Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 10	November 12 >

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 keep‎. A possible Merge can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deiannewela

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No reliable source. Hongsy (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly non-notable, it's actually a suburb of Kandy - and this article is even misspelled, it's Deiyannewela. If you absolutely had to, then move the article and then redirect to Kandy. But deletion is just as valid an outcome - there's literally nothing to be said for the place. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few more noms in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sri Lanka, fyi. Hongsy (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Alexandermcnabb

I have a few more noms in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sri Lanka, fyi Hongsy (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep/merge with Kandy::This is a legally recognized populated place, a suburb of Kandy. There are articles with a trivial mention of this place in Sinhalese, typically arrests of people from the area, like this, this, this and this. There doesn't appear to be much encyclopedia-type content written about it though, but I sure that there are sources in Sri Lanka which could be obtained to write an article on it. Kandy Library would be a good place to look if we have any editors from that city on here! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's nothing source able that can be written about this place. There's also no evidence of legal recognition which is required for a GEOLAND pass. Calls for merging it need to be clear about what they think should be merged since the page has zero verifiable information on it at present. The location in the article isn't clearly linked to the supposed neighbourhood. FOARP (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The place is a village, or Grama Niladhari division, in Gagawata Korale Divisional Secretariat, Kandy. A search on "දෙයියන්නේවෙල ග්‍රාම" (Deiyannewela Village) gives snippets like:
- "...the third place is No. 261 Deiyannewela Village Officer T.M.C. Mr. Prasanna Thennakoon ..."
- The police mentioned that this village officer is attached to Deiyannewela village officer domain."}
- It has been revealed that the land with an area of fourteen (14) acres and two (2) roods and twenty one (21) perches located in Gangawatakorale, Kandy district, in the domain of Deiyannewela Village Officer, has been misused since the year 2010.".

There is not a lot written about it, but it is a legally recognized populated place, so passes WP:GEOLAND. @Hongsy: have you checked for Sinhalese sources before nominating this and other Sri Lankan articles? Aymatth2 (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Aymatth2

yes, I have checked and cannot find anything notable before nominating this and other articles. Hongsy (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately https://www.gangaihalakorale.ds.gov.lk/, which should give some official information about the village (technically a village officer domain, which is not quite the same thing), is not responding. But the first set of search results shows that the village was hit by a catastrophic flood that left up to six inches of mud inside the houses, the village officer was arrested for selling fake documents to parents of schoolgirls, teak wood was being imported to the village illegally, the Deiannewela Rasingdev College is well known, two men operating s lawnmower in the cemetery were struck by lightening and killed, a great battle in which an entire Portuguese division was destroyed took place in what is now Deiyannewela, and so on. The typical goings on in the village are well reported and could form the basis for a much more extensive article. Again, it is a legally recognized populated place. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, was the location of the first public housing tenements in the country. Dan arndt (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfied this is a legally, recognised populated place. It's the name of a ward, a place within the ward and the site of the National Hospital (Teaching), Kandy. Deiyannewela is referenced now and historically. Has presumed notability under WP:GEOLAND. Rupples (talk) 19:03, 17 November 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 Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. There is clear consensus that these articles should not exist in their present form or at their present title. There is consensus that encyclopedic information currently present in these articles should be merged into the parent article on overall civilian casualties. There is also consensus that an exhaustive list of every civilian casualty is not encyclopedic, but beyond that any decisions as to what content is preserved should be based on talk page consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Procedural nomination following Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 October 27. Daniel (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Lists, Israel, and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pings for DRV participants: @Nableezy, @Star Mississippi, @Jay, @Liz, @Frank Anchor, @Vice regent, @Mistamystery, @Robert McClenon, @Levivich, @Goldsztajn, @Alalch E., @Iskandar323. Apologies in advance if I missed anyone who participated in the DRV. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Both of these articles are crucial to the preservation of the parent article Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. Both of the articles in question being proposed for deletion have previously been restored by admins and further preserved following subsequent deletion requests.

Arguing (once again) these pages are crucial to understanding the specific detail and progress of violence toward civilians during one of the more well-studied and prominent conflicts of the early 21st century.

Mistamystery (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are not crucial or less than crucial or relevant at all to the preservation of the article which they duplicate. This may involve a misunderstanding regarding transclusion. When the pages are merged, the content from both source pages that is transcluded will be added directly to the target page instead of being transcluded. Nothing will immediately change at the target. —Alalch E. 23:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge+edit, or delete. Merge both to Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, and then turn "Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada" from a list into an article, or add "Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada" to this nomination and then delete all three. Either way, we don't need a list of civilian casualties in any conflict, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. We need articles about civilian casualties, that will link to articles about notable people who were civilian casualties, or notable events known for civilian casualties, and other topics related to civilian casualties. Levivich (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: taking a cue from @Iskandar323’s edit down of List of Palestinian suicide attacks, what are thoughts on these pages (or single page if they’re merged) if they only contain prominently cited or reported upon casualty events? (Slash ones with already existing incident/event wiki pages)

Mistamystery (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada as bizzare examples of redundant copies that do absolutely nothing but duplicate corresponding sections in 'Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada'. After that is done, I agree that that page should be converted from list to prose as Levivich says.—Alalch E. 23:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - including the listings at Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, and then create an actual summary of what sources say about Israeli and Palestinian civilian casualties in the second Intifada there. There is zero need for listing each and every single Israeli civilian death or for listing a subset of the Palestinian civilians deaths in an encyclopedia article. What is supposed to be there is a summary of what the sources say, not a regurgitation of a list one of them has. nableezy - 01:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ~~+ delete~~: this material needs merging to where it is already transcluded at Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada~~, and then the two useless redirects can bite the dust~~. Also agree that the lists will then need some serious trimming down to just the notable events, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, if not wholesale conversion to prose. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They can't then bite the dust but need to be kept as redirects to provide attribution for the merged content. —Alalch E. 08:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. I momentarily forgot the attribution history redirects carry. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada - as redundant copies.GreyShark (dibra) 13:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is both these articles read more like a list of fatal attacks/shootings than a list of casualties. What if we renamed them to List of Palestinian fatal attacks during the Second Intifada and List of Israeli fatal attacks during the Second Intifada?VR _talk 21:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any idea how long the latter list would be? And for what? Why cant we just summarize the topic in the article that isnt a list? nableezy - 22:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As closer of one of the prior AfDs that went to DRV (as a n/c), I support this re-look at them. I'm not going to take a content position, however I think Nableezy's summary solution is the sanest way to handle this. It's not a sane path forward to have articles contingent (via transclusion) on others and it is unclear whether an A-Z listing is even helpful to the reader. Star Mississippi 01:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada (an article that just barely merits inclusion) per excellent logic presented by above. If merge is not accepted as the consensus, please place my !vote firmly in the delete column under WP:NOTMEMORIAL and NOTDB. There is simply no policy basis for these articles to have been created, and less for rescuing them from previous AfDs. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1, Keep 2, most of the items in 1 were insignificant in coverage, whereas for 2 there is indepth coverage of individual victims. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of items in the List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada are cited solely to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The majority of the remainder are cited solely to B'tselem, the same source for Palestinian casualties. Making that comment untrue. nableezy - 17:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the original people fighting to keep both pages, just want to clarify that one of the main reasons was because the Palestinian casualty page was woefully under-attended to and was painting a very imbalanced picture of casualties during this period. The Palestinian casualties during this period out pace Israeli ones at least 3-to-1, and most definitely wanted to put the work in on the Pal page to provide balanced attention. Mistamystery (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t have an issue with your position, it doesn’t seek to claim that only one people are worth covering here. I’m quite thankful that this was put up as a bundled nomination as it made it much easier for us to achieve a result that isn’t that nakedly POV. And it allows for seeing the juxtaposition in a vote that says Israeli victims should be covered in full, Palestinian victims shouldnt even be covered partially. Takes a certain, well I don’t even know what it takes tbh, to say that out loud. nableezy - 15:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the second half of your response is implying.

I didn't make these pages, I only ran into them when their deletion was being proposed (alongside a series of other deletion proposals all insisting that the event logs on the "timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is sufficient to log these incidents, which I fully dispute as not remotely being so.

The conflict is unique and demands study and attention in detail - there is far too much unique phenomena and incident unique to this conflict to expert otherwise. I (personally) am concerned the efforts (by some at least) to try and remove these pages are part of an effort to obscure or make less visible certain aspects of the conflict.

Mistamystery (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The second half of my comment was about the !vote I’m responding to here. nableezy - 05:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was going to close this as a Merge but considering how contested their AFDs/DRV have been, I'm relisting this discussion so that any rough consensus is absolutely clear...or as clear as matters on these subjects can ever be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per my reasoning the last time these were nominated. Are we going to start a "List of civilian casualties in during the Russian invasion of Ukraine" since we can find a news article for every individual drone strike on Kyiv? The parent article should be reworked into an actual analysis of civilian deaths as nableezy says. AryKun (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both with Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada as redundant information. Frank Anchor 04:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada: per above. // Timothy :: talk 12:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pishakhor

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No notable source. Hongsy (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reference #2 is the official Census of Iran. If a town or district is listed on their spreadsheet for this region (#09 in this case), then it's officially recognized per WP:GEOLAND and therefore notable. @Hongsy, is Pishakhor listed? Checking references is part of WP:BEFORE.

Thanks,

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This is an abadi, which should not be understood as necessarily being the same as a "village" even if it is sometimes translated that way. In reality many abadi on the Iranian census are simply named locations (factories/farms/pumps/bridges etc.) that the census was taken near. For this reason, abadi are explicitly excluded from GEOLAND. In this case, there does appear to be a place called روستای پیش آخور (which Google Translate tells me means Pisakhur village) at the location given in the article so at least this can be verified in a very basic way. The population is also large enough that this place should eventually be given official status as a village (supposedly given to anywhere with a population over ~100). For these reasons I am inclined to keep bt the information supporting this article is very scanty. FOARP (talk) 10:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FOARP's insights.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mllat Mohammed

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

Declined at AFC three times but moved to main space by creator, fails WP:GNG and WP:NWRITER poorly sourced with blogs and primary sources. Theroadislong (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Iraq. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage found for this writer, sources used now in the article are red, so non-RS. Declined 3x at AFC is a bad sign, not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Articles for Creation is pretty spotty when dealing with non-Anglophone subjects, especially academic/literary subjects; also it's only been declined once by a reviewer other than the current nominator. Can't read the sources but there appear to be several book reviews already in the article -- could someone who can read them please comment? Also on the articles on two other 'pedias. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, I removed the unsourced material from the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mllat_Mohammed&diff=prev&oldid=1185388391 link to original version with unsourced material). Fails GNG and NBIO. From looking at the titles of the sources, they are about their works, not about the author and very little of the information about the author is sourced. BLPs require strong sourcing and I don't see WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. If sources are found with SIGCOV, ping me. // Timothy :: talk 12:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. There seems to be consensus that a redirect would not work due to other films by the same name, and nor would a DAB as those are also non notable therefore, no ATD available. Should that change down the road, happy to restore the history under a redirect. Star Mississippi 14:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chodhyam

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

Fails WP:NFF and WP:NFSOURCES as non-notable, incomplete, unreleased film, lacking significant coverage to establish notability. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tarka (film): Create a section titled "Remakes". Kailash29792 (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge into Tarka (film), as Kailash29792 suggests above, seems a correct solution.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no reliable source to claim that this is a remake of Tarka, or that this project has even started filming. Non-notable production, redirect is redundant.--The Doom Patrol (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Check page 301. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  "Production itself" is non-notable per WP:NFF. Unlikely to search for a non-notable production, hence redundant. There's also other released Malayalam films with the same title: [1][2].--The Doom Patrol (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Fair enough then (possible compromise) Keep as a disambiguation page with at least the 2 films mentioned above, to help the reader. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC) (Edited Nov 21: make it a disambiguation page if that 2017 film can be linked to something blue, if not merge as !voted above)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC) (edited Nov, 24, see below for further clarification)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to show notability. Flurrious (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: Per WP:NFF the production itself would have to be notable because the film was never released – this doesn't appear to be the case. I agree that there's really nothing to merge because there's nothing sourced to demonstrate that this film was a remake of Tarka. Not sure how this could be replaced with a disambiguation page; we would need articles to disambiguate first. Tollens (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, the 2 films to be disambiguated are the ones mentioned above, one being a redirect to Tanka (with the source mentioned above, that is perfectly all right), the other a so far a red link. I’ve only changed to Disambiguate to find a compromise, merge being challenged. This would help the reader as at least 2 films have this title. Best -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I somehow didn't see that source in the discussion above, thanks for pointing it out. I'd support a merge then – the production doesn't have to be notable for it to be included in another article about a notable topic. @Mushy Yank: Is there an existing article you're aware of that mentions the other film? To convert the page to a disambiguation we need more than one bluelink – see WP:DABMENTION – otherwise the current page should be redirected. Tollens (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not as far as I can see but The Doom Patrol might know. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: The Doom Patrol Tollens (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Cannot be redirected. I have mentioned the reason above.--The Doom Patrol (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you .....But that was not the question! Quite the opposite. A disambiguate page would include the 2 films, do you have an idea where to redirect the second? I still think the redirect/merge you oppose is quite appropriate (it can include a note and source about that other film) and do not find your argument against it compelling; but if others do, then, again, as a compromise, a disambiguate page can be considered, in my view, but in that case it would certainly need something to redirect to, for the second film. (the first has a target, most evidently) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NFILM. -The Gnome (talk) 13:36, 26 November 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. I see a rough consensus to Keep this article. Editors interested in a Merge or Redirect can start a discussion about that possibility on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Challaghatta metro station

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

Fails GNG as no SIGCOV can be found. Sources only provide general information about the metro line. Except for some original research on the station layout and exits, no useful information is provided. Timothytyy (talk) 05:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Timothytyy (talk) 05:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Purple Line (Namma Metro) if this cannot be expanded. Members of notable sets that are not individually notable should be merged and redirected to the article about the set in almost all cases, and there is no evidence that this should be an exception. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Thryduulf, @Spiderone and @Timothytyy,

Sorry to have forgotten to tag you to my reply. Hoping to see response from your end. Sameer2905 (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf, I've expanded the article. Would you mind taking another look to see whether in your opinion there's now enough for its retention? Rupples (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pls let me know what more useful information is needed for this metro station as well as the Benniganahalli metro station. Cause the information which is required for the audience is given. I don't seem to perform the task of adding more information that are not needed for the audience to know more about the above mentioned stations. Sameer2905 (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV is about individual coverage. No sources in the article provide reliable, independent and significant coverage about the station. Timothytyy (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Purple Line (Namma Metro)#Stations. S5A-0043^Talk 23:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to meet WP:GNG already, and given it's only just opened will doubtless soon meet it even more. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide some SIGCOV? Timothytyy (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've expanded the article a bit and in my view there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass the GNG. WP:SIGCOV is a matter of individual assessment. There's not a fantastic amount of coverage but there's enough at present to write a brief yet informative article on the station. Rupples (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's only one RS that seems to provide some degree of individual coverage for the subject. Can you provide more? Timothytyy (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See what you mean. Running through the sources in the article most are about the line rather than the station. I'd include both the new sources I put in, including the article on the access because it relates specifically to the station, but I'll run a further search. Thanks. Rupples (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further material now added. Rupples (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting given expansion of the article. Source assessment would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above - as discussed several times in other AfD debates, I struggle to believe that metro stops which have only been in operation a short time can be considered notable. In time, I'm sure things will happen on the new Bengaluru lines which will be reported in the news. But right now the only coverage is routine. On a personal note, I've traveled on the Namma Metro and quite enjoyed it. I hope it continues to expand and improve. JMWt (talk) 09:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A further reason I'm favouring keeping this article is the potential for expansion from adding a paragraph or two on the new train depot that's being constructed adjacent to the metro station (which is the western terminus of the Purple Line). I came across a couple of articles on the depot but there may not be sufficient coverage for a separate article. I'd support changing the title of this article to Challaghatta metro station and depot. Rupples (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Purple Line (Namma Metro) per above. // Timothy :: talk 16:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @TimothyBlue,

This needs to be kept as a proper article since all information has been mentioned in the wikipage. Kind request to remove the deletion bar from the page. Santosh4118 (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Santosh4118 The problem is not about the amount of info, it is about the notability of the subject. Timothytyy (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like the notability issue with Yuyuan station (Shenzhen Metro)? Rupples (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupples 1. I don't understand why you are linking to another article 2. There are 3 sources providing independent coverage on the subject 3. Yes, this article isn't notable due to the lack of sources. 4. There was an SNG years ago that was deprecated as the consensus was train stations do not have inherited notability without enough SIGCOV. Timothytyy (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not just a train station, it is a metro (rapid transit) station. I am sure all of them have enough coverage to pass the notability threshhold. Ymblanter (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, we seem to be going in circles. Another similar discussion has been just closed as no consensus, there are sufficient sources in this article, and it would be odd if some of the articles in the line get redirected and some not given the same coverage. Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OTHERSTUFF. Timothytyy (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timothytyy, I don't think you need to remind an administrator who has been editing for 12 years about this essay. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But do you think "some... and some..." is a constructive comment? Timothytyy (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just found out this metro station was part of a recent bundled AfD nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andheri West metro station and kept seemingly on the proviso to check the individual metro stations for sources and expand the article, if possible. It depends on sourcing as to whether the article can be progressed from a stub. If it can't, then yes a redirect/merge solution to a list of metro stations is appropriate. If it can, and I believe that's been demonstrated here, then the page should be kept. I don't see why there shouldn't be a mix of some stations being kept and others redirected/merged. Rupples (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still waiting on an assessment of the expansion of this article by User:Rupples rather than general statements on metro stations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rupples' expansion work has turned up a good number of sources, and even the ones that are mainly about the Purple Line expansion still discuss the station as a matter of necessity, since it's the new terminus of the line. It's already longer than what I'd consider a stub, and it looks like there's still potential for expansion. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Aaron

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

Fails WP:BASIC, lacks significant coverage other than the single Penn State biography DirtyHarry991 (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The problem here is this author's works were mainly published before the internet so there's less info available online. Add in that the article needs a lot of work and I understand why questions on this author's notability were raised. However, a search in the Wikipedia Library turned up a ton of reviews and coverage of his work in places like North American Review, School Library Journal, Horn Book Magazine, Publishers Weekly, Publishing Research Quarterly, and other places. The WP even has a Newsweek article about his work as a garlic farmer and I also found this NYT review of one of his books from 1972. Aaron doesn't seems like he was a great writer of children's books -- many of the reviews are negative -- but he was widely published and reviewed and meets our WP:Author notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He meets the WP:Author Notability. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Didn’t find much about him, yet he seems a notable WP:Author by seeing his work.I found some the third party sources, 1, 2, 3 that at least credits his career as a writer.Atighot (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. This was a tough one; my hat is off to @Liz: for keeping it running this long. Views expressed here are passionate, and seem evenly divided. But upon closer inspection, almost all the "Keep" !votes rely on irrelevant reasons. Yes, the guy certainly exists, as is supported by a plethora of reliable sources, and I'm sure he is very popular. But none of that counters the basic problem of WP:1E. At this point, the man has not achieved notability that is independent from that one event. Owen× ☎ 23:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arshad Khan (Chaiwala)

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

A non-notable tea seller, looks like the creator is just advertising about the new Cafe started by the subject. I think, one person is getting viral everyday but this does not help them to be Notable. Hence, fails WP:GNG. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Pakistan. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: BBC is fine, this source as well [3] is a RS. Going viral is a thing now, we can keep articles about people attaining fame this way. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Subject passes WP:Sigcov.Maliner (talk) 06:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: WP:1E coverage mostly, and later non-significant stories building on that 1E, not notable enough. WP is not a place to track life stories of people who were once famous on the internet. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Look like WP:SINGLEEVENT, not notable right now Worldiswide (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:1E and even weak SIGCOV for that 1E. // Timothy :: talk 00:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is very popular person. Fahads1982 (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: He is not among people notable for only one event. He went viral by chance then he became a professional model for brands, he did music videos as a model, and now he opens a cafe. On his every achievement, he has good media coverage. So, WP:IE does not apply here. Pakistani and international media cover him. Even Indian news sources which are RS, cover him.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Let's table the issue of how this subject became notable and focus on sources that establish notability. Right now, this is looking like a No consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Most of the Keeps are votes without substantial reasoning.

1 listed by Oaktree is just a story on WP:1E event. The famous chaiwala might be from Afghanistan. (Bold is 1E, Italics is the coverage).
While there may have been significant coverage on the subject, but it is still WP:SIGCOV of WP:1E
is a very popular person is WP:STRAWMAN argument.
If he is a professional model (and went viral by chance), the WP:RS should mention as such, instead of building story on the WP:1E event (as shown above).

Therefore, there is no substantial keep. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: When every source goes, "Hey, remember that guy whose photo went viral? Here's what he's doing now!" it's overwhelmingly WP:1E. Modeling and owning cafes aren't typically notable and the few media stories that cover his activities only exist because of the single event. Agree with the editor above that the keep votes are mostly non-arguments; see WP:POPULARITY and WP:FAME. Uhai (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. 13 reliable publications from 5 different countries are there to meet Basic. I am pretty sure that 13 reliable publications from 5 different countries are not in Arshad's pocket to promote him or get him a Wikipedia article! Clear case of Sigcov. Okoslavia (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the light of WP:PRIMARYNEWS, what, if any, of those 13 sources are secondary sources? From WP:BASIC: Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one here is alleging this is promotion and your argument doesn't address the concern of WP:1E. There can exist many reliable sources and it can still be 1E. Uhai (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- It is not that this person cannot be notable. Models can be notable, and notability might be achieved for other reasons too. The problem here is it is WP:TOOSOON to say whether this person will be notable or just a 1E footnote. There are 13 sources in the article, which the better keep arguments have addressed. One of them is the BBC. However, no attention has been given to the fact that these are primary sources (see WP:PRIMARYNEWS) They are news reports about someone becoming a model because of a photograph. Whether you class that as events or human interest stories, these are primary. These do not count towards notability. There have been a string of keep votes that are not based in policy, but the policy reasons for keep have argued notability. Sourcing does not back up those arguments. Fails WP:GNG. Again, this may just be TOOSOON. Deletion now should be without prejudice to re-creation of the article in the future if secondary sources clearly establish notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:38, 18 November 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. Essentially, the final (and earlier) views to delete the article were not sufficiently challenged. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steveless

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

Fails WP:NBAND from what I can tell, while there is some coverage it's just mentions of them being one of John Peel's favorite bands. Funny name and concept though. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Radio. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I think it could be something, especially if it had airtime on BBC Radio 1. Regardless of the outcome, can we give credit for this line: ".... the band still managed to stay bereft of Steves." Classic. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, yes. Great line. The John Peel quote is verifiable, but I can't see anything else that raises this to notability. They don't appear to pass under any of the WP:NBAND criteria. Draftify is just backdoor deletion in this case. If there were a redirect target that might be a better WP:ATD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When calling to draftify, you have consider who would improve the article in that system. Nobody has actively worked on the Steveless article since 2009, and even then those folks seemed to be involved in basic cleanup. Who would rise to the task after draftifying? The article would probably just take up space in the Draft system and get deleted from there anyway. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Surely there's some coverage from the music weeklies, although it is likely to be unavailable online. The best I found online is [4] (BBC) and The Peel Sessions by Ken Garner. --Michig (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Quietus [5] is listed as a RS per Project Album [6]. The Skinny is also listed as a RS there, [7] Oaktree b (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This brief note on a BBC site [8] and [9]. Oaktree b (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The mention in The Skinny is passing. This is it:
Cherryade Records was founded in Lancaster in 2005 by Rachel Neiman, then a student radio DJ on Bailrigg FM. Inspired by a trip to the Norwich Pop Underground Convention and her love of the eclectic tastes of John Peel, and driven by a desire to make her favourite unsigned bands heard, the label's first release was Popular Music in Theory, by Bristol-based DIY outfit (and Peel favourites) Steveless.
The mention in Quietus is 2 paragraphs on something else, and this first paragraph is pertinent:
Steveless was mostly a guy called Dan Newman, his baby really. He sent in some solo things to John Peel, who championed him right up till he died. It was just four-track improv things of him playing guitar and kick drum and yelling, I think.
This also looks like passing mention to me and shows that, outside of John Peel championing them, Steveless was not really notable.

We are looking at NBAND criterion 1:

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

The BBC link is trivial coverage too. We do not have multiple, non-trivial published works. What we appear to have is a band whose only claim to notability is that they were promoted by John Peel. I cannot see how this is a keep, but I would still prefer an ATD over straight delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This probably doesn't help with consensus, but I don't think this band rose above trivial coverage (the opposite of WP:SIGCOV) even with the John Peel connection. The voters above valiantly dug up some sources, and while they might be from reliable publications like BBC and Quietus, they still only mention this band briefly and they also tend to be about the wider career of the lead non-Steve guy. Also, if this article happens to survive this process, it needs to be cleaned up severely. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per my comments above. I looked at the John Peel page as a possible WP:ATD but I don't think this will work. I cannot see where this could go, and it is not notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SPORTS for Exceptional Athletes

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Foundation for Enterprise Development

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

Per detailed post on talk page, fails WP:NORG. It was also nominated as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foundation for Enterprise Development and it looks like there may have been consensus to delete but there wasn't, so I'm bringing this here. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Organizations, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A local group that I can't find enough good sources for to pass GNG. LittlePuppers (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already listed in an AFD, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing is present to suggest this meets WP:NCORP. Let'srun (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Historical Society

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

Fails WP:NCORP 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Alaska. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:ATD would be a redirect to List of U.S. state historical societies and museums. Curbon7 (talk) 01:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like the Alaska Historical Society's activities regularly make state news. I was able to find a few recent articles about its conferences ([10] [11] [12]), and there seems to be plenty more on Newspapers.com ([13] [14] [15] [16] [17]). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 06:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a state historical society would be very unusual if it did not receive enough coverage to make it notable, and it seems TheCatalyst31 has found enough to demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 10:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note — Alaska History (journal) was deleted through PROD in 2019. If this article is kept, that article should be restored for the purposes of merging into this article, as the two topics are closely intertwined. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State historical societies are highly notable in the United States. They often maintain the principal state archives. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs improvement, but I see sourcing that would allow for a more descriptive stub to be built. Agree with RadioKAOS' suggestion about the journal as well as they can easily be covered together. Star Mississippi 13:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; all state historical societies are individually articled. Swampyank (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This subject meets the WP:GNG as there are secondary coverage of activities done by the organization. Let'srun (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject passes WP:GNG based on the sources found by Catalyst. Given the age of the organization I would bet there are more newspaper articles on them. TipsyElephant (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign House of Nicaea

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

I'm not sure that this House exists outside the imagination of a few people. In particular, Google has never heard of the "Sovereign House of Nicaea" and the article contains no references to sources discussing the house. The refs, if we can call them refs, are excerpts of various documents that support the idea that the House of Nicea collects the inheritance of the Empire of Nicaea but don't provide anything like third-party significant coverage of the house. Pichpich (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marquess of Ephesus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revision @Pichpich! I apologize for being new to WP, therefore I didn't know how to properly sustain the article with sources that DO NOT raise doubts on the existence of the House. I really need your support and guidance to avoid deletion, as the aim of this page is to respect the purpose first and foremost, and to provide people knowledge about this institution.

My question is: would an article (in English), a document, written by the "Consiglio Araldico Italiano" (Italian Heraldic Council, you'll find many references on Google) be deemed as a reliablie source, since it is a subject matter expert third party on the claim? The Council has edited books in the past, too ([18]). Moreover, how much time do I have before you really need to complete deletion? Marchio Ephesi (talk) 08:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion debates are open for at least a week. If there's no clear consensus on what to do with the article or there hasn't been sufficient participation in the discussion, the debates can be extended. If there's still no consensus to delete, the articles are kept by default, although they can be resubmitted for deletion after some time has elapsed. Pichpich (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fanboy nonsense. Mccapra (talk) 10:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass GNG.★Trekker (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marquess of Ephesus

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

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

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

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

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

Meaningless titles bestowed by someone with no claim of authority over the corresponding cities and territories. Unsurprisingly, Google has never heard of these nobility titles. Pichpich (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seeing as the creator of the articles is named User:Marchio Ephesi, and seems to have a fascination for this guy, we're probably looking at a conflict of interest. Citations to Wikipedia, LinkedIn, and "Confidential information belonging to the Sovereign House"—I mean, seriously. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the revision @AirshipJungleman29! As mentioned in a different talk with @Pichpich, I apologize for being new to WP, therefore I didn't know how to properly sustain the article with sources that DO NOT raise doubts on the existence of the House. Please, allow me to address a few of your notes:

@Pichpich Meaningless titles bestowed by someone with no claim of authority over the corresponding cities and territories. Unsurprisingly, Google has never heard of these nobility titles: after the end of feudalism, titles of nobility are often bestowed as mere personal, honorary possessions (see for instance Gen. Diaz who was granted the title of Duke of Victory for his merits), therefore not presenting any claim over territories whatsoever. The object titles have been granted with letters patent: would proof of those better sustain the pages?

@AirshipJungleman29 seeing as the creator of the articles is named User:Marchio Ephesi, and seems to have a fascination for this guy, we're probably looking at a conflict of interest. Citations to Wikipedia, LinkedIn, and "Confidential information belonging to the Sovereign House"—I mean, seriously: once again I must apologize for being naive in citing sources, and I am willing to remove the ones that clearly instilled the idea of fascination or that might ridicule the page.

I just need your support and guidance to avoid deletion, guys, as this is a young institution (b. 2009) that claims a small academic visibility. I much value your work and I am willing to learn.

Marchio Ephesi (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citing reliable sources is a necessity, not an option Marchio Ephesi. A young institution that "claims a small academic visibility" is not notable—other sources which meet the requirements at WP:GNG need to do that for them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great guidance, thanks @AirshipJungleman29!

I realize I did not provide the adequate quantity/quality of the sources, so I will get in proper touch with the Italian Heraldic Council (that is the institute that collects all the paperwork related to many sovereign houses, included the Nicaean, with an archive that covers over 7 centuries) in order to obtain:

- written permissions to load on Commons;

- news articles/books/court decisions that clearly mention the Sovereign House of Nicaea.

Thanks once more and sorry for the harassment. I accept deletion of all the pages I created:

-Sovereign House of Nicaea

-Marquess of Ephesus

-Marchioness of Laodicea

-Count of Prousa

-Countess of Philadelphia

-Baroness of Pergamon

I just hope you'll remove all the traces, as it'll be a tad bitter for the members of the House to see their pages go (again, bad on me).

As far as the images on Commons, I just ask you whether we could keep them with a proper clearance from the Italian Heraldic Council and its President.

Thanks for your contributions @Curbon7@Mccapra@StarTrekker@Caeciliusinhorto@Pichpich Marchio Ephesi (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Nonsense. No sources exist because this is not real. Curbon7 (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Curbon7, as said to @AirshipJungleman29 @Pichpich I am willing to provide reliable sources Marchio Ephesi (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. This is someone’s fantasy world churning out nonexistent titles. Mccapra (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This editor has uploaded a bunch of stuff to Commons that might need looking at too.★Trekker (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These seem to be titles that someone just made up, nobody else recognises and no reliable sources have written about. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:43, 12 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khul Ke

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

Press releases and paid for articles (TOI) do not make the subject notable. Sohom (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and India. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can simply find press-releases, nothing discussing the software. Oaktree b (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not relevant for wikipedia, not enough sources to establish notability. --Javierel (talk) 14:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

North Louisiana Football Alliance

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Good evening, @Let'srun

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was Speedied as evasion (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flex Liberia)‎ DMacks (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DDP DJ Dominic Pewe€ DJ D P

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

Escapes WP:A7 due to several claims of being 'well known' and a celebrity and winning awards at the national level. Despite this, I can't find even one decent WP:RS about him and WP:NMUSICIAN doesn't look to be met. If kept, then the article should be moved to DDP DJ Dominic Pewee, which appears to be the common name. I can't move it myself as that title is protected against creation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This articles most not be deleted beacame is Life career of a living celebrities form Monrovia Liberia KOFA DOMINIC (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete preferably speedily, this is largely made up bullshit, to put it nicely, with no credible claims or reliable sources. Contrary to the creators belief, merely existing does not mean one automatically qualifies for an article...thankfully. PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete – Highly likely to have been created by a sock of Flex Liberia Johnj1995 (talk) 20:45, 11 November 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 Nomination withdrawn‎. Star Mississippi 00:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Ai-Lin

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

Promo piece with no good indication of notability. English language sources about this person are almost nonexistent, the few ones that I found don't have enough SIGCOV. Taiwanese sources also don't seem to talk much about this person, though reading them is difficult for me since I don't speak the language.

This article was created at User:JJJoyyy/sandbox as part of this university education program. It was recently moved to mainspace by User:Ytlin77 (who, judging by their name, may be Ai-Lin herself), who said in the talk page of this article that this page was written by her classmates. SparklyNights (t) 19:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Arts, Poetry, and Taiwan. SparklyNights (t) 19:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's no evidence for a conflict of interest. Per your link, the university course is instructed by Yen-Ting Megan Lin, who looks like a better fit for a username including Ytlin. The "Lin" in Yan's name is 琳 and the instructor's name is likely 林, not the same word. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, these seem to be two different people. In that case there doesn't seem to be any coi here. SparklyNights (t) 01:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. I moved the article back to Draft status due to the quality concern and work on the revision later. Ytlin77 (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article itself. Point 1 of WP:ANYBIO says "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor"; the Awards section lists several prizes, some are national and at least one international, which seem to fit the bill. The statement that one of her books was "the first collection of erotic poems written by a female poet in Taiwan" implies that the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:POET 2 applies, and there's cites to criticism of her work, so it looks like point 3 also applies.

I don't see why the nomination describes this page as a "promo piece", nor the "no good indication of notability". This, added to the nominator's incorrect claims about conflict of interest editing here and on the article's talk page, makes me wonder if the page is a candidate for speedy keep under WP:CSK point 3 "No accurate deletion rationale has been provided." CohenTheBohemian (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. This page wasn't what I thought, it looks like it passes ANYBIO. SparklyNights (t) 17:48, 12 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Playermaker

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

Appears to fail WP:NCORP, reads more like a promotional piece rather than an encyclopedia article, lack of reliable sources, and the involved editors' behavior is suspicious, user:Playermakerwiki is banned for COI, user:Matteom.pm disclosed he is a part of the company while uploading the logo, and the same day he blanked his sandbox another editor who is likely paid, user:Maltuguom came across the article and updated it with similar content to Matteom.pm's sandbox.-- Bosecovey (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources below which show notability. Giant Snowman 21:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I found [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] among many more sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes NCORP from my prospective. Sources are not that bad either, and above is also fine. Govvy (talk) 10:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 09:20, 18 November 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 delete‎. CSD A7 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralyze

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

Fails Notability tests. All references are purely advertisement 'articles'. Q ^{T C} 19:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Q ^{T C} 19:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It is quite immediately apparent this subject fails the criteria for organisations and companies. Also searched under "Kantian Skincare" since the title appears by most accounts to be the name of the product, not the company. Results hardly differed. In fact , might go with an A7 for this one. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022 Twitter suspensions

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

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions

I believe it's time to revisit this AfD which was very contentious the last time due to the issue being red hot. Now that things have cooled down, it is easy to see how this was a flash-in-the-pan with no lasting or global significance, with all coverage of it happening around the time of the incident. It has no independent notability separate from Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk.

Delete per WP:10YT, WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:NEVENT. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: falls into WP:NOTNEWS territory. No long term significance, can certainly be sufficiently covered in other places. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing has changed to affect the notability of this event since the last AFD. Notability is not temporary; if it was temporary then, it was temporary now, and the notability of this article is established because it meets the notability standards of significant coverage in reliable, verifiable, secondary sources (New York Times, NBC News, The Washington Post, Reuters, Fox News, and many, many others). That is the standard by which we judge notability, not an editor's subjective opinion that it was a "flash-in-the-pan" event. (If anything, I'd argue this event is more significant now than it was before, given that the free speech issues surrounding Twitter have only continued to persist.) Incidentally, this incident has continued to generate coverage in sources since the actual incident occurred, including in books like this, this, and this, and that's after only a very cursory search.) Furthermore, despite some editors' wish to re-litigate this issue, the article has already had an AFD, and the moderator who closed it specifically said the keep arguments for the article's notability were stronger than the delete arguments against it (many of which the moderator said were "transparently motivated by off-wiki sociopolitical concerns"). He suggested if there was a debate to be had, it was whether not whether the article should be deleted, but rather whether it should be merged with some other article. (I would still argue there is enough coverage to warrant its own standalone article, but that's an argument for another forum.) It would have been more appropriate for the nominator to attempt to start a merge discussion before taking it to AFD yet again, but since that was not done, I would argue the AFD should be closed and the article should be kept. — Hunter Kahn 20:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no procedural requirements to initiate a merger discussion before an AfD; whether the article should deleted, merged or redirected is probably best discussed here. This whole suspension saga is a marginal incident in the larger Elon takeover and ElonJet sagas—it is already adequately covered in those pages, and there is neither a need to merge anything, nor any one appropriate merge target. Many of the "keep" !votes were, and are also, as much if not even greatly "motivated by offwiki sociopolitical concerns", as your reference to "free speech issues surrounding Twitter" demonstrates, so let's not put too much weight onto that; the new AfD is needed precisely because of the number of such motivated !votes in the previous one, and so let's not repeat that again. The sources you present demonstrate this point—they discuss the issue not at length as some great story on its own, but as a marginal point, part of the larger stories about Elon Musk and Twitter. This is what WP:PAGEDECIDE is about. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, but as someone who was heavily involved in that discussion and recently reread it, I cannot fathom how one could come away from it with the conclusion that the keep arguments were just as "motivated by offwiki sociopolitical concerns" if not more. The closer only singled out the delete !votes because some of them really were a sight to see. One !vote was just a quote of Elon making fun of the article in place of a rationale for deletion, one delete !vote was just a personal attack against a keep !voter claiming they are "the reason Wikipedia is the leftist cesspool it is today", quite a few !votes' only rationale was the unconvincing argument that the article itself is inherently biased. Where was the equivalent from the keep !votes in that discussion? There was a stark contrast in the ratio of policy-based rationales between the various positions, so the suggestion that actually the keep !votes were just as ill-motivated makes me question your judgment on this one. Vanilla Wizard 💙 04:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than well-sourced, still being discussed into 2023. [25]. Strong keep Oaktree b (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This event was quite notable, and the sourcing is ample. TH1980 (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This event is still notable and talked about to this day. The whole platform of Twitter was changed into a website totally different from what it was prior to late 2022, and this article exemplifies what Elon has done to the website under his tenure. Strong keep, per Hunter and everyone else. Explodicator7331 (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's an obscure topic but remains very relevant in the context of what occurred to Twitter since Elon took over. It's a great detailed reference as to the turning point in Twitter history as well as Musk's legacy. It documents forgotten truths about the suspensions,ie that certain journalists in fact weren't reinstated. Still very useful for digital archaeology purposes. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not much has changed since the last discussion, and I don't think I have it in me to rewrite the excessively long and rambly !vote I left last time, so I'll instead link to it, the main takeaway being that there is a very poor case for deletion and it's large enough that a merge would not be appropriate as it would warrant a WP:SPLIT if covered elsewhere. Please do give it a read, I put way too much time into it and I really don't have the energy to do it again, not when nothing has fundamentally changed since then and everything that could be said on the topic has already been said and still applies. I'll also be linking to this reply articulating why the 10 year test is not a deletion rationale as I noticed it was the first rationale the nom invoked. The frequent misapplication of 10YT and NOTNEWS I see in a lot of AfDs is something I've been trying very hard to push back against, as it can be easy to think they mean "will it be viewed as important ten years from now" and "don't cover the news" respectively until one takes the time to carefully read what they actually say. Vanilla Wizard 💙 04:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Article is well-cited and balanced, and offers in-depth information about a complex event and aftermath that are still being talked about. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:43, 18 November 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.

Rewa–Bhopal Vande Bharat Express

The result was redirect per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Arnav Bhate (talk) 12:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

AfDs for this article:

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

Rani Kamalapati (Habibganj)–Rewa Vande Bharat Express already runs from Bhopal to Rewa. All sources that give a date have said that the train was to be inaugurated on 24th April. Half a year has passed since then and no news on the train. There are no other articles about upcoming Vande Bharat Express services. I believe that may be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. The previous AfD was closed improperly, hence I am creating a new one. I think that the article should be deleted or redirected. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, India, and Madhya Pradesh. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete: Yes I also agree that the page should be deleted permanently and can be recreated if service is introduced or redirected to Rani Kamalapati (Habibganj)–Rewa Vande Bharat Express 2409:40D0:10C8:3AEE:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Rani Kamalapati (Habibganj)–Rewa Vande Bharat Express. It is the best way. In case if the government starts a train on the same route, redirect can be removed. 111.92.78.209 (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Agree with the nomination. But two Vande Bharat trains can be operated in the route. So there are chances that this will be introduced in near future. So I suggest to redirect this to Rani Kamalapati (Habibganj)–Rewa Vande Bharat Express. Thilsebatti (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Letterkenny Residents Party

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

This is another one flagged by Guliolopez and I agree that it has not established WP:ORG. This party contested two elections: the 2009 Letterkenny Town Council election (successfully) and the 2014 Donegal County Council election (unsuccessfully). It was created in 2008 ahead of the 2009 election and dissolved in 2015 after the 2014. There's nothing to suggest that it was anything other a branding exercise for Tom Crossan's brief political career. I've added a note on both election pages. There's something similar on the 1985 Waterford Corporation election page for the Waterford People's Party and on 2009 Fingal County Council election for the Seniors Solidarity Party, and seems a good way of handling localised parties with a fleeting existence. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom - did a quick check of my own, as this was only a vague "heard of on the radio topic" and just don't find backing to reach minimum policy requirements (ORG, GNG, VER, etc.). SeoR (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So minor you'd need a microscope to detect traces of its former mayfly existence. Insufficiently notable. Spideog (talk) 21:52, 16 November 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!} 18:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Otokar Kaya

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

Complete Lack of sources. The only Link goes to manufacturer website, which provides very little information. From my research has not been adopted by any agency or country. F.Alexsandr (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Turkey. F.Alexsandr (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, delete. Not a single RS as far as the eye can see. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 16:12, 11 November 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. Daniel (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Lacrosse Conference

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of in depth secondary sources which are independent of the source. The only source I found which comes even close to qualifying is [[26]]. Let'srun (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. Let'srun (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Collegiate athletic conferences are presumptively notable, IMO; we have countless articles on less noteworthy subjects. The only reason for concluding that the subject is non-notable would be if it were a hoax, which does not seem to be the case. The issue here is how to find good sources; but notability is not determined by the present state of sources, nor are sources required to be online. The failure of someone's Google searches to uncover material on something that must certainly be documented merely shows that this search strategy is inadequate. One or more editors will have to take the time to figure out where independent sources might be located, and consult them. They may not be online, but there is no deadline for improving articles. Given that we know this conference exists across a number of colleges in several states, and has for multiple years, concluding that there are no independent sources merely because one couldn't locate them online is inadequate to demonstrate a lack of notability P Aculeius (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: Collegiate athletic conferences conferences in the NCAA may generally be notable, but there is no criteria that says they are presumptively notable, and in this case this "conference" is in a club-level competition with little in the name of coverage due to the level of the competition. Just like your local travel baseball league isn't notable, this conference isn't either. Most of your vote reads like arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The absence of available sources should not, in my view, ever be twisted around to be seen as proof that sources actually exist. We can only use what is available, not what we imagine might exist in some fantasy world, and this article isn't up to snuff, simply enough. Let'srun (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you're setting up a series of straw men. I didn't say that the absence of sources proves that they exist in some fantasy world. Your claim is that sources don't exist because you couldn't find them online. This is precisely the kind of subject that's likely to be documented primarily through college athletic sites and local news that isn't searchable online. It's fairly certain that written or audiovisual confirmation of the conference and its history and membership exist; the only plausible explanation for it not existing would be if this were a hoax, which it's clearly not. A relatively short search revealed that Davidson College's athletic site discusses its Lacrosse program, although some of the other colleges mentioned don't seem to. But that speaks to the quality of their web sites, not the reality of their participation in the league. If I haven't made this point clear yet, sources do not have to be available online. The simple fact that it's a collegiate athletic conference means that sources will exist; a claim that they don't because you couldn't find them online is not credible. P Aculeius (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, but we need independent, secondary sources. A member school discussing their program is a primary source. WP:ITEXISTS and WP:SOURCESEXIST are not legitimate keep arguments. Let'srun (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it backward. "None of these sources are good enough" and "I can't find any sources I consider acceptable" aren't legitimate delete arguments for something that we know exists and that should be notable. You're still fixated on the lack of online sources, as though you hadn't read the guidelines that you keep wikilawyering with. Sources do not have to be available online; articles don't get deleted because their sources aren't good enough; there's no time limit on improving articles. The burden rests with the nominator to show that a topic cannot be documented, and that burden is not satisfied by arguing that there aren't enough online sources that are independent of the subject—particularly when it's obvious that better sources exist, even though they don't seem to be easy to come by over the internet. P Aculeius (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course offline sources are just as good as online sources, yet it is nowhere near obvious that better sources exist. Let'srun (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: To address @Let'srun's concerns for notability of a "club-level conference"; for most schools, the MCLA is the only available option for collegiate level lacrosse, especially for schools along the west coast. More schools participate in MCLA level lacrosse than NCAA DI and DII lacrosse. Yes, the Atlantic Lacrosse Conference is a young conference, so it has a shorter history and fewer online sources than others, but every other MCLA conference has met Wikipedia's notability guidelines. SammySpartan (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other conferences have articles doesn't make this one notable. Also, did any of those other articles have AfD discussions? Let'srun (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Suggestions to the contrary are based on false notions such as "of course it's notable," while they actually testify to the subject's evident lack of notability, e.g. "still a young league," etc. Maybe in a few years. I'd also suggest we all revisit WP:OSE. -The Gnome (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Slimak

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

Fails WP:COLLATH / WP:NBASIC. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and California. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily notable with extensive coverage as a 30-year head sports coach in a major sport as well a a national champion and national coach of the year: [27] [28] [29] [30] etc. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pretty clear GNG pass. Thanks to BeanieFan11 for finding these sources. JTtheOG (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is clearly WP:SIGCOV per most of the sources provided by BF, as they are in depth and independent of the source. I'd encourage a more through BEFORE check for the nom in the future. Let'srun (talk) 15:00, 15 November 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 14:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dalglish Papin Test

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

Despite being probably named after two very notable footballers, I'm not seeing any notability for Dalglish Papin Test himself. I can't find anything close to WP:GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Best sources found were an image caption in Bharian and a passing mention in Dayak Daily. Just searching for "Dalglish Test" only brings back results about Kenny Dalglish testing positive for COVID-19. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:04, 12 November 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 Survivor: One World. There is consensus that there is insufficient sourcing for Spradlin to have a standalone page, however there is no clear consensus on target nor any indication further input is forthcoming. Since she won this season, I went with that as the target but this element of the close is an editorial decision and a new target can be chosen through the same process, if needed. Star Mississippi 14:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Spradlin

AfDs for this article:

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

Notable for only winning Survivor: One World. Everything else she has done since seems resume-building, not indication of notability, and probably fan-titillating. The Jeopardy reference is just mere reference to her One World win.

Should be redirected to either (preferably) Survivor: One World or (alternatively) List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. If WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, how about WP:BIO1E or WP:PAGEDECIDE instead? George Ho (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and Television. George Ho (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge – WP:BIO1E does present a strong case for removal. However, there is one source, Southern Living, that is about her work as an interior decorator. This feature article a top-ten (non-celebrity) magazine suggests that she is moving toward notability for other things. Other coverage of her marriage, false arrest, and pregnancy are not related to the television show and indicate that her celebrity has continued beyond the show, especially given that these articles are from major media. It is challenging to deal with people who are famous for being famous, but there is a demand for reliable content on these individuals in Wikipedia. My biggest push back on WP:BIO1E is that she is known for not just one television show but for two shows. Although both are part of the Survivor franchise, Survivor: One World and Survivor: Winners at War are treated as two different shows within Wikipedia. And the Survivor: Winners at War is where an issue emerges—almost all of the cast members of this show have a stand-alone Wikipedia article; all are similarly notable for being a winner of a prior season of a Survivor franchise show. I looked at a few of these articles; they had fewer sources and less post-show coverage than Spradlin, again indicating that her celebrity goes beyond the show. That being said, I do think the best solution for all of these Survivor-related bio articles is to merge a trimmed bio into the television shows' article. Because merging would be part of a bigger project and might take longer than the duration of this deletion discussion, more time is needed and is reasonable. I do not write about contemporary celebrities and do not watch Survivior, but have edited reality television show articles for the GOCE. Normally, there is a short bio for each contestant within the article for each season. However, short bios are not part of the Survivor: One World or Survivor: Winners at War articles. So, the redirect that I would normally support, would only take someone to the barest of details; content the searcher most likely already knows because they are searching for Spradlin. I support a merge vs. a redirect because there is content and related sources here that will add value to another article and would be lost with a redirect. If the decision is made to keep rather than merge this article, it needs a major copy edit. I have gone ahead and flagged it for this. Rublamb (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two "shows" you refer to are Survivor seasons. Some returnees who appeared in Winners at War have been redirected to their own winning seasons due to their lack of notabilities outside their own winning seasons.

Why must we preserve info about "her marriage, false arrest, and pregnancy", especially at the cost of enforcing WP:BLP? Even returnees' family info didn't save such articles from being redirected. Furthermore, I don't see her notability as an interior decorator verified by multiple sources other than Southern Living. Must we include and preserve every info about her to justify keeping this article?

I don't see any info that is relevant and valuable to Survivor: One World. George Ho (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and regarding "would be lost with a redirect", the info about this person won't be lost (unless servers would mess up deleted pages?). Just historical revisions shall suffice, shan't they? George Ho (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I stand corrected on seasons vs. two shows and will strike that above. I am not saying there is a need for overly detailed information about her marriage and pregnancy in the article and have indicated a need for a comprehensive edit. Rather, the coverage of such life events by mainstream media helps define her as a celebrity vs. a one-off reality television show participant. There is a tipping point between the two; the Southern Living article stands out in this regard. When I referred to information being lost, I specifically meant inaccessible to the people who come to Wikipedia for information—because deleted articles are removed from Wikipedia and Internet search results. In terms of what might be valuable in a merge, a general bio might include where a contestant is from, their occupation, and any personal details that were significant in how they played the game. Photos are also included. Because this is one of many Survivor participant articles that would need to be deleted based on the criteria outlined in your nomination, it is simpler to treat this as a comprehensive merger project that would not necessarily require discussion for every article. I have previously merged articles that fell under BIO1E without complaints; the key is that valuable content is retained while the questionable article goes away. Rublamb (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of what might be valuable in a merge, a general bio might include where a contestant is from, their occupation, and any personal details that were significant in how they played the game. That's something that Fandom can do, can't it?

inaccessible to the people who come to Wikipedia for information—because deleted articles are removed from Wikipedia and Internet search results. I apppreciate your concerns about effects on accessibility, but being removed from search results doesn't mean info is valuable. Sometimes, being part of search engine results, like Google, is more like... clickbait?

Regarding merger, I don't see any Survivor season article containing a mini-bio of its winner, do I? When a winner was redirected, no info about such winner was merged into the season article, and relevant info about contestants, including winners, have already been included only as long as the info is relevant to the specific season. George Ho (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response: My recommendations are based on articles for other reality television shows where the contestants do not have their own articles. Clearly, the contestant's background info is not included in the Survivor articles because someone expanded that content into a secondary article. When deciding between partially merging or deleting in this instance, we should consider what is wanted by and/or helpful to users of Wikipedia; what is included in Fandom is irrevelant. As discussed in WP:WPINWA, Wikipedia has a different role from Fandom and includes sources for its content. While some content in this article should be trimmed and is better suited for Fandom, it also includes basic details could be helpful to understanding the televison show and the dynamics between cast members. Let's see what other's think. Rublamb (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC) Rublamb (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject (barely) notable for one event, an exemplary case of that kind. And the fact that the main curators of the text are kamikaze accounts truly does not help. -The Gnome (talk) 13:32, 26 November 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 Lachung River. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amitabh Bachchan Falls

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

Fails WP:N. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 08:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Sikkim. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Lachung River. The falls themselves are mentioned in Emptying the landscape: outsider place-making, tourism and migration in Sikkim, India, as well as in a bit of news coverage ([31]). However, I'm not really seeing sources that are ever going to get an article on the falls beyond a stub. WP:GEONATURAL says that [i]f a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. In the spirit of both this and WP:NOPAGE, which says that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, I think we'd be better off merging this article on the falls into the article on the river itself, where the falls can be covered in sufficient depth in the greater context of the river where the falls are. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 17:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Okoslavia (talk) 15:55, 18 November 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. No comments after 2 relistings so I'm closing this as No consensus. Feel free to return to AFD at a future date. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajum Goolam Hossen

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

No evidence of any notability. The refs quoted are simple name checks except for one article which is a blog. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read the article, you would see that the information is displayed in these books. You can’t set it for deletion if you haven’t even read the articles properly. Ajum was the owner of a major trade company in Mauritius and was secretary and co-founder of the Surtee Soonnee Mussulman Society, which has made a great impact on the Muslims (not just Surtis) in Mauritius. If that’s not notability, I don’t know what is. Yolia21 (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me which citations do not fit the requirements. I used the same sources as used in Amode Ibrahim Atchia as the person was also a Mauritian businessman. It has the same information. Yolia21 (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have read both the article and the references provided.

The first is a record of a civil court case. There is a name check but nothing that talks of notability
The second ref has a name check for "A J Hossen" and a short quote. Nothing about the subject.
The third is a blog believed to be the blog of the article creator - blogs have no value in asserting notability
The fourth does not appear to mention the subject
The fifth states "Goolam Hossen Piperdy who died in 1875 after successfully founding A G Hossen and Co. engaged in extensive import and export activities , had branches in Calcutta, Bombay, St Denis.....". The quote continues but adds nothing to indicate any significant notability. He was obviously a good businessman of his time but that isn't a claim to notability
The sixth is another civil court case decision about the value of goods - no notability here.
The seventh demonstrates that he shook hands with Mr K Gandhi in 1901 - again no evidence of notability.

In Summary, none of the sources discuss the subject, they are all mentions or name checks and thus the article fails WP:GNG as noted in the nomination, Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found several refs cited online that may mention them but they may be available on paper only. If someone here has access to them, please try to dig them up. They might solve the notability as well as enrich the article with useful content:
- Rouillard, G. (1964) Histoire des Domaines, Sucriers De L’Ile Maurice. Les Pailes-Ile Maurice: The General Printing and Stationary Company, Limited

- The Gujurati Merchants in Mauritius 10 THE GUJURATI MERCHANTS IN MAURITIUS: 1850-1900 AC Kalla - The Coolie Connection: From the Orient to the Occident, 1992 - Windsor Press
  - Also published as: The Gujarati merchants in Mauritius c. 1850–1900 AC Kalla - Journal of Mauritian Studies, 1987

In the meantime, these potential refs don't count in this discussion

Velella, I disagree with your assessment of ref #5, especially in combination with #7. #5 indicates he was a major player in the economy and #7 indicates he was the leader of the dominant group on the island, Indo-Mauritians, who welcomed Gandhi. I'll further note that our notability guideline does not discriminate against successful or unsuccessful businesspeople -- they're based on references.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you A.B. Yolia21 (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are called references for a reason.

The first reference is to show that Ajum died on the 14th of February in 1919.
The second shows that he was notable individual in the Surtee community in Mauritius
The third is written from knowledge of his descendants. (me) This is not the first time this has happened as shown in Amode Ibrahim Atchia’s reference of a blog by Michael Atchia, his grandson.
The 4th shows his sugar factory in Pamplemousses.
The 5th talks about his company and how we was a notable trader in Port Louis, which is why he’s mentioned in the book in the first place.
The 6th talks about how he had many branches across the Indian Ocean like Singapore, South Africa, Mauritius, and India.
The 7th is talking about how his company faced legal issues which lead to the collapse of it. This is one of many recorded cases of Ajum Goolam Hossen and Co.
The 8th talks about how Ajum hosted M K Gandhi and Ajum did a speech with his son and two others. A person doing a speech at Taher Bagh when M K Gandhi is there is most likely a notable person.
The 9th shows his contributions to the recovery of Mauritius after the cyclone and his contribution to Rander, his family’s origin town.

Yolia21 (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Reclaimed by AC Kalla even mentions how notable he and his father was. Yolia21 (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there is a misunderstanding about the word "notability". Wikipedia defines notability in very specific ways that require multiple reliable sources that discuss the subject. "Discuss" does not equate to mention. Equally, a source that states that a person is notable does not equate to "Notability" in Wilkipedia. The two concepts are quite separate and different. Sources may state that the subject is notable but that doesn't support notability here. Regarding the comment about businessmen - I made no assertion about his role as a businessman and his potential notability. What would be very useful if someone with access to the references quoted here (but not in the article) could provide unedited trascripts of the relevant passages onto the talk page of the article. I have so far seen no text that conveys notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple sources that talk about him, but I do not have access to all of them like you said. I dont understand what makes a person notable. Is there a specific amount of references? Yolia21 (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The requirements are set out at WP:BIO. To be able to meet those standards it is necessary for the supporting texts to be read and be capable of being quoted. The sources don't have to be universally available and, especially for a person in Mauritius in the 19th century that might be very difficult but extracts from named documents from the National Library in Port Louis would be acceptable if they do indeed confirm notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently contacting Abdool Cader Kalla on information of Ajum. Kalla is an author located in Mauritius who has made lots of books about Mauritian Indians. Maybe we can get more references. Yolia21 (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added about 9 references, now there are 16 in total. Does that make him notable? You may check the sources if you want. Yolia21 (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but the simple number of references does not add anything to notability. As noted above, what is required is reliable and independent sources discussing the subject. Thus court rulings, press reports of visiting dignitaries which simply mention the subject do not equate to notability. As previously suggested, copying some key paragraphs from these sources where the subject is discussed in a way that demonstrates notability would help enormously. At present, just from the sources quoted , I am still not seeing evidence of notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added some of the references you mentioned which you said could show notability. Yolia21 (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to see a second opinion on the article expansion since nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need some more source assessments and opinions on what should happen with this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 25 November 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vinay Sapru

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Refs are clickbait and PR. scope_creep^Talk 11:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sources are useless. BD2412 T 23:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALTspammy advert article with previous deletion history. Fails WP:NBIO. Graywalls (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless we are considering his arrest as a notability claim which I would not.--CNMall41 (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think based on his work as a WP:DIRECTOR of multiple notable films, notability could be supported, but this article appears to need WP:TNT due to the vast amount of promotional content and poor-quality sourcing. Beccaynr (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom Worldiswide (talk) 06:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator with no other support for deletion. RL0919 (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radhika Rao

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. References are clickbait, interviews, PR and profiles. No secondary sourcing. scope_creep^Talk 10:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I reviewed some film reviews in linked articles for films she has directed, e.g. for Sanam Teri Kasam The Hindu, IANS in the Hindustan Times, in this article, there is also The Indian Express; for Lucky: No Time for Love, BBC, India Today; for I Love New Year, Filmfare, NDTV; for Yaariyan 2, Firstpost, TimesNow. I think with multiple reviews for multiple films, WP:DIRECTOR notability has support, and this article could be updated to include secondary coverage, and to remove the unreliable sources and promotional content. Beccaynr (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered WP:NEWSORGINDIA Looks like The Indian Express is problematic, especially when we're talking about establishing notability. Graywalls (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of these concerns generally, but for the Indian Express review in this article, this is bylined, not "Brand Solutions" content, and it is a 1-star review. I also removed many sources from this article that appeared to be promotional press-release style coverage, and have not considered them as support for notability. Also, the Firstpost review was not glowing, to say the least, but did speak to Rao's other work in addition to the reviewed film. Beccaynr (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment The article seems to have some merit. Nomination Withdrawn scope_creep^Talk 08:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you sure? Graywalls (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm prettty confident in Beccaynr's ability to analyse an article for notability. scope_creep^Talk 11:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I think there is more work that can be done, I have made updates to the article to incorporate reviews, including with an assist from WP:ICTFSOURCES, and to remove non-RS and what appears to be promotional content. I think keep is supported per WP:DIRECTOR#3 per multiple notable works with multiple reviews, including secondary coverage of her collective body of work. Beccaynr (talk) 03:41, 14 November 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 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. There is coverage, but not enough to sustain a separate article in the face of NOTNEWS and NOPAGE. No one is arguing the massacre should not be covered, the question was where. With respect to the target, noting, however, that should editorial consensus change to Ein HaShlosha as a target, that is fine. The consensus is not to maintain a standalone, however there is not a particular consensus on a target. Star Mississippi 18:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ein HaShlosha massacre

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

As with several other pages on less prominent components of the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, this page is unnecessary, not notable as a standalone event and should be deleted or merged back into the parent, which still only holds 24kB of readable prose, yet has been a source for far too many unnecessary child articles. This page's issues are compounded by its poor quality sourcing and fuzzy detail - as the page itself notes, the facts "are largely unknown" - and Haaretz stands alone as the only WP:RSP in sight. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Israel, and Palestine. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -

-The massacre has been featured in international press.

-The massacre is worth mention. In 2023 Israel-Hamas war page, there is ALWAYS talk of making new articles since the article is to big. Therefore we should not delete pages created on the subject that take off some of the load from the main article.

-This page exists in 9 different languages on Wikipedia.

-Regarding sources, Citations in regards to the occurence:

[32] - Specifically on Kibbutz (News from UK)

Spanish - [33] [34]

French - [35]

Russian - [36],

More: [37][38],[39],[40] (there are more Hebrew sources, but I think my point is clear). Homerethegreat (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding merger, Talk:Ein HaShlosha massacre#Proposed merge of 2023 Israel–Hamas war with Ein HaShlosha Massacre

This has already been discussed, and from what I saw, it's been opposed. So it must be an independent article. Regarding quality of source and adding more sources. Here above I added plenty, and also in the page article itself there are already sources other than Haaretz. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If unclear in regards to the Oppose I wrote above. My meaning is Keep article. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Ein HaShlosha. There are only 176 words even though fine details are provided. It would go perfectly well, and be easier to find, as a single section in the article on the kibbutz, which is also quite short. Zero^talk 12:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It can be merged there too, but it's more obvious direct parent is the overarching page on the attack. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Ein HaShlosha massacre#Proposed merge of 2023 Israel–Hamas war with Ein HaShlosha Massacre

This has already been voted on, and the result was against merger. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That merger discussion hasn't been closed, and maybe never be. There appears to be no consensus. It was based on a different target, i.e.: 2023 Israel–Hamas war, which I agree is a nonsensical target since it's already overlength. Many of those opposed cited that as a reason. Here, the merge option presented is to a different target that has no such problems. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources in article and above show this is clearly notable. BEFORE showed even more, but the above and in article sources are more than enough to show this meets WP:GNG. // Timothy :: talk 13:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Terrorism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The articles 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and 2023 Israel–Hamas war are already quite long. There are relevant details about many massacres (Re'im, Kfar Aza, Sderot, Be'eri, Netiv Ha'asara, Holit, Nir Oz and more), featured in international press. This calls for dedicating an article, even short ones, to each of these massacres. --GidiD (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GidiD: What are you saying? 2023 Hamas attack on Israel is exceptionally short and underdeveloped, with only 24kB of readable prose - well below the length for WP:TOOBIG concerns. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. This is a premature request for merge: Sadly, the 2023 conflict is an ongoing event, and probably all related articles would evolve as more facts are uncovered.

2. The article size you refer to (WP:TOOBIG) is just a rule of thumb, and other concerns may be more important. Further, there are many wiki articles with prose much shorter than 50K referencing sub-topics.

3. Prose size < 150 words would clearly require merging WP:SIZERULE- which is not the case here. And see also 1. GidiD (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and Ein HaShlosha. Better contextualized there. Of course there're sources; there's probably news articles on every Israeli rocket strike on Gaza, but we don't ahem articles on them for the same reason. AryKun (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Homerethegreat. Eladkarmel (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and Ein HaShlosha per the rationale articulated at Talk:Ein HaShlosha massacre. There are at least nine articles about the various massacres that took place on October 7. Some of them are quite long and detailed and should remain standalone articles. But many others, including this one, are merely single-paragraph stubs that have demonstrated that they will not be expanded any time soon. Readers will have a much easier time accessing information about this attack and others if it is covered in an article about the attacks broadly as opposed to many poor-quality and stubby individual articles that readers are less likely to find. Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
30/500 Note The closer will have to ensure that all participants in this discussion are extended confirmed per WP:ARBECR as such restrictions apply to Israel-Palestine / Arab-Israeli conflict articles per WP:ARBPIA4. I tried my best to strike ineligible !votes myself in the last discussion, but I unfortunately don't have enough time on my hands to do it myself again. Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Have checked and everyone is as of right now. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep I agree with Homerethegreat who mentioned the arguments I wanted to bring up anyway.

~~Elie goodman (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)~~ Sock strike. Daniel (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between those arguing to Keep this article and those who'd prefer a Merge. As far as I can see, all participants here are extended confirmed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sadly, this event is very notable, and articles branching from the 2023 Israel-Hamas war page can help keep the main article from growing too lengthy. TH1980 (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Homerethegreat. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Homerethegreat. We can revisit this in a year if some doubt this will be of enduring notability.VR _talk 05:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and to Ein HaShlosha. Notable as it is, there's just not enough here to warrant a standalone article. Owen× ☎ 16:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As far as I see, merging the mentioned page to an appropriate article might be better; because it doesn't seem to be necessary to have an independent article for this subject. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 12:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After looking at sources [41], it appears this page can be significantly expanded because a lot of details are missing. Moreover, this is a developing event. For example, what was/will be the fate of hostages taken from Ein HaShlosha by the militants? This alone will make a story. My very best wishes (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. Not every component of this atrocious attack is independently notable. It is far WP:TOOSOON to tell which crimes will prove to have an enduring WP:EFFECT independent of the overall attack. For this particular article, the sources are WP:PRIMARYNEWS; no secondary analysis of this portion of the attack has emerged (as shown by the paucity of info in this article) and in-depth analysis does not exist yet; and the reporting around this element of the attack has not been WP:SUSTAINED other than in passing mentions (and those are in primary sources). This falls in WP:EVENTCRIT #4, an horrific act that is (and should be) covered in appropriate detail in the parent article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well documented incident in a historically notable run of attacks. I see no reason even to propose removal of such incidents. Mistamystery (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question - if this article is not necessary due to raised concerns, why is the nominator creating articles such as Beit Rima massacre about events of the same scale, with Ein ha-Shlosha being obviously more documented as massacre and showing intentional killing of civilians rather than collateral damage in Beit Rima including militants. Fraankly I find both not notable enough, but would be happy to get an answer whether this is a systemic bias of the nominator.GreyShark (dibra) 19:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly odd that an editor would create one article, and nominate a similar one for deletion. But there's nothing improper about it. Editors change their mind, or wish to solicit debate about the necessity of such articles. I wouldn't rush to assume bad faith or a systematic bias. Let's discuss each article on merits alone, without pulling the author's or AfD nominator's history into the discussion. Owen× ☎ 20:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You would do well not to project motives on other editors (advice I struggle at time to take). We are building an encyclopaedia; to do that we work on articles, not editors. Also, arguing against an article based on other articles is both dangerous water and explicitly recommended as something NOT to do. See WP:WHATABOUT.

I also have a two-fold answer for your question. First, that article is also in AfD right now and I don't think it passes WP:NEVENT with its existing sourcing. I would delete both, but for different reasons. Second, that has zero to do with this article. It has different issues as well as a viable parent article for the overall event. The 2023 Hamas attack on Israel is encyclopaedic and already has strong secondary sources (something that simply cannot be said for each individual atrocity that the event comprises, like the subject of this AfD). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I strongly believe that the article should be kept on Wikipedia. This event is a significant part of history and provides valuable information for those seeking to understand the complexities of the region’s past. The article is well-sourced, providing multiple references to verify the information presented. It adheres to Wikipedia’s guidelines for neutrality, presenting facts without taking a side. Deleting this article would be a loss to the Wikipedia community and its readers worldwide. Therefore, I urge the moderators to consider the educational value and relevance of this article in their decision-making process. דור פוזנר (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this minor article into Ein HaShlosha article, will sit better there than anywhere else. Selfstudier (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ein HaShlosha as not significant enough for an individual page. Freinland (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This happened. this article shouldn't be deleted to favor ones bias, attempt to deny it happened. User:Iskandar323 has shown systemic bias against Israel on every, article posted about the Hamas Attack on Israel. on Every page he's asking to either rename articles from "massacres" to "attacks" to lessen the crimes the group has committed, and here again, he's attempting to do the same. in breach of WP:BIAS CViB (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC) Struck non-EC comment per WP:ARBECR. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, WP:BIAS is about systemic bias, not about accusing fellow editors of personal bias which is a breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Second, It does not require a bias (in either direction) to support or oppose a position based on policy and reliable sources. Once, just once, I'd like to see a civil discussion in Middle East topics that does not end up with folks implying racist motives on pro-this or anti-the-other editors. We're here to build an encyclopaedia; if everyone can't leave their bigotry at the door, we will fail. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, this is best covered in the parent article. I find myself in agreement with Last1in's comment above. Daniel (talk) 21:43, 9 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 09:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Natural History of Fear

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

I am nominating this article for failing to meet WP:GNG. There is a lack of reliable sources for this article online, and it only contains an external link to the production company's website. List reference to this article is at Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. Currently, this article does little more than serve as an external link an online store to purchase the release. This article have existed for over a decade with no improvement to satisfy notability. Torpedoi (talk) 08:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Radio. Torpedoi (talk) 08:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree I couldnt find sufficent coverage. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:47, 17 November 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 Hippocampus. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Between-systems memory interference model

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

Extremely doubtful notability. Sources are mostly WP:PRIMARY PepperBeast (talk) 08:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Medicine. PepperBeast (talk) 08:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Hippocampus, unless a better target is found. Agree with nom, this is a very specific mechanism with little notability or coverage in secondary sources. Owen× ☎ 15:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since this article's Talk contained only one WP (Articles for Creation), I added appropriate WPs to help draw attention/help for the article. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Hippocampus for the reasons stated at WP:OVERCOME --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:32, 12 November 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!} 06:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aliyar Najafi

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

Fails notability, never played for the national. just a regular league player with no special achievement, the fact that the page is an orphan also proves his non-notability. Sports2021 (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Sports2021 (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, fails GNG. SportsGuy789 (talk) 20:41, 16 November 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!} 01:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce America's Debt Now Act of 2011

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Reduce America's Debt Now Act of 2011

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

This page is not WP:Notable as it is covering a bill that did not become law and has not been covered by WP:Secondary sources in any sort of meaningful or substantial way. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 03:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, Economics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked and I couldn't find any sort of substantial documentation, from identifiable and independent authors, for use in building an article, either. History has clearly ignored this. Uncle G (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another bill that went nowhere. Reywas92^Talk 15:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Crabtree

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

Lack of sources Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Kentucky. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Journalism, Television, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and West Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: articles aren't deleted because they're inadequately sourced; they're deleted because their subjects aren't notable, or the statements in the article are unverifiable. WP:BEFORE expects a reasonable effort to locate sources before nominating articles for deletion; articles shouldn't be nominated merely because they don't contain enough sources. Being an unsuccessful candidate for a state office may not be enough to establish notability, but it might be combined with some of the other assertions to do so. Even unsuccessful candidates for office generally receive news coverage, but that hasn't been cited—so we know there are sources out there that haven't been included in the article. Once a reasonable attempt to find sources has been undertaken, then we'll be in a better position to tell whether the subject is notable. P Aculeius (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment @P Aculeius: I looked and coulndt find anything top three results are an IMDb, facebook profiles and a linkedin. Google news bring up various obituaries.Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comment is accurate, articles shouldn't be deleted simply because there is a lack of sources in them nor for any reason that can be corrected through editing. I think it would help to look at those WP pages that have lists of good and bad arguments for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources out there. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just added several sources. Notably the October 1995 Lexington Herald-Leader article has a fairly lengthy profile of him as part of coverage of the secretary of state election. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I appreciate the effort to add sources, but at this point I don't see enough GNG level coverage to justify a keep for this working individual. Coverage seems mostly limited to the election in which he was a failed candidate, and the consensus here is that type coverage is not significant and is routine level. If there is an article on the 1995 Secretary of State race, I would support a redirect. Let'srun (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To assess addition of sources by Sammi Brie which has been evaluated by Let'srun, further input needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Let'srun. Coverage doesn't appear to be sufficient to meet GNG. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I read the article and discovered it fails GNG. It also fails WP: people and WP:JOURNALIST. Though the article is well written, there's no in-depth coverage of the subject by secondary sources, reliable and multiple sources. Google does not show relevant information about the subject except obituary... I, therefore, agree that this article should be deleted. You can read WP:NOT. Ezra Cricket (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 01:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Final Four (Survivor: Borneo)

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

I appreciate the efforts to demonstrate the Survivor: Borneo season finale's "notability", but the execution is poorer than I expected: excessive synopsis and very little third-party (secondary) coverage other than viewership/ratings. I tried to find reliable sources covering production notes and critical reactions without avail. Even with such sources, I couldn't see how the season finale is independently notable from Survivor: Borneo other than attempt to extend long details of the season finale itself. Furthermore, I don't see how initial (first-run) reactions would help other than to overemphasize the episode's importance, which is already covered in the season article. Well, WP:PAGEDECIDE is subjective but should apply to this topic.

Furthermore, this is the recording and production of the event itself, so WP:SBST and/or WP:EVENT, including WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:COVERAGE, should apply as well. Diversity of sources are expected, yet I've not seen such regarding the whole episode itself.

Should be either redirected to Survivor: Borneo or deleted as a whole. George Ho (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, and United States of America. George Ho (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I don't mind what the default decision shall be if there are neither objections nor comments from others. If the default decision shall be delete, then the page shall be soft-deleted right away. If the default decision shall be redirect, then the page shall be redirected to the TV season article. George Ho (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Almost nothing but an extremely bloated episode summary. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:39, 11 November 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!} 01:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Gubaydullin

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

Non-notable football player. Article recently deprodded. No indication of notability nor can significant coverage be established. Mbdfar (talk) 05:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find any decent Russian coverage Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 11 November 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!} 06:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Toivonen

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

The man may be a virtuoso, but there's no sourcing that I can find that establishes that at an encyclopedic level. His side project Kaburu is likewise listed at AfD. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The references in the corresponding Polish article at pl:Thomas_Toivonen may be helpful. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Finland, and Sweden. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't read Polish, but based on the urls the pl.wiki sources appear all suspect. It's blogs, an amazon page, etc. I did find a Polish newspaper bio about him [42], and there's maybe a couple of hits from Swedish newspapers, but the latter are all paywalled and I can't access them [43], [44]. Someone of the same name appears to have also written opinion pieces for Fria Tidningen, but those obviously don't count even if it is the same person. I'll refrain from !voting for now in the hopes that someone else has access to the paywalled newspaper links. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a couple of days, so absent confirmation that the paywalled Swedish language sources I linked above are sufficient for GNG, I'll mark myself down as a delete. That said, I'll happily reconsider if someone can provide a description of them. Ljleppan (talk) 11:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hwem (AfD discussion) and Kaburu (AfD discussion) were created by an account claiming (via the copyright on the image) to be Thomas Toivonen (AfD discussion), which has also edited this article. Interestingly, some 13 years later another account claiming to be Toivonen came along, requested that the biography be deleted, and proceeded in concert with an IP address editor to remove quite a lot of content. That was 3 years ago. The early versions from 2007 were very clearly someone writing about xyrself in the third person. The current version is fairly well aligned with the Polish Wikipedia article, whose sourcing is somewhat shaky, I agree. Some similarly poor sources were removed from this article in 2020. Uncle G (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 11 November 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!} 06:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 Isles of Scilly Football League

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

Sourced almost entirely to facebook. DrKay (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. DrKay (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Facebook is the only source of notability offical Facebook page 92.30.92.108 (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a user has now added an RSSSF source. Is this usually enough for a league season article? If not, then we may need to look at 2022–23 Isles of Scilly Football League as well. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is essentially a pub league which occasionally gets a bit of "and finally...." news coverage because of the oddity that it only has two teams. The league itself is probably notable, but individual seasons certainly aren't -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons above. It's a minor "league" of two teams, that occasionally gets mentions, but each specific season doesn't need a separate article. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doms (company)

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

Fails to meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Charlie (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Charlie (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Gujarat. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is notable enough to have an article बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - The sourcing on this article is very (very) substandard, with most sources just being a copy and paste of previous press releases. There is one specific article, the one published by Outlook Magazine which seems to a semi interview which disqualifies it as a non third-party source. The livemint.com article does seem promising, but that was the only reliable source I could find. However, one good source does not satisfy the 'multiple' clause of NCORP making this a delete in my opinion. -- Sohom (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parisam vaippu

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

As I stated on the talk page two months ago, Parisam vaippu does not appear to be a notable topic; I can't find any reliable sources even mentioning it. These issues have been present since its creation in 2014.

As such, I think that the page Parisam vaippu should be deleted. TypistMonkey (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless anyone is able to show sources in other languages suggesting notability. Mccapra (talk) 13:57, 11 November 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. Withdrawn per WikiNav outcome and no primary topic with respect to long-term significance. (non-admin closure) NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

財閥

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

This dab page is used as an example in WP:CJKV. However, it's actually a WP:2DABS and Chaebol seems to be the primary topic with respect to usage per pageviews. Thus this dab page should be replaced by a primary redirect to Chaebol with a hatnote on its top per WP:ONEOTHER, just like that of 文. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations, Japan, and Korea. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zaibatsu is an essential topic in Japanese history and economics, just as Chaebol is an important topic in Korean history and economics. Pageviews for each article do not necessarily mean that there is a primary topic for a redirect, and here both articles have substantial page views, and there is no evidence that English-language readers want the page on the Korean topic when using the Chinese characters. (While both are likely vanishingly rare among English-language users, zaibatsu is the term more likely to be written in Chinese characters.) This does not really seem like a deletion discussion, but I would both keep the disambiguation page and oppose redirecting to the Korean term. Also, note that this differs from the case of 文 where the reasoning was "primary meaning of the character is the character"; this is a compound, not a single character. Dekimasuよ! 06:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note as well that there is the option to expand the disambiguation page if needed, which could be a simpler solution. It may not help users too much, but the meaning of 財閥 can be taken to include other topics like the Vanderbilt family or Rockefeller family. Dekimasuよ! 06:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean that Chaebol is primary in the same aspect as Radical 67, but simply use 文 (disambiguation) as a precedence for a CJKV dab page with a redirect as the primary topic. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:49, 11 November 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!} 01:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DBMail

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

No evidence of notability. Apparently was deleted back in 2006(!) as a PROD but said PROD was just contested and undeleted today? Didn't even know you could do that. But at the end of the day, the page hasn't been substantially improved at all, and if it wasn't sufficient in 2006, it sure isn't sufficient today. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The argument at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#DBMail makes no case that a verifiable article from independent sources can be written. It's just a technical challenge to a proposed deletion.
When it comes to independent sources, is six sentences in 2003 enough? I think not. At least two sources, and more depth is required, especially if the de-PROD request was based upon this subject as of later than 20 years ago. A couple of Polish professors in 2010 improves things. But that still makes it 1 good source plus six sentences. In the case where there's a single good overview source, I look for there being a fair number of ancillary detail sources, and there aren't any independent ones that I can find here, let alone enough.
Uncle G (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find independent sources and seems to be half promo. Seawolf35 (talk - email) 03:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for undeleting this entry.

DBMail is notable as it's the only IMAP server backed by an RDBMS. It's also the only one that appears to be able to scale using Docker.

I've updated the entry to be more useful, please allow time to encourage independent articles.

Thanks in anticipation, Alan Alan-hicks-london (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that according to the article, Alan Hicks has been maintaining this software since 2020. SmartSE (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any substantial coverage and even the brief parts I have found, seem to be about a different piece of software which has some similarly named functions: [45]. SmartSE (talk) 17:18, 15 November 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!} 01:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Piperdy (surname)

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

Fails WP:GNG. A very weak source which does not support the text. Repeatedly re-created on a redirect Velella ^{Velella Talk} 00:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many pages like this have no sources. For example, take a look at Vohra. This surname is in my family, so I know the meaning. Yolia21 ^{Yolia21 Talk} 01:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Gujarat. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Human name articles can exist for the sole purpose of disambiguationg people with the name, but there are zero notable people with this name. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per LaundryPizza. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LaundryPizza. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. AryKun (talk) 17:31, 13 November 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, no prejudice against recreation if better sources have been found--Ymblanter (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Christiane Vleugels

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

This Belgian artist (who's article was previously deleted) does not meet WP criteria for notability per WP:NARTIST not WP:GNG. A "before" search only finds social media, blogs, databases, user-submitted content, and primary sources (such as galleries and websites that sell her work). What is not found are reviews in art magazines (with the exception of an amateur-hobby trade journal and paid-placement native advertising). I can find no serious art historical articles or book chapters on her work; no notable museum collections, nor what we normally find for a notable artist. It is clear she has technical skill, but that is not what is needed for an encyclopedia article. The article states she is "involved with IBEX Masters art collective", and the article was created by a user AGIbexMasters, so it looks like it is also WP:COI and possibly WP:UPE. Netherzone (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Arts, Visual arts, and Belgium. Netherzone (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ARTIST She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the quality of her work (this would probably be an WP:IAR Keep comment), which is undeniably and interestingly photorealistic in nature. The gallery showings should also weigh into a keep for this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage found, not listed in Getty ULAN, most coverage found is in Spanish, on Cultura Inquieta, but I'm unsure that's a RS Oaktree b (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately it must be a delete. Considering her work, which is absolutely stellar but no exhibited works as far as I can see apart from the "virtual museum" and no works being kept in any collection, although it must be only a matter of time. The skill there is astounding and I'm sorry its got to go. I'll add Christiane Vleugels to my todo list and check it every few weeks when I create a new article, it will get checked. Its got to be case of WP:TOOSOON. scope_creep^Talk 12:37, 14 November 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.