens to represent a milestone in the sport's history (500th, 900th and 1100th races). That is not the same thing. SSSB (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What’s your opinion on the 3 other sources I provided? Cerebral726 (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That it is very hard to gauge the relevance of those books because I don't know a) the accuracy of the claim of "complete encyclopedia" or b) the depth of detail or c) (linked to b and a) if these books discuss them as a set or discuss them independently but all of them. What I would say is that these are three WP:FANCRUFT books. We shouldn't be keeping a list for WP:FANCRUFT reasons. SSSB (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather say those books fall under WP:ROUTINE coverage and don’t establish notability. Of course the basic results will be covered somewhere.T v x1 13:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on its usefulness as a navigation tool meeting WP:CLN/AOAL. // Timothy :: talk 17:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid argument per WP:USEFUL. This has nothing to do with policies or guidelines, but is pure personal opinion. The season articles are much more “useful” for this purpose.T v x1 21:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Timothy was fairly clear that they are not saying the article is merely useful without any justification, as a personal opinion. They cite WP:CNL and WP:AOAL as reasons why they are useful as a navigation tool and thus encyclopedic, which is an argument that further builds upon arguments already presented above. Cerebral726 (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of these trump WP:LISTN, which isn’t satisfied here.T v x1 19:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, I do not see how this fancruft article is going to be any use to anybody but the most obsessed F1 stans. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really don't understand why it is so difficult to have something deleted from Wikipedia these days. All the keep arguments have been refuted. I honestly don't see why this keeps being relisted then. Is it really that much to ask to just properly weigh the arguments instead of just counting the numbers? Arguments are not valid just because they are made. Consensus is not unanimity. Meanwhile, this article keeps ballooning in size and there is nothing at all here that is not already conveyed to our readers in a much more valuable way anywhere else on Wikipedia. This is nothing but unnecessary duplication for the sake of it.T v x1 23:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People take in information in different ways, there are a lot of ways of thinking and learning. Presenting the same information in multiple ways is generally good for accessibility. Others may find more value in something like this than you do. —siro χ o 03:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it just don’t buy that for this information. Your just bringing this up as an excuse to justify keeping this for the sake of it. There’s no way an article this large (and continualltly enlarging) is of true practical usage. This isn’t even a different way of presenting this information. It’s just copying it to a different place for the sake of it. T v x1 11:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider striking your accusation. It's unfounded, unnecessary, and untrue. —siro χ o 02:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SpacedFarmer. I don't disagree with the fact that this list is a fancruft and should be removed. Accesscrawl (talk) 02:52, 19 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. Star Mississippi 22:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peninsula Youth Orchestra, Newport News,VA

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

Does not seem to meet notability requirements (all four links in the article are dead). In addition, no major edits to the article have been made since 2018 Saltyeg (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just curious. Saltyeg, that you nominated this article for deletion with your first edit with this account. Very unusual that you would even know about AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have been lurking for around three months here, reading the Teahouse and WP policies. I decided to make a new account because my old one had my full name on it which I am no longer interested in sharing online. Saltyeg (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: on the fence here; they seemingly have a lot of magazine/newspaper coverage, but it all seems to be mostly brief mentions. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 15:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: firstly, neither dead links nor lack of major recent edits constitute valid grounds for deletion. But from the more important sourcing standpoint, there's this mid-1970s music journal article published by the American String Teachers Association at the University of Michigan and written by an editor from the Dallas Independent School District, this 2022 article from The Daily Press republished by Yahoo! Finance, this interview of the orchestra's parent organization (Soundscapes) by a Virginian arm of NPR with some coverage of the orchestra, this 2021 audition announcement in a local publication, and this recent local news announcing their holiday concert. Left guide (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:58, 20 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 Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity). This discussion is a horrible mess. If there is evidence supporting the existence of this title as a standalone article, it has not been presented here. If there is a strong reason why this title needs to be a DAB separate from Greater Armenia, it has not been cogently presented either. As such I'm seeing consensus that the title should be redirect, and "Kingdom of Armenia" has the most support for a target, but alternate targets were not discussed much; so this discussion does not preclude retargetting if a future discussion finds consensus for it. I would remind all participants that this is a designated contentious topic; more decorum is expected, or sanctions may follow. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Armenia (state)

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

This article had been a dab (see here) before MarshallBagramyan rewrited it to an article (see here). It's not a broad-concept article, and may not stand for a separate topic from Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity). Although most of its material lacks reliable sources, A455bcd9 replaced it with a section similar to Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)#Provinces (see here) and eventually turned it to a dab (see here) again one month after they proposed the merge. Given that the consensus in the merge discussion is not clear, I restored the dab at the base name and moved the article here to obtain further consensus if it should be deleted or blanked and redirected. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Armenia. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was a consensus: 4 users were ok for turning the page into a dab and provided reasons to do so. Two users opposed the move but based on their answer, we can assume that they did not understand the question and when asked for precision they didn't reply.

Anyway, you decided to override the merge process and to create the dab, that's fine.

But then why did you reopen the merge discussion?

I don't understand what you're doing. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this process: as I said in the merge discussion, I could not find any RS describing "Greater Armenia" as anything else than the Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity), or part of it, or the region that used to be part of it. So I'm fine with all options: delete "Greater Armenia (state)", redirect it to Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity), or rename it to "Greater Armenia (region)" to describe the region (although I'm not sure it would reach the notability threshold in that case). I'd tend to favor Blank and redirect to Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius, Caeciliusinhorto-public, KhndzorUtogh, Avrand6, and Rager7: Also ping the participants of the previous merge discussion. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither: merge the content, and then restore the disambiguation page. This isn't a deletion argument, because the title has some encyclopedic value and the content that was here should be/should have been merged into "Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)". It shouldn't be a redirect, because there's a secondary (or perhaps even primary) meaning in a nationalist concept of Armenia extending beyond its present borders. The existence of two or more plausible meanings for the phrase is what justifies a disambiguation page; and we do not need to delete the article and create a new page for that purpose in order to hide what was previously written and merged into "Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)". The original source of merged content is usually kept, with the content available for review under article history, unless for some reason it violated copyright or was patent nonsense.

Here the reasons for merging are that it's overlapping and underdeveloped. The lack of sources isn't even an issue in this regard. As far as I could see, the only arguments opposing the merger seemed to be vague assertions that the topic was somehow distinct in a way that could not be clearly described; and it seemed to me that they were coming from the perspective of modern Armenian nationalism, rather than anything to do with the article as it stood. P Aculeius (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Armenia has already been a disambiguation page, while we might want to merge the history there. The only issue is that the merge proposer A455bcd9 tried to remove almost all content in this article without merging for the lack of sources. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop repeating the nonsense that I debunked many times: I improved the content of the article and you reverted to add back unsourced content and removed sourced one. You keep refusing to engage in discussion on the content (not the process). You went against the consensus to start this new procedure, even after you recognized your disruption yourself and reopened the merge discussion. You're wasting other people's time. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing with someone who is bludgeoning like you is actually wasting everyone's time. And I can't find any consensus formed before you unilaterally overwrited this article without merging anything into Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity). Hold yourself together and wait for AfD outcome. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since it doesn't look like you're going to be able to agree on who's bludgeoning whom—why not just see what material in this article needs to be merged into the other—with sources if possible, with tags requesting sources if not, but at least plausible—and then redirect this title to the best target.

It may be that nothing in here needs to be added to the other article, if it's already covered, or unclear/improbable and unsourced. That's okay—sometimes a merge just amounts to blanking with the edit summary "content merged into X" after you've made sure that there's nothing left over that isn't in the appropriate article. The difference between merging and deletion is that with a merger, the original page contents are preserved in case this gets turned into an article again in the future, or in case someone wants to check whether something in another article came from here. It also preserves the work that went into this article, so that the various editors who contributed to it receive credit. It doesn't matter if you don't take anything from here somewhere else; it's still useful to be able to review what was here, and who contributed to it. P Aculeius (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NmWTfs85lXusaybq: I can't find any consensus, then what is 4 people in favor (providing arguments) vs 2 against (without providing any argument)?

@P Aculeius: I added tags requesting sources in October. I removed the unsourced content one month later after I failed to find sources and I aligned the content with the sources already cited. NmWTfs85lXusaybq, without reading anything, reverted that 🤷. I've just added back tags. But what should we do next? (I offered to request a third opinion but NmWTfs85lXusaybq refused...) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want then? This is already the discussion for its deletion, given that you are asking for removing most of the material which is unsourced or failed verification. Your section that overwrited this article should have been directly added to Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)#Provinces instead. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want the same thing as @P Aculeius: "Neither: merge the content, and then restore the disambiguation page". Basically, revert everything you've done. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Determining consensus isn't about counting votes. You have to consider what the arguments being made by each side are, and whether they hold water. That's not to say you agree with them—they can be valid arguments even if you think that other arguments should prevail. However, from what I saw, no coherent argument was made by the people opposing the merger, and neither one was willing to explain that opposition in greater detail, which made it appear that they were opposing it out of nationalist sentiment—the sheer emotional assertion that "Greater Armenia is grand and noble country!"

In order for retaining this article to make sense, it needs to represent a real and definable topic that is clearly distinguishable from the ancient kingdom of Armenia as a topic, and include significant (i.e. not trivial), verifiable contents that are not already found in the main article about that kingdom and cannot conveniently be added and addressed there. That doesn't mean that the contents of this article would need to be added there verbatim and without alteration to the sources. Redundant or trivial information, material that is incorrect or that cannot be verified with diligent effort to locate a good source for it may be omitted. If better sources exist for something than the ones cited in this short article, then they can be replaced too—the same as if they had been copied over first, and then someone found better sources and replaced them.

If everything significant and verifiable in this very short article is adequately covered in the other one, then there is nothing remaining to merge. Any edits that added material—even a minimal amount, such as a redundant source citation—to the other article can indicate a partial merger from this article in the edit summary. This article can then be turned into a redirect to the disambiguation page, with a similar edit summary: "contents merged to Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)" or something similar.

If you're opposed to this process, please indicate clearly what contents in this article cannot properly be merged into "Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)", and why they justify a stand-alone article. There is already an article about the concept of "Greater Armenia" as the current state plus extraterritorial claims that nationalists would like to add to it. Anything along those lines can be merged there, as well—you can merge content into more than one article—and if the title of that article isn't satisfactory, you can open a page move discussion there. But since the title of this article is probably ambiguous, it'd be better as a redirect to the disambiguation page. The fact that other editors opposed the move without explaining clearly why merger should not be done doesn't provide a significant reason for opposing it.

This is how the process is supposed to work under ordinary circumstances. A third-party opinion from someone else who isn't involved and doesn't have a strong opinion before reading the arguments is a way of seeking help if, after reading the above, you still can't agree on how to proceed. But it seems to me that you have a pretty straightforward merger here: short article, poorly sourced, the contents of which seem to duplicate or fit entirely within the scope of a much larger and better-sourced article (I didn't say perfect: that one also could use work, but most articles can be improved). You should be able to agree on that if you're both arguing in good faith, in which case a third-party opinion may not be needed. P Aculeius (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree @P Aculeius. (FYI: That's what I did on Dec 3rd: Changing 'Greater Armenia' to a dab and merging one source to 'Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)'. NmWTfs85lXusaybq reverted all of that for reasons that I still fail to understand then renamed the article, created a dab, closed, reopened and then reclosed the merge discussion and started this AfD process.) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, you admit that all the content you merged into Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity) is no extant material but only a source you just tagged with {{Failed verification}}. However, the other source which passed verification was replaced and later abandoned from your merging. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What?! What's your point? Nonsense again:

I tagged the sentence that cannot be verified by the source used. But the source is good and it does talk about Greater Armenia so I added it to the related section in Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity) which was unsourced. How is this a problem? If you could take the time to read the source, you'd understand.

What is "the other source"? The Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia? It's only used in Greater Armenia (state) in the sentence about Lesser Armenia. The same sentence could be backed by Hewsen 1997 which also mentions Lesser Armenia, that's what I did. So there was no reason to cite The Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia (which might not be RS btw...). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you have removed all extant material in the original article and even one source added by yourself without merging. A deletion could never be seen as a merge and must be concluded formally in the AfD procedure. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But all the content is already in Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity). You cannot merge what is already there. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's only the section you used to overwrite this article, otherwise you wouldn't drop your source from merging. Almost all extant material in this article had been tagged with {{cn}} and later removed in your consecutive edits from 29 November 2023. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are you arguing for? I'm really trying to understand your point.

Greater Armenia (state) has 5 sentences:

The first one, with cn, is already covered by Kingdom_of_Armenia_(antiquity)#Artaxiad_dynasty => I did not move it.
The second one, unsourced, is covered by Kingdom_of_Armenia_(antiquity)#Provinces => I moved the source there.
The third one, unsourced, is indeed not in Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity). I removed it while editing the article. So when I transformed into a dab, I did not copy this unsourced content into Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity). Is this a problem?
The fourth one about the Latin name and the distinction between Lesser and Greater Armenia, is already mentioned in Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity) as well. So I did not copy it to Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity) either.
The fifth one about Cicilia, is unsourced and not covered in Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity). I could not find a source so I deleted it and later transformed into a dab. Is that an issue?

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about deletion of Greater Armenia (state), as opposed to its merge to Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity). In your version, the first sentence is not expanded by material and sources in Kingdom_of_Armenia_(antiquity)#Artaxiad_dynasty, but removed for no RS. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity). Might be WP:CONTENTFORK. Could be merged, but the content isn't much. Aintabli (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Greater Armenia refers specifically to the region around the Armenian Highlands, while Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity) often refered to areas beyond that (see the map file on the article). --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity) per WP:PAGEDECIDE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Armenia (disambiguation): as the article is a duplicate of the others mentioned, but there are multiple meanings to "Greater Armenia". All meanings can go to Armenia (disambiguation). बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:50, 28 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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A. Andrews & Sons

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

Sadly, this article on a long-lived company is only referenced by a single source (two sources appear in the list of references, however, they're syndicated articles). A WP:BEFORE on Google News and Google Books doesn't find anything to redeem it. Chetsford (talk) 06:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Struggling to find anything and can't immediately see an alternative to deletion. Could be local sources on such a longstanding business. Was hopeful that the documents on the company's website[25] might be of help but one of the cuttings is an advertiser's announcement; the other headed "Comprehensive service from 300 employees" I'm unable to decipher and we'd need to find the original newspaper source to confirm whether or not it's an advertising feature. Rupples (talk) 04:59, 18 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 12:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rajkumar (2024 film)

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

WP:NFF: hasn't yet commenced principal photography. Sources cited say that filming was proposed to begin in July 2022, but all that's been announced so far is plans. Wikishovel (talk) 06:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Wikishovel (talk) 06:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quick google search results in no info. Not notable enough. Probably made for advertisement. killer bee  08:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per mention by K6bee9(Talk) – Non-notable. Kkb091 (talk) 10:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment someone connected with the film obviously has their eye on this article, as on the day of proposed deletion, press releases were hurried out claiming that casting had begun, and that principal photography had begun, which would be quite a feat of engineering. Wikishovel (talk) 08:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This film is pretty viral in Bangladesh (type রাজকুমার শাকিব খান into google and translate, maybe even use a dhaka proxy server), but I think it should be placed in the Bangla wiki (bn.Wikipedia) Iamawesomedog (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per all arguments above. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 08:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What kind of behavior is it? I have improved the whole article, why this article was deleted without any communication with me, I want to know? And those of you who are scholars here, how did you know from outside the country that filming has not started? নবাব (talk) 12:01, 21 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. Nomination withdrawn.[26] Eluchil404 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Swords (suit)

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

The articles Cups (suit), Coins (suit), Batons (suit), Swords (suit) were created in 2019, duplicating longstanding content at Suit of cups, Suit of coins, Suit of wands, and Suit of swords, respectively. They should be merged if they have anything new. Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This copied-and-pasted rationale is visibly faulty. Swords (suit) is visibly not a duplicate of Suit of swords. Swords (suit) is (it says) about playing cards and Suit of swords is (it says) about Tarot cards. Uncle G (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A) AFD really isn't "articles for discussion" and shouldn't be used for a merge proposal. B) per Uncle G they do appear different. C) I don't see a good reason why these 4 weren't done as a bundle--I find it unlikely that the arguments at each will be different. Would you mind closing these four and giving us one bundled proposal (or take it to the talk pages). Hobit (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but do not merge. These are two distinct topics. Although occultists based their suits on those of the Italian pattern of playing cards, they broke away over 200 years ago to produce their own packs purely for cartomantic purposes. So Swords (suit) is specifically about the playing cards, whereas suit of swords is purely about cartomantic cards. They have different designs and uses with almost no crossover. The same is true of cups and goblets, batons and wands, coins and pentacles, etc. We have been slowly untangling the mess caused by combining them, but there is more to do. I agree the naming needs sorting out because the suit is called "swords" by both card players and occultists. So we could make it clear by calling them e.g. Foo (playing card suit) and Foo (cartomantic suit). In the other 3 cases, there are different names that can be used to distinguish them. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 17:01, 14 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. Nomination withdrawn.[27] Eluchil404 (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Batons (suit)

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

The articles Cups (suit), Coins (suit), Batons (suit), Swords (suit) were created in 2019, duplicating longstanding content at Suit of cups, Suit of coins, Suit of wands, and Suit of swords, respectively. They should be merged if they have anything new. Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This copied-and-pasted rationale is visibly faulty. Batons (suit) is visibly not a duplicate of Suit of wands. Batons (suit)/Suit of batons is (it says) about playing cards and Suit of wands is (it says) about Tarot cards. Uncle G (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but do not merge. These are two distinct topics. Although occultists based their suits on those of the Italian pattern of playing cards, they broke away over 200 years ago to produce their own packs purely for cartomantic purposes. So Batons (suit) is specifically about the playing cards, whereas the one on the suit of wands is purely about cartomantic cards. They have different designs and uses with almost no crossover. The same is true of cups and goblets, coins and pentacles, etc. We have been slowly untangling the mess caused by combining them, but there is more to do. I agree the names need sorting out and perhaps they could be named Foo (suit) or we could make it clear by calling them e.g. Foo (playing card suit) and Foo (cartomantic suit). HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 16:58, 14 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. Nomination withdrawn.[28] Eluchil404 (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Coins (suit)

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

The articles Cups (suit), Coins (suit), Batons (suit), Swords (suit) were created in 2019, duplicating longstanding content at Suit of cups, Suit of coins, Suit of wands, and Suit of swords, respectively. They should be merged if they have anything new. Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This copied-and-pasted rationale is visibly faulty. Coins (suit) is visibly not a duplicate of Suit of coins. Coins (suit) is (it says) about playing cards and Suit of coins is (it says) about Tarot cards and has an alternative name of Suit of pentacles. Uncle G (talk) 09:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
* Keep but do not merge. These are two distinct topics. Although occultists based their suits on those of the Italian pattern playing cards, they started producing their own packs over 200 years ago for cartomancy. So Coins (suit) is specifically about the playing cards, whereas Suit of coins is purely about cartomantic cards. They have different designs and uses with almost no crossover. The same is true of batons and wands, cups and goblets, etc. We have been slowly untangling the mess caused by combining them, but there is more to do. I agree the naming should be changed and would suggest renaming Suit of coins to Pentacles (suit); equally we expand the disambiguator by calling them e.g. Foo (playing card suit) and Foo (cartomantic suit). HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 16:56, 14 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. Star Mississippi 03:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perdita Hyde-Sinclair

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

Only three sources, two of which comes from the same source. Nothing else found via WP:BEFORE except a couple of passing mentions. May I suggest a redirect to List of Emmerdale characters (2006) as an WP:ATD. (Oinkers42) (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 06:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 06:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per WP:HEY, as this article has been greatly improved since the nomination, and likely will be improved even more. The character is clearly notable and has SIGCOV and the 27+ sources show that. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has been improved since the nomination. I disagree that there was not enough sources elsewhere online as I could find numerous. It looks like they are being added to the article. No need to redirect to List of Emmerdale characters (2006) since the article passes GNG and has SIGCOV in offline print sources.Rain the 1 18:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made to article post-nomination. – Meena • 14:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've had a go at improving the article and believe it passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. There are a number of sources out there for the character, but I will concede that it does take someone with knowledge of the subject to find them all. I do wish that a discussion had taken place on a relevant talk page, before coming straight to WP:AfD though. Also, I'm not quite sure what's wrong with refs coming from the same source? - JuneGloom07 Talk 22:50, 19 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. Nomination withdrawn[29]. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Cups (suit)

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

The articles Cups (suit), Coins (suit), Batons (suit), Swords (suit) were created in 2019, duplicating longstanding content at Suit of cups, Suit of coins, Suit of wands, and Suit of swords, respectively. They should be merged if they have anything new. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all 4 (as nom) using the old names, including moving Suit of goblets back to Suit of cups, where it was before Bermicourt made a disambig to distinguish his new from the old; they should really be one. Dicklyon (talk) 06:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This copied-and-pasted rationale is visibly faulty. Cups (suit) is not a duplicate of Suit of cups. The latter is a disambiguation between Cups (suit) and Suit of goblets. And those two are not duplicates on their faces, either. Cups (suit) is (it says) about playing cards and Suit of goblets is (it says) about Tarot cards. Uncle G (talk) 09:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but do not merge. These are two distinct topics. Although occultists based their suits on those of the Italian pattern of playing cards, they broke away over 200 years ago to produce their own packs purely for cartomantic purposes. So the article on the suit of cups is specifically about the playing cards, whereas the one on the suit of goblets is purely about cartomantic cards. They have different designs and uses with almost no crossover. The same is true of batons and wands, coins and pentacles, etc. We have been slowly untangling the mess caused by combining them, but there is more to do. They could all be named Foo (suit) or we could make it clear by calling them e.g. Foo (playing card suit) and Foo (cartomantic suit). HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I relent and sorry I didn't find how best to do all 4 at once. Feel free to close 'em. Dicklyon (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep of all four articles, per withdrawal by nominator, above. RecycledPixels (talk) 08:34, 15 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 06:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sumeja Bektaš

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

The subject, a Bosnian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found in my searches was this transactional announcement. Everything else that came up was passing mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 06:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. JTtheOG (talk) 06:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:40, 13 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 Kosovo women's international footballers. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anjeza Rexhepi

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

Redirect to List of Kosovo women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 06:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Kosovo. JTtheOG (talk) 06:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: No sigcov on Google, no hits on GNews. Fails WP:NBIO/WP:NSPORT. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:09, 20 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 Kosovo women's international footballers. Star Mississippi 03:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lumbardha Misini

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

Redirect to List of Kosovo women's international footballers. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found in my searches was this and this. Fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Kosovo. JTtheOG (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:41, 13 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 04:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aboureihan High School

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

Non-Notable school, no citations, WP:BEFORE found no reliable sources. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Iran. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:57, 6 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!} 05:36, 13 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 clear consensus that the article content should not be deleted, redirected, merged etc. Some editors believe that the article content should be reorganized, but no suggestion came close to achieving consensus so it is a matter for talkpage discussion rather than AFD. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mongol invasion of Central Asia

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

The existence of this article is essentially WP:SYNTH - it summarizes the events of two individually notable campaigns, but is not in itself notable, and it is not discussed as such in WP:RS. All the information in the article is summarized in either Mongol conquest of the Qara Khitai or Mongol conquest of the Khwarazmian Empire; this should probably either be deleted or redirected to Mongol invasions and conquests. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT per discussion with 3family6 below, I think Disambiguate also just about works. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Asia, and Mongolia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Yes, this seems like a redundant, synthesized topic. Delete per nom.~~ ~~Withdrawn for now while I talk to the editor.~~ The article has expanded and its purpose clarified since I originally voted, now fully for keeping. Remsense留 19:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SYNTH. An interesting case, though, as it is literally the opposite of a WP:POVFORK. Instead of splitting one subject, it takes two valid topics and attempts to artificially combine them into one. Maybe a POVSPOON? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or ~~userfy~~ Disambiguate as there is more to Mongol campaigns in Central Asia than just the summaries of these two campaigns, although they were the largest. The invasion of Cumania, for example. I'm actually in the process of creating some of that content. There is a need for an overarching treatment of how the specific campaigns all relate to each other. More directly to the issue, though, is that a quick search of "Mongol invasion of Central Asia" brings up multiple sources about the topic, not all of them about only the invasion of Khwarezmia. There's even at least two with that exact title. Here's some of the results: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34].--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've greatly expanded the content to include other operations and campaigns in Central Asia. Should address the SYNTH issues.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Your expansions to the article and comments above indicate that you believe a substantial portion of the "invasion of Central Asia" began before the commencement Mongol invasion of Khwarazmia in 1218—this is not supported by any of the sources you have provided:

Islam 2016 states "a punitive action against the Kara-Khitai was the prelude to the all-out Mongol invasion of Central Asia in 1218–1219". The campaigns such as the invasion of Cumania are not mentioned in the article entitled "The Mongol Invasion of Central Asia", which is completely devoted to the invasion of Khwarazmia. It is clear that Islam's conception of the "Invasion of Central Asia" is just our article Mongol invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire under a different name, and completely unrelated to your conception of there being "more to Mongol campaigns in Central Asia than just the summaries of these two campaigns".
Abasov 2008 is an entry from an encylopedia entitled "Historical Atlas Of Central Asia"—as such, many entries include the words "Central Asia" in their titles, but are described on WP under different names. See for instance the entry "The Arab Conquest of Central Asia" (on WP Muslim conquest of Transoxiana) or "Timur and the Timurid Empire in Central Asia (on WP Timur & Timurid Empire). Aside from that, it must be noted that Abasov, like Islam, states outright "In 1219, Genghis Khan invaded Central Asia"—again, he does not mention Cumania, or any other campaigns, clearly showing that he is just referring to the invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire.
The academics.hamilton.edu source similarly states "The Mongols began their invasion of Central Asia in 1218... on a mission of vengeance against the ruler of Khwarezm"
I am confused by your citations above to Biran 2009 and a Boundless World History textbook, as neither use the phrase "Invasion of Central Asia". Nevertheless, neither discusses events before 1216.

So to summarize, the sources explicitly titled "The Mongol Invasion of Central Asia" only discuss the Mongol invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire, while none of the five sources you have provided support the inclusion of sections on the "Destruction of the Merkit–Naiman alliance", the "Submission of the Uyghurs and Karluks", or the "Destruction of the Merkit–Kipchak alliance". As it stands, the article thus contains quite a bit more WP:SYNTH than before. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what part of the world do those sections I added deal with? Geographic Central Asia. It is not SYNTH to mention campaigns that happened in Central Asia as part of a series of campaigns in Central Asia, especially when the argument in question is that there is nothing else that happened in Central Asia. The five sources above that I mentioned I listed before I created this new content. I did not cite them to support these additions. I added these additions because there are additional battles that happened in Central Asia, when the argument is that there wasn't anything else happening in Central Asia.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources that include what I've added as part of Mongol activity in Central Asia: pages 8-10, [35], [36]--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the argument in question is that there is nothing else that happened in Central Asia That is not the argument: as written in the deletion nomination above, the article is not in itself notable—sources do not discuss it as an entity, and to combine multiple sections on individually notable campaigns that are not explicitly connected by reliable sources is WP:SYNTH. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You contended that the new content I added did not belong in this article. That's what I mean about arguing that nothing else occurred in Central Asia. They are explicitly connected, in the source material. One rolled into the next. The early mopping up of Merkit and Naiman opposition directly flowed into the conquest of Qara Khitai because Kuchlug seized the Qara Khitan throne. And then the Mongols were rubbing up against Khwarazm, which led to that conquest. This is reflected in many of the sources. And this source by one of the historians that I cite in the new content that I added explicitly says the preliminary expansion started in 1209.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, events flowing into each other is generally how time works. I don't think this getting anywhere productive, so I'll disengage and let the closer evaluate. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If sources discuss all this happening, it isn't original synthesis. There's sources that include both the conquest of Qara Khitai and Khwarazm in descriptions of the Mongol conquest of Central Asia. And now I've provided sources showing that the other actions in geographic Central Asia are described as occurring in that part of the world, and now I've shown that there's at least one source connecting all of these other actions to the big campaign that was the conquest of Khwarazm. While the article still needs work, the concerns for why it is it is nominated for deletion are addressed. Editors are supposed to do their due diligence first and consult sources before nominating for deletion. I can see why the source material would be difficult to work through, but now it's provided, so the notability concerns don't hold water. And whatever remaining SYNTH concerns there might have been, the Timothy May article I linked to above clears those up. Deletion is not a substitute for cleanup. I'll be happy to clean up this article once I've finished the current project I'm working on. It just so happens through coincidence that my creation of articles related to the Mongol conquest of Siberia happened to also have a lot of pertinence to, and overlap with, the early Central Asian endeavors, so I had material relatively at the ready.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3family6, non-leading question, could you articulate what additional value is contributed to the wiki by the existence of this article as opposed to all its pertinent information (in a future, complete version to your satisfaction) being contained in the other relevant articles? Remsense留 01:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is pertinent to having any over-arching articles about large, inter-related campaigns when we have articles about the constituent campaigns and battles of which they are comprised? We could get even larger - for instance, Anne Broadbridge mentions the "Western Campaign", which is basically everything west and southwest of Mongolia as opposed to the campaign against the Chinese states (note: I'm not saying that in this case we should, but that there's precedent in reliable sources to do so). It's useful for readers (which includes myself) to have articles that are broad summaries that show how a series of specific campaigns are related. Secondly, while some of the content I've added could have its own article, specifically the submission of Uyghur and Karluk states, and the Battle of Chem will have its own article, some of the content I don't think will ever merit its own article. It's more notable in how it relates to these other key events than stand-alone.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The precise meaning of 'campaign' is key here. It may sound like a pedantic point, but is there any notion that the various central Asian campaigns were viewed at the time as being part of a larger 'campaign' as it were? Or is is simply a historiographical construction? I think an article could be viable either way, but it definitely affects what I think the focus and scale of the article should be. Remsense留 01:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great question. The conquest of Qara Khitai seems to be part of the same campaign as the initial operations in 1209 that followed-up Jochi's Siberian campaign, as it essentially is part of the "mopping up" of opposition factions that date back to the rise of Genghis Khan. And there's some historical speculation that the Uyghurs and Karluks submitted because the Mongols weren't in their territory just to pursue the Merkits. The part that's less clear is if Khwarazm was viewed as part of this. And I that depends on if there was always a plan to invade Khwarazm, and that's debated by historians. So it's a historical construction, but possibly reflective of how the Mongols saw it. After Khwarazm, it seems a lot clearer that the Mongols now saw the entire West as a possession of the imperial family and the respective campaigns were all part of securing that.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

could you articulate what additional value is contributed to the wiki by the existence of this article as opposed to all its pertinent information (in a future, complete version to your satisfaction) being contained in the other relevant articles? Remsense and AirshipJungleman29, I could see each of the sections I added being turned into an article, if they aren't already, and this article being converted into a reference article such as a dab or list article . I think there's value to having it in full article form, but I can see that as alternate option and I wouldn't be opposed to that.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3family6, yes, I see it now, I'm going to reverse my original position now. Thanks for the answers! Remsense留 03:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see how any of that discussion solves what seems to be core issue. What need is there for 'an overarching treatment' of the various (apparently very distinct) campaigns? I am not seeing them treated as a unified concept in the sources. What am I missing? Can someone give a short (paragraph or less) explanation of that, please? I am not hard to persuade to keep an article, but I'm just not seeing how this is not WP:SYNTH and probably WP:OR. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not original synthesis as there are no conclusions reached that aren't in the source material. I challenge editors to show where that is the case. The biggest issue I see is that most references to "Mongol invasion/conquest of Central Asia" refer to Khwarazm or both Qara Khitai and Khwarazm. But, given that 1) these other campaigns/operations also occurred in geographic Central Asia (where else could they be discussed? They aren't Europe or Siberia, although there's overlap. The securing of Xinjiang and surrounding area could be discussed in the invasions China, but if editors are opposing inclusion here, they'd have to oppose inclusion there, as well), and 2) there are academic sources to support both the submission of the Uyghurs and Karluks and the "mopping-up" campaign beginning in 1209. The sections on Qara Khitai and Khwarazm aren't cited, but that's a WP:V issue and there's plenty of sources to support that material that just aren't yet cited.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I still don't see this either. I don't see how the sentence "Mongol expansion into Central Asia began in 1209" requires an entire article to be created on the "Mongol invasion of Central Asia", especially as the same author says differently elsewhere and two other sources define the "Mongol invasion of Central Asia" to be the Mongol invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire. If this article is kept, it has to be moved to something like "List of Mongol campaigns in Central Asia", as I did for the article formerly titled Mongol conquest of Siberia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be moved to "Mongol campaigns in Central Asia". AirshipJungleman29, how would you categorize the minor 1209 campaign in Central Asia if it was created as it's own article? I.e., in the infobox, how would "part of the Mongol campaigns in Central Asia be incorrect, especially given that it can be cited to a source?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have already created it as its own article: Battle of Irtysh River (13th century). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. You would argue that the follow-up activities that would be included in the aftermath section of that article and my forthcoming Battle of Chem River article would be sufficient?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background and aftermath sections are all that would be required 3family6. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I am not sure that even a merge to that subject is worthwhile. I am still firmly in the 'Delete' camp unless someone can explain why this is an encyclopaedic subject in itself and not a synthesis that artificially combines separate campaigns in a way that the scholarship does not support. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarship does support it. There's debate as to whether or not Khwarazm was always the end goal after Qara Khitai, and whether it was a goal or not, if the Irghiz River skirmish was a one-off or the prelude to the invasion (which in part depends on when it happened - 1209 or 1219, which is also debated).-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 3family6 and Remsense. And anyway, for the editors who want to delete it, why not just split it into separate articles and leave it as a list of the central asian campaigns? JM (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping this as a list is another possibility if the consensus is to delete.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JM2023, because we already have those articles (Mongol conquest of the Qara Khitai and Mongol conquest of the Khwarazmian Empire), and we already have a list of Mongol invasions and conquests as well. As the nomination pointed out, this is essentially WP:SYNTH - it summarizes the events of two individually notable campaigns, but is not in itself notable, and it is not discussed as [a unique, separate topic] in WP:RS. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I buy the argument that each and any way we structure information on this website has to have been done before in a previously published source. To extend that reasoning, the section Mongol invasions and conquests § Central Asia is SYNTH, and Mongol invasions and conquests § History and outcomes must be split up into precisely the military activities that are independently notable.
I did briefly attempt to disprove the assertion that this subject had never been published about under a title like this (which I gave up early without resolution after about ten pages of search hits from the first publisher I checked).
AirshipJungleman29, you're something of a subject matter expert on this, so question for you: is there any title and structure for this material that would satisfy your sense of history communication, or is the framing so problematic that it beguiles readers into misunderstandings?
To me, who knows little about this, it seems like a natural way to group information about Mongol expansion in a certain geographic and temporal space. Am I missing something? Is the article missing something? Looking back over the Mongol invasions and conquests article, I see the heading "West Asia", see a single three-sentence paragraph, and this intimidating section hatnote: What if I want a deeper understanding than the three sentences, but I don't want to read six separate articles? Is Wikipedia unable to summarise material to an intermediate level of detail because that level of detail doesn't really have a precedent in academic publishing? Folly Mox (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Folly Mox Mongol invasions and conquests is a pretty terrible article. I have no idea why it's organised geographically rather than chronologically, as is done for literally every war summary on Wikipedia. It is also ludicrously short on detail—the three sentence paragraph you outline could easily be twenty times the length. As it stands, the article's organisation is WP:SYNTH; but its content is not, because many sources do give an overview of the Mongol conquests.
To answer your question, the only way this article should exist in my view is under the title List of Mongol campaigns in Central Asia. But we do not have articles on subjects like List of Napoleonic War battles in modern Germany, or List of Second Sino-Japanese War campaigns in modern Shandong, and I don't think we should, even though they would undoubtedly be "intermediate level summaries" between Napoleonic Wars/Second Sino-Japanese War and Lists of battles of the French Revolutionary Wars and Napoleonic Wars/List of military engagements of the Second Sino-Japanese War. Let me know if that answers your question or if I totally misread it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 thank you for that explanation, that makes a lot more sense to me.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant to respond to this days ago, and had a reply all drafted, then my phone crashed and I forgot I never posted it.
I think I'm of the opinion that simply reorganising information cannot be SYNTH, which involves drawing conclusions from a combination of sources where none of the sources individually supports the conclusion. The closest guidance we have for this opinion might be WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY, or its catchily named upstairs neighbour WP:SYNTHNOTJUXTAPOSITION, which sounds like a curse hex where someone changed a single character to avoid a naming taboo. Both of these are from an essay.
That's not to say we can just write about whatever we want as long as it's sourced adequately: some things are not encyclopaedic topics. Being that the nom and the creator seem to be coming to an agreement below, I don't think I'll be leaving a not-vote, but I did want to circle back to this before it closed. Folly Mox (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my keep vote to ""split off"" into individual articles the content that doesn't already have an article (I'm planning to do this, in the meantime I can put the content in my sandbox), and ""disambiguate"' the title. I disagree with AirshipJungleman29 and Last1in that this article is SYNTH, but AirshipJungleman29 makes a really good point about this article not following existing conventions that others in this subject matter follow. I think it will be superfluous and redundant. Remsense and JM2023, see my change of mind here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 3family 6; also Remsense. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. As a closer, I have a few options available to me: Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, Draftify and Rename/Move. I can not "split off" this article into other articles or disambiguate it. Those are editorial decisions to be made by you all if it is decided that this article should be Kept. So most of this discussion here, while interesting, is besides the point and can occur on the article talk page if there is a consensus to Keep this article. Right now, I don't see a consensus so I'm relisting this discussion. As for any future contributions to this discussion, please keep them simple, realizing the limitations that a closer deals with, and move content-related discussions of what might happen later to this article to the article talk page. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All right (sorry Liz), redirect to Mongol invasions and conquests#Central Asia, so the article creator can work on splitting out relevant information without losing access to the article history, and so existing links continue to function. Cleanup will involve removing the to-be circular hatnote at the redirect target. Folly Mox (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. As is, I'm copying the information I added to my sandbox.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does the "Mongol invasion of Central Asia" exists as a single coherent subject, as oppose to WP:SYN? Yes, it does, because it appears as such in books, as one can easily find out using Google books search. For example, Palgrave Concise Historical Atlas of Central Asia (chapter IV, page 22), Conflict and Security in Central Asia and the Caucasus, whole book named Mongol Invasion of Central Asia, and so and so on. My very best wishes (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All these invasions were sequentially undertaken by the armies of Genghis Khan, which unifies them as a single subject. This is pretty much as the Mongol invasion of Europe, which also consisted of many separate rides to occupy different specific territories. My very best wishes (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per article improvement and above arguments. Could be treated as a disambiguation page but it is not synth to give an overview of the included campaigns as demonstrated above. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:21, 20 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, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Diaz

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Most of the available coverage is routine and local or not significant enough. Funny enough, there's this 2010 article in The San Diego Union-Tribune reporting that "Wikipedia officials have deleted the entry for Escondido Councilwoman Olga Diaz on their site, contending that she is not notable enough to have her own page on the popular online encyclopedia." Mooonswimmer 03:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Women, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:NPOL as she is not a major local official. But LMAO over the article cited about. Rublamb (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:33, 17 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!} 08:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Star, Alabama

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

Searching for this one was maddening: it seems that every third business in the state is either "Bright Star" something or "Brightstar" something else. The one good hit I got was a set of state statistical reports from the early 1900s which list it as a "post office". And that's all I can verify: on the maps it's a definite "there's no there there" crossroads. Mangoe (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Alabama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is an enormous number of Lulu.com books to skip past in the search engines, someone having gone on a wild spree of (barely coherent) self-publishing; but if it helps, having got past that I discovered that this was election precinct #38 in Blount County, Alabama. Uncle G (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As there is no SIGCOV, this topic does not pass GNG and so cannot be written about on Wikipedia as a standalone article. Also recommend Merge to Blount County, Alabama for this and other minor settlements in general.

बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:48, 9 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!} 03:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable location. I don't see a point in merging when this is such an unlikely search term. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:51, 13 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. JBW (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raage Anuraage

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2021.

Previous AfD ended in DELETE. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a very popular series. Sources that are currently linked are clearly WP:NTV and WP:GNG pass sufficient WP:RS on this page. Nilpriyo (talk) 12:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage exists and indicates clearly that this is a popular series, so not against keep; opposing delete because at the very least redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zee_Bangla#Former_broadcast should be warranted in my view. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:00, 2 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!} 03:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Article can't be redirected to List of programmes broadcast by Zee Bangla as this page has been deleted. An aside, popularity is only important in that it may mean that there is some SIGCOV of the article subject, in itself though it doesn't establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- These sources on this page have enough coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.181.19.253 (talk) 08:06, 14 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) Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 01:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Bectors Food

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Charlie (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Charlie (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May I ask whether you did WP:BEFORE searches on this article subject before bringing an AfD? A quick search on Google Scholar for (Bector AND Cremica) yielded a number of results with lengthy coverage, e.g., [37], [38], [39]. Did you see these and reject them for some reason? Should the rule that the existence of sources determines notability, regardless of the current state of the article apply to this nomination? Oblivy (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oblivy The journals you provided as sources aren't listed in Scopus, EBSCO, HeinOnline, or any other bibliographic index listed with Wikipedia Library. If these academic citations are accepted, they would be more fitting for enhancing Rajni Bector's page than this company's page. However, you are invited to do the needful so that it passes WP:HEY. Charlie (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your response, but you didn't really address my question. It's expected editors will do searching for sources before bringing an AfD for non-notability.Were you aware of the existence of sources describing the article subject and rejected them? I just chose the first few substantial non-paywalled sources I could find, there are others - did you see those?

Note that per WP:NEXISTS the existence of sources is most relevant, not the state of the sourcing in the article itself. Oblivy (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The academic sources you mentioned mainly talk about Rajni Bector, not so much about the company. Kindly take a look at what those sources say. Look... I acknowledge the importance of having relevant sources, but it's crucial to examine the content and context as well. If we take your perspective into account, I am also open to the idea of merging this company page with Rajni Bector's. But, for now, be bold and make changes to the page so that it passes WP:HEY. Charlie (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- per Oblivy. I also found citations from the following: Business Standard, Tribune India, etc. The article is in need of expansion, but clear notability has been demonstrated. KangarooGymnast (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Oblivy, are you arguing to Keep this article or do you advocate some other resolution? You've done some research so I assume it brought you to some conclusion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a multinational, woman-founded company that is listed on the Indian stock exchanges. It's a well known brand-name in India. It has relationships with most major fast food chains. It made national news when it got raided by tax authorities....
I've added cites which provide significant coverage. A lot of press came out around the time of its IPO and those articles provide enough factual content to support all or most of the article (I noted the founding date is all over the map, probably 1978, but also 1977 and 1985, so I left it alone). There is a lot more coverage of this company, although admittedly quite a bit of it falls into earned media rather than independent gumshoe journalism. I don't think that's disqualifying, but I know some people do.
My point above stands - I don't understand the rationale for bringing this to AfD, and certainly don't agree with the suggestion a nominator can fail to show that WP:BEFORE was met and then say, hey (pun intended), you can edit the article to try to save it. This should have been an obvious keep but someone had to do the work. Oblivy (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:CORP also per comments by Oblivy. — Maile (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't see how it does not meet CORP, and the peacock tag can be removed. I don't see any peacock terms in the article. Rajni Bector could be a possible merge candidate into the company page (but also a candidate for expansion). Geschichte (talk) 18:00, 27 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 01:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Victory

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

The article appears to fail WP:NGO, namely that the organization itself does not appear to have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. An evaluation of the sources in the article (below) show that none of the sources cited contribute towards the group's notability.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Progressive Victory (1)	This is the organization's website, so it is not independent of the organization	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	Moot as clearly non-independent	✘ No
Progressive Victory (2)	This is the organization's website, so it is not independent of the organization	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	Moot as clearly non-independent	✘ No
The College of Wooster	This is an alumni profile by a University that is posted on the university's website. press releases, press kits, or similar public relations materials are not considered to be independent sources for organizations.	~ This is an alumni profile by a University; it appears to be a self-published blogpost.	There's significant coverage of Hans Johnson in the article, but the organization itself is given only trivial mention.	✘ No
Tubefilter	Why not?	Per WP:NPPSG and for sake of argument.	"Progressive Victory" is not so much as mentioned in the article.	✘ No
The Washington Post	Why not?	WaPo is a WP:NEWSORG.	"Progressive Victory" is not so much as mentioned in the article.	✘ No
YouTube	This is the YouTube channel of "Progressive Victory".	~ WP:ABOUTSELF.	Moot as clearly non-independent.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I conducted a further search online for sources about the group, which (per the article) was founded in 2022. I was only able to come up with trivial mentions and non-independent sources:

More trivial mentions and non-independent sources

Spectrum 1 gives the organization as the employer of Hans Johnson, but doesn't cover the organization itself significantly.
Pasadena Star News has an op-ed written by Johnson, which is clearly a non-independent source.
Los Angeles Blade mentions the group only in passing.
Cincinnati Enquirer hosts an opinion piece by the group's president, which is non-independent.
CalMatters has a guest commentary by Johnson, but that's non-independent.

The name is fairly generic, and the article creator notes the existence of a different group with the same name on the talk page (the group linked from the infobox self-describes itself as being largely a discord server). Even with that confounding factor of multiple groups with the same name, a source search makes me conclude that this group fails WP:NGO and should be deleted in line with WP:DEL-REASON#8 for failing to meet the relevant notability criteria. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Internet, and United States of America. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nom. Article creator has since removed reference to Hans Johnson from the article, implying in an edit summary that he's related to a different group also called "Progressive Victory". The reference to Hans Johnson was first inserted into the article in the first revision. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Red-tailed Hawk:

I agree that this article has few reliable sources. (In fact, I removed the Wooster College one -- Hans Johnson appears to be completely unaffiliated with this Progressive Victory).

Although Progressive Victory is not mentioned by name in the WaPo or TubeFilter sources, my thinking is:

1. WaPo is reliable and indicates the stream occurred, but provides no direct link

2. TubeFilter is less reliable, but directly links the Progressive Victory embed

3. Streamer & attendee Destiny reposted that stream and described it as "a special event organised by Progressive Victory".

More broadly, notable streamers Vaush and Destiny worked with PV in 2022 and will in 2024 -- but due to the nature of streaming, their announcements (eg) tend to be WP:SELFPUB.
If this article needs to go back to draftspace, so be it! SocDoneLeft (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To respond point-by-point:
WP:ORGDEPTH notes that significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. The WaPo piece is about a particular livestream, and, while the NGO may well be involved, there's really nothing in that article that's about the NGO (not even a mention of the NGO's name).

Largely the same as point #1. Additionally, merely linking/embedding a particular YouTube video does not provide significant coverage of the NGO article subject, particularly when that group is not so much as given a passing mention by name in the text of the article about the event.

WP:INHERITORG states that An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it... [t]he organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable. In other words, just because some popular streamers have attended an event or worked with the group does not mean that the organization has been conferred notability.
The fact that we don't have significant coverage in any reliable source that so much as mentions the name of the group is the ultimate nail in the coffin for me. The only alternative I can think of would be to have an article on the particular livestream, but such an article would likely fail to meet WP:NEVENT based off of the sourcing here. I don't think there's anything to do here at this time but to delete this from the mainspace.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear opinions/arguments from more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Plenty of use of the term, nothing found for this group. Agree with the source assessment table, nothing we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked online and found little to nothing of note. There are two pages that link to this article and mention that two streamers were part of a stream sponsored by Progressive Victory but when I checked the sources they never mentioned the org. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:14, 20 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayStation games incompatible with PlayStation 2

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NOTDATABASE, specifically the statement that "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." While List of backward-compatible games for Xbox One and Series X/S and List of Xbox games compatible with Xbox 360 have History sections putting the feature in context with the console's development and such, this article has only the list, sourced either to primary sources or YouTube videos. QuietCicada - Talk 01:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada - Talk 01:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article reads like original research, and it also fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This violates the rules against Wikipedia being a database as well as WP:OR. It's potentially useful info but misplaced. Maybe in Wikibooks or a different Wiki. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV. Contains WP:OR. User:Let'srun 15:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR. They had 17 years to make this a notable article. Here we are still. There is no reason to sustain this listing. Any game that is forward-compatible should be listed in its article. Conyo14 (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As far as I know, the vast majority of PS1 games are incompatible with the PS2. Content is too specific, and perhaps it has lost its meaning since both video games are considerably out of date. I archived it on the Wayback machine anyway Svartner (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTDATABASE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:OR, WP:GNG, and WP:SIGCOV. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 09:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:44, 19 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bromide Junction, Oklahoma

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

This is a rail junction southeast of Bromide, Oklahoma, where the Kansas, Oklahoma and Gulf Railway spur going into Bromide junctions with the main rail line. I cannot find significant coverage of this location, and the passing mentions I can find are of this site as a rail junction. I do not see a basis for an article here. Hog Farm _Talk 01:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Oklahoma. Hog Farm _Talk 01:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm getting pretty tired of these minor railroad waypoints being called "unincorporated communities". This isn't a community, and it isn't even a junction anymore, as from the map it looks like both railroads have been pulled up. Nothing notable to see here. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unfortunately, the only USGS topographic maps prior to 1957 are at 1:125,000 scale and lack the needed resolution. The Ardmore 1:125,000 scale 1957 quad shows it as a barely dicernable unlabled triagular railroad junction. And both railroads were not been even built in 1900 according to the Atoka 1:125,000 scale 1899 and 1900 quads. They show nothing in the way of railroads at this location. The Ardmore 1:24,000 scale 1957 quad shows the junction without either any associated buildings or infrastructure. The online geological maps in the USGS National geologic Map Database almost all show Bromide Junction, either labled or unlabled. without any associated infrastructure. There is lack of any mapped roads connecting Bromide Junction to anything.
I looked through Google Scholar and so forth, JSTOR, and Internet Archive. I found in Google Books insignificant references such as 1. a note that the length of track between Bromide and Bromide Junction was available be turned into a hiking trail, in brief a route description in a Interstate Commerce Commission Report, and in rate tables in postal and shippers guides for the United States and Canada. I found nothing in JSTOR and Internet Archive and a bunch of unrelated hits in Google Search. I found a lack of any reliable source that provides any documentation that Bromide Junction was ever an unincorporated or a populated place and notable in anyway. Paul H. (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A look at Google Earth shows that the train tracks are now gone and are now dirt roads or trails surrounded by ordinary fields. Paul H. (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found the same as Paul H., and the ICC report puts the nail in the coffin, as it outright says that Bromide Junction is a junction on a railway line for a spur line that went off to Bromide. Adding to that, we have the 1980s version of the GNIS on Google Books, which tells us the original feature classes before they got squashed some time around 2021. Bromide, Oklahoma is "ppl". Bromide Junction, Oklahoma is "locale", which is a not populated place. The ICC report even talks about how the mining company agreed to not put buildings next to the railway. This is more published-for-years "unincorporated community" lies, alas. Moreover, anything about the Bromide Crushed Rock Company belongs at Bromide, Oklahoma because it's easy to turn up things that say that that's where the company was. This junction is just a junction, not even a railway stop, and not even the ICC report was about the junction. It's on an old list of junctions, and that's it as far as I can find. There are well-documented railway junctions. This does not appear to be one of them. Uncle G (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Literally just an old unlabeled railroad junction, no evidence to suggest a "community" or "populated place" was ever located at or around said railroad junction. Looking at a satellite view of the junction, the railroad itself has since been dug out and all that remains are tree outlines and gravel/sand where the railroad once was. Nothing to see there. Fails WP:GEOLAND. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable rail junction. –dlthewave ☎ 21:05, 13 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 00:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Ghana, Kinshasa

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

This article is basically a list of ambassadors and not actually about the embassy. LibStar (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Ghana. LibStar (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is very badly sourced, and articles about the physical embassies are rarely a good idea. Democratic Republic of the Congo–Ghana relations would seem like an interesting topic, but it does not exist due to WP:BIAS. Geschichte (talk) 20:59, 20 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!} 08:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patkuhi

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

Does not meet WP: GEOLAND. Abadi are not notable. Hongsy (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 6 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!} 01:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick google search locates different places with the name Patkuhi. The place mentioned in article is quite difficult to find(I could not find it). The source material is quite old and there are no any new sources. killer bee  04:56, 13 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!} 08:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yusofjerd

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

Does not meet WP: GEOLAND. Abadi are not notable. Hongsy (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 6 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!} 01:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A small settlement with nothing much notable. And as per above does not meet WP: GEOLAND. killer bee  05:01, 13 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 04:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kushk-e Fashapuyeh

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

Does not meet WP: GEOLAND. Abadi are not notable. Hongsy (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 6 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!} 01:12, 13 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 04:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malekabad-e Shandak

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

Does not meet WP: GEOLAND. Abadi are not notable. Hongsy (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 6 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!} 01:12, 13 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 04:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jub Kabud-e Sofla

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

Does not meet WP: GEOLAND. Abadi are not notable. Hongsy (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 6 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!} 01:12, 13 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 04:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kehshur Asgar Babai

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

Does not meet WP: GEOLAND. Abadi are not notable. Hongsy (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 6 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!} 01:11, 13 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 04:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shalehdun

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

Does not meet WP: GEOLAND. Abadi are not notable. Hongsy (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 6 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!} 01:11, 13 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 04:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tut-e Lashkaran

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

Does not meet WP: GEOLAND. Abadi are not notable. Hongsy (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 6 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!} 01:11, 13 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 04:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khvodrowgan

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

Does not meet WP: GEOLAND. Abadi are not notable. Hongsy (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 6 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!} 01:11, 13 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 04:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poshtgar-e Shah Babek

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

Does not meet WP: GEOLAND. Abadi are not notable. Hongsy (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 6 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!} 01:11, 13 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. Timothy's argument is compelling because it invokes WP:V, a core policy. The issue of notability aside, the article is entirely unsourced, and therefore unverifiable (verifiability means that references are cited in the article and support the text, not merely that they exist somewhere). Therefore, the content is worthless and the article, if the subject is notable, would need to be rewritten from scratch, citing sources. Sandstein 15:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hadji-Dawud

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

Can't find many if any reliable sources on this topic. A standard Google search turns up absolutely nothing, with all hits being either irrelevant/off-topic content, or blatantly unreliable sources like blogs, commentary, and definitions. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Islam, Iran, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the ru.wiki article looks massively refbombed and I can’t evaluate those sources but the equivalent articles in other languages don’t appear to lack sources. Mccapra (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Try "Hajji Da'ud" (or Davud) or "Da'ud Beg" or many other variations. Srnec (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you name a single source that either of those will get us? Uncle G (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Politics of Trade in Safavid Iran, p. 227, Cambridge University Press, 1999, ISBN 9780521641319
  - Persia in Crisis: Safavid Decline and the Fall of Isfahan, p. 223, Bloomsbury, ISBN 9781838607074
  - Baumer, History of the Caucasus, Volume 1, p. 164
  - The permutations of names like this that combine titles and/or honorifics with given names, all derived from Arabic but not from an Arabic-speaking context and that have to be transliterated into the Latin alphabet in different ways depending on the target language... makes it very difficult to do proper searches unless you know what to look for. It is unfortunate that some topic areas are plagued by bad-faith editors. Good-faith but ill-informed deletions, however, only encourage bad faith. Srnec (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - So why has it taken you, who did know what to look for, 3 weeks, several requests from Liz, and an outright direct prod from me to come up with anything at all? You claim to be best positioned, but you didn't put any effort in. Even now, you didn't bother to tell us whether these were books, journal articles, or something else, and make it absurdly difficult for other people when you have the information. I've had to hunt to find out what the Hell you were even citing and fill in the information above. Please stop complaining about good-faith nominations and start actually helping other editors. Otherwise you are the problem. Uncle G (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whilst there appears to be a confusion over characters on naming convention from original written language, jumbling the letters and diacritics a certain way shows plenty of sources and notable coverage. Dock Mock (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)(sock strike) oknazevad (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. All sourced and verifiable. --Frankie Photographer (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]
- That is an outright falsehood, given that there is not a single source citation in the entire article. Uncle G (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Despite a consensus to Keep this article, it remains unsourced and none of the discussion participants has brought any new references to this discussion. I don't see how any editor can say all sourced and verifiable without demonstrating a single citation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But the article needs some proper sourcing. killer bee  05:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- We need to see some sources, K6bee9, because right now, there aren't any. Care to do a search? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Checking out ru:Хаджи-Давуд#Примечания and some of the things that it points to it does seem that this is a well-recorded historical figure, but largely only if one can access and read academic and book sources published in the Soviet Union. That comment by Frankie Photographer (talk · contribs) above, who is also responsible for edit warring over 19KiB of sourceless content in the article's edit history, is shameful for being such a blatant falsehood about sourcing. I turned up a Dutch history Hedendaagsche historie; of het vervolg van de Algemeene historie from 1767 that mentions Lesji and a Dawg Beg in 1721, and a 20th century French source that apparently mentions one "Dawud-beg, chef des Lezghiens", both agreeing with the Russian Wikipedia's Дауд-бек; so I suspect that the problem is bad editors like NapoleonTHEvictorious (talk · contribs) and Frankie Photographer (talk · contribs) dumping stuff into the article, edit warring, and falsely claiming that it is sourced, rather than this being someone who is not in the history books. Quite frankly, I think that we can do without the edit warriors who outright misrepresent the absence of sources in their edits such as Special:Diff/1188225011. Uncle G (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still not a single source.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: right now, the Russian Wikipedia version has 139 references and the Azerbaijani Wikipedia version has 63. Left guide (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Left guide, can you add any of these sources that you think are reliable into the article or at least mention a few of them here? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hello Liz, unfortunately that seems unlikely, since I'm not fluent in reading either of those two languages, but I will see if I can find English sources. Left guide (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Left guide, that would be helpful! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not going through sources, because even if sources are found, this needs TNT to make room for a proper article. Since nothing in the article is sourced, the article history is has no value. The entire article could be deleted down to a title microstub simply based on a WP:V challenge. A future article shouldnt be tied to this unsourced content and a future editor shouldn't feel the need to try and source what looks to be a significant amount of OR. // Timothy :: talk 08:20, 30 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. Consensus is to delete this article. It seems there might be scope for article(s) on James Gillis (businessman) and/or Sarah Hayes Gillis, this can be considered elsewhere. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gillis, California

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

Non-notable location; ineligible for PROD because it was PRODded once before, and declined, because apparently this was the site of a train accident in 1916 that injured one person and resulted in a lawsuit: [40]. That source a) is a passing mention and b) specifically describes Gillis as a siding, and rail sidings are not notable (nor are they "unincorporated communities"). This is a clear failure of WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. No other information found other than routine listings in rail tables: [41]. Nothing found in news. Satellite view shows an empty stretch of track in the middle of fields, with no human structures. And the bit about a fruitcake festival appears to be a snarky hoax, as a search for "Gillis" only turned up articles about people with that name, and "Gillis + fruitcake" turned up nothing at all. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence this was anything but a non-notable railroad siding. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per user WeirdNAnnoyed, quick searches yielded on no results. killer bee  05:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a biography of James Gillis (businessman), a soda water salesman and farmer, in the 1890 Illustrated History of San Joaquin County, California and I have little doubt that this is simply a siding at the ranch that Gillis had "3 miles from Stockton" or one of the other land-holdings that he and his descendants had. The person is documented in a biography, and I have even found a second source in an Arcadia Publishing book. The ranch is not (hence the lack of clarity of exactly which land holding this is). Uncle G (talk) 10:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Amusingly, Sarah Hayes Gillis is better documented and in more depth, I find after more searching, than her husband is, and he is a sub-topic of her, rather than the other way around as the 1890 History has it. Uncle G (talk) 10:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Are you proposing we make an article on these two people & mention this location in the article?? 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original prod, disappointing that that was removed while the blatantly false "is an unincorporated community" remained. This vandalism from January is why we shouldn't mass-produce or keep junk that no one is paying attention to. Reywas92^Talk 20:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The railroad "siding" in question looks abandoned on satellite view and isn't connected to the main railroad line anymore. It was certainly a siding at some point, but that is no longer the case. The only thing other than fields around the siding is two structures (probably houses) about 400m north of the siding, although they are not part of whatever this "unincorporated community" is, they're just part of San Joaquin County in general. This "unincorporated community" is just a marker for a railroad siding. No population, structures, or anything else to see there. Fails WP:GEOLAND. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 20:24, 13 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 Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bang-Bang-a-Boom!

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

Not independently notable, does not pass GNG. Best redirected to Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Radio. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as this is what's been happening to sibling articles in this topic area. We usually don't need to bother with a deletion discussion if your proposal is to redirect. See WP:BLAR. ~Kvng (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:23, 19 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.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air France KLM Martinair Cargo}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmad Yar Gharany}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agmaz & Luk Maz}}