Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 15	March 17 >

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 no consensus‎. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Adani

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating this page for deletion again because it has remained overtly promotional and lacks merit of its own. In the last deletion discussion, some IDs might have been paid to submit a keep vote. Several of those accounts are either banned or inactive now. Notedolly2 (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Notedolly2 (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I am leaning keep for now, though I haven't yet dug deep into the huge amount of sourcing online, but a note to editors looking for sources, we need to ensure there is no inheriting as the son of billionaire magnate Gautam Adani.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Eyeing on his achievements, Karan Adani has much coverage in news media like Business Standards, NDTV, Economic Times, Bloomberg, New York Times, on his personal life and career achievements. Passes WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Karan Adani's entire image is promotional because of his status as a wealthy heir of Adani Group. Any mention of him, even in reputable publications like the New York Times, tends to focus trivially on his connection to his father and the Group. Most coverage highlights things other than his achievements, which are not portrayed neutrally across any form of media. Notedolly2 (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agrabad Balika Bidyalay

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

Not a notable or traditional secondary school. There is not enough information in the article. Md Joni Hossain (talk) 06:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Md Joni Hossain (talk) 06:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Well, these football bio articles do get heated. Reading this is like a roller coaster of contempt for other editors. But, at the very end of this discussion, the conclusion is that there exist sources that establish GNG even if there are individual editors who disagree and others who are not clear on what factors count towards notability. If it matters, I do not follow sports and have no opinion on whether this article should be Kept or Deleted, I'm just reading all of the comments and assessing the arguments presented right up until a few hours ago. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Demulder

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

lugnuts stub. fails general notability guideline. ltb d l (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Belgium. ltb d l (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The corresponding article in French fr:Georges Demulder is significantly longer. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am not so clear on the added value of this AfD. Demulder was a long-time winger for Molenbeek, then White Star, in the top Belgian tier. He even played on the Belgian national team. Plus there is absolutely no BLP concern. If references are missing, there is a template for that! gidonb (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

67 newspaper pages contain the name Georges Demulder (+1 page in a magazine). Maybe someone has access? gidonb (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I don't see the article failing in WP:GNG. It was commented in previous AfD that Belgium has a lack of online information about newpapers database, so I believe that there is a satisfactory amount of offline sources, as demonstrated by @gidonb. Svartner (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm in full agreement with Svartner. This is no notability failure, just an access to sources problem. There are plenty of sources offline. Also, the article is no longer a stub. gidonb (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are online sources as well, but don't expect google to find them for you. A first step is make an account on belgica.be [1] Cattivi (talk) 12:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help, Cattivi! I found out the existence above, just couldn't get access. This is awesome! A barnstar is on the way!!! gidonb (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I think this article is very weak overall, I agree with Svartner about the relative availability of sources required for SIGCOV. If we only interpret SIGCOV as strictly as possible, only articles about modern footballers from countries with developed leagues and media infrastructures will exist—which goes against the very principle of Wikipedia. Anwegmann (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is just not true, Anwegmann. Wikipedia contains myriads of articles about athletes and other notables, including footballers, from the "pre-modern" era. I'm sure you will find them easily and quickly if you look for them. But, once again, Wikipedia is not the directory of allfootballers. If you want completeness, check the special websites; this is what I do. This may be hard to accept but it is a foundational principle. -The Gnome (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the "pre-modern" era. I'm talking about countries, leagues, and teams with very, very little coverage in what we identify as "reliable" sources due to their global obscurity. I'm referencing WP:BIAS, not WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Anwegmann (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, what do you suggest we do in case there is, for whatever reason, very little coverage in reliable sources? Bend the rules? Ignore them? Because this is what your suggestion implies. (By the way, those quotation marks around "reliable" suggest you do not think much of Wikipedia considering WP:RS too important. That would be unfortunate.) Allow me to emphasize that the objective of Wikipedia is not completeness. By the mere fact that WP places emphasis on verifiability through reliable sources it is quite certain that it will never adequately cover (as adequately as a football encyclopaedia, for example) those countries and leagues. -The Gnome (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because our subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:FOOTYN. The entirety of the Keep suggestions amounts, when all is said and done, to "surely there are sources out there". But that's just not of value. Wikipedia is not a collection of random information. Nor a directory of a country's footballers. -The Gnome (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the article was a one-sentence stub, I could perhaps see this as a failure of NOTDIRECTORY; however, this article has been expanded to something pretty decent and there appear to be several sources specifically about him added? (especially the one: "De vuurdoop van G. Demulder in Belgie-Zwitserland" [G. Demulder's baptism by fire in Belgium-Switzerland]) BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the text is truly irrelevant in the matter. The article could've been 20 thousand words long and of fine prose and still be a legitimate candidate for deletion. This is not about the text's quantity or quality.It's about whether or not there are enough sources supporting its subject's notability. End of story. And there are not! The single relevant reference, beyond listings and the like, is the one you also mention, in a 1939 newspaper clipping. Where are the books? The articles on Belgium's football history? Where is the "significant coverage"? I'm sorry but this is truly inadequate. -The Gnome (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My reference to its length is regarding whether or not it fails NOTDIRECTORY (something the expansion makes irrelevant here). Regarding notability, it is simply ridiculous to suggest that we need all the different articles and books on a nation's sporting history to mention this individual athlete for that athlete to be notable. It is of note that we have very little access to media of Belgium from that age (can you access any of the books on Belgium's football history?), so even if there were many articles mentioning him in regards to Belgium's football history we'd only have access to a few. Of the sources we do have access to, what's wrong with the newspaper source? That appears to pass "significant coverage"'s definition of "directly and in-depth", does it not? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since opinion is divided, it would be helpful to get an assessment of improvements made to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is still room for improvement, but this player played for Sporting one of the top clubs in Portugal. Not to mention the Belgium National team. It's weak on sources yes, but that doesn't negate it. Govvy (talk) 07:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...it absolutely negates it. ltb d l (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have run out of ways to phrase this, Govvy, so I will simply repeat myself: Wikipedia is all about sources! This is not just some opinion expressed in an essay, either. (Check both Wikipedia:Truth, not verifiability and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.) Lack of sources and weakness of sources is what gets texts deleted from Wikipedia. Therefore, do not expect completeness of information here. This is not a directory of footballers. Neither is it a collection of randomly collected information. -The Gnome (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blah, blah, bla, blab, ba? There was no need to ping with a load of RTMs, I've been on wikipedia for years. Are you going to bother doing any of your own research?? It wouldn't be that hard to find good sources if you wanted too. The height of laziness is to write an opinion without validation. Govvy (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Govvy, simmer down. Check your temper before posting. Understood? Secondly, I do not care about editors' backgrounds or records. I treat everyone equally, with the same respect. Your years in Wikipedia mean very little in AfD discussions.

Thirdly, I was very clear about my opinion: There are not enough sources. So, what kind of research exactly do you want me to do? If I say "there are not enough sources" that's a negative opinion. You seriously want me to prove a negative?! How does that work exactly? I'm supposed to bring forward all the sources in the world and point out that no source carries a good enough mention of Demulder? If I say "XYZ cannot be found," that's a claim that cannot be logically supported but can be trivially refuted! I.e. by producing XYZ - or a bunch of XYZs. Work that out for a while, please, and then respond. -The Gnome (talk)

Bla, bla, blobby, bloggy! Thanks for your meaningless post, please don't ping me again. Govvy (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a message forum or some "party website", Govvy. Get your shit together or walk away. Fair & last warning. -The Gnome (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about? I told you not to ping me. Get my shit together? Seems to me you have the problem, if you ping me again I will just report you to the admin for harassment. Govvy (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you, kindly stop it. You both disagree and will not get each other to change opinions. Leave it at that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement is fine; I even welcome it. But uncivil, boorish behavior is unacceptable. -The Gnome (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears both of you have crossed that line; Bla, bla, blobby, bloggy! Thanks for your meaningless post and Get your **** together both are uncivil and unneeded remarks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has international caps therefore he is undoubtedly notable. IJA (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
nonsense. ltb d l (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IJA, "surely he is notable" is not an acceptable argument in AfD discussions. If there are sources satisfying WP:GNG or WP:FOOTYN, please produce them; supposing "surely there are sources" is not an acceptable argument either. -The Gnome (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"surely he is notable" would not be an acceptable argument, HOWEVER IJA DID NOT say that. IJA said that the international cap(s) contribute to Demulder's importance as a footballer. That is a highly acceptable argument to make in an AfD. As a player on the national team, Demulder was more than just a frequent player on Belgian and Portuguese top-tier teams! gidonb (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, maybe someone who actually speaks Belgian can attest to the non-triviality of the newspaper source and the state of 1930s footballer sourcing in Belgium. @Fram? JoelleJay (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I speak French fluently. (In Belgium, they speak French and Flemish. There is no "Belgian" language.) What's the task exactly? -The Gnome (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the task is reading this newspaper source (though that looks like Dutch, I think). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome, so someone missed a word. It happens to me all the time! JoelleJay, reading Belgian Dutch (aka Flemish) fluently, I can attest that the article is nontrivial SIGCOV of the most independent nature. The famous Belgian sports journalist Pol Jaquemyns, who has an article on Nlwiki, ANALYZES the playing style of Demulder and how it would contribute (or not), to the Belgian national team. Furthermore, by the 1930s football was very well covered in Belgium, in the local, regional, and national press, as well as in special sports dailies and magazines. The problem is access to these sources. gidonb (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if he meets SPORTCRIT then that's probably enough until we get access to further sources. JoelleJay (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Gidonb's analysis of the newspaper sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Mister Maker#Spin-Offs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Maker Around the World

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

A minor spin off not nearly notable enough for its own article, page has zero citations and the contents of the article is just a short 3 sentence lead (one of which is entirely related to the other two spin-offs) and a redundant episodes list.

I am also nominating the previous spin-off, Mister Maker Comes to Town. The article has much more content, and 2 citations. The first citation is just an official Mister Maker flash game irrelevant to the lead where it is cited (and doesnt seem to be about this specific spin-off at all), and the other citation is likely much more relevant but hidden behind a paywall.

There doesn't seem to be any good sources for either article, I don't beleive either article is notable.

Most of the content from both these articles, especially Mister Maker Around the World, can be added to Mister_Maker#Spin-Offs, and don't require their own articles. Theooolone ─ ( Talk - Contribs ) 05:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mister Maker as per nom. Matt's talk 10:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep (sock nom, no delete votes)‎. (non-admin closure) Jumpytoo Talk 21:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AC Express (Indian Railways)

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

The AC Express is not 100 percent made rightly. Actually the services are part of superfast express and that content has also been removed by editors from express trains of india page, instead these info has to be updated there and this page is made just a waste. Jagganath01 (talk) 05:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC) (WP:SOCKSTRIKE — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 09:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jagganath01 (talk) 05:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nomination is by a blocked sockpuppet. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article is notable, or else we would also need to delete the train tracks. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High school rank

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

Unreferenced messy stub, first part suggests it is a disambig, then it talks about another concept "student rank". Perhaps this can be converted into a proper disambig or redirected? Student rank is likely the same as Class rank; high school rank seems to be American-only ranking equivalent to College and university rankings but for high schools, which we do not have an article for. Although of course high school rankings exist outside US, so this is also badly in need of globalization. Can anyone fix it, or will we redirect this WP:TNT is also a consideration. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This old stub seems more like a dictionary definition than an encyclopedia article. Some of the content about it's use is also close to WP:OR and not useful. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's no article here, nor one that could be created from it. If we had articles on the USNR annual ranking of US public high schools or the WaPo equivalent and articles on similar surveys in other countries it could be an index page, but we don't. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep (sock nom, no delete votes)‎. (non-admin closure) Jumpytoo Talk 21:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of trains run by Indian Railways

AfDs for this article:

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

There is *no feasibility* of adding list of trains of India as it is not fixed and rather keeps changing. Secondly, many couple of trains have been updated or added officially but lack in this article. Jagganath01 (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC) ^{(WP:SOCKSTRIKE — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 09:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC))}[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jagganath01 (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly can use some cleanup and reorganizing, but deletion does not seem necessary. With regards to "many couple of trains have been updated or added officially but lack in this article", WP:OUTDATED applies. S5A-0043^Talk 07:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nomination is by a blocked sockpuppet. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason given for deletion. Category:Indian Railways exist, plenty of things that could be listed here are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. Dream Focus 02:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 07:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bender Machine Works

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

Effectively unreferenced... major mess. The article's lead suggests it is about a company (which does not seem notable, no hits on GScholar). Much of the body seems to discuss some of their product or products ("Bender Washer/Releaser"). Then there is a big EL farm to their patents. At best I can say this is some historical WP:OR and sadly I doubt anything here can be rescued (GScholar returns zero hits for this "Bender Washer/Releaser"). At worst, this looks like a possible WP:HOAX, although AFD I lean towards ye old OR. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Wisconsin. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This subject does not appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. I agree that it should be deleted. --FPTI (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lengthy article, what in particular about Wikipedia's criteria for notability does it not meet? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Errr, are you serious? From GNG: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Now, are you seeing, well... sources? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't think this is a hoax... looking through the page history I think it's just a few different inventions/ patents from this one guy, and the title of the article is misleading. I did a newspaper archive search but the few results are in passing and don't seem to all be about the same subject. Unfortunately I think this is either too obscure to pass GNG, or the actually notable parts of the article are sufficiently obscured by other elements of it. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refrigerate after opening

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

Unreferenced essay/WP:OR, which is extra problematic as this topic is related to medical areas, where we want above-average quality. No footnotes, two not very reliably looking external links, tagged as needing more sources since 2012. If nobody can improve this, WP:ATD-R target to consider could be Food preservation perhaps? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Biology, and Medicine. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect This is a term used on food labels like "Made with real fruit". Im struggling to see this as an encyclopedic subject. Ben Azura (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I think this is a likely enough search term to be worth redirecting. After reviewing associate articles I think Shelf life is probably the best target since it is mostly relevant content and could easily be expanded by a couple of sentences to mention this phrase explicitly. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eluchil404 Sama author created now-deleted shake well :) Any ideas where to redirect that one? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. On the surface Food packaging seems the most relevant but doesn't really cover the relevant issues. A look at Outline of food preparation shows that we don't have any articles on sifting or mixing as they apply to cooking. At least that I can see. Somewhat surprising, but, as the saying goes, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a cookbook. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are three different target articles suggested to Redirect this article to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an unreferenced personal essay that doesn't say anything that doesn't relate to food preservation in general. It's not worth redirecting as it's just an ordinary use of the English language. We might just as well redirect Permits entry of light to Window. Elemimele (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above, this sorry and unsurprisingly uncited essay has no place on Wikipedia; the topic of food preservation is sufficiently covered already, and this wouldn't be a sensible redirect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wholly unreferenced and lacking any evidence of notability. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zero seek

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

While this may be notable (there are some passing references in my GScholar BEFORE), what we have is pure WP:OR - content tagged as unreferenced for over a decade, with no interwikis. It is pretty much orphaned (just two mainspace articles link here) and outside the lead is underlnked This is outside my field of expertise, so I cannot even comment whether what is written about here is related to the uses I see in GScholar. If someone improves this, great, otherwise, a redirect somewhere could be considered as well. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Computing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to stepper motor. One, the current state is completely unacceptable - not a single source, and has been so for more than a decade. This cannot remain in mainspace in this form. Two, a large part of the text is concerned with background already given at stepper motor and would be superfluous if the rest was embedded there; that would make a good subsection, not an article. If anyone wishes to add sourced content, it can be added there. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is WP:OR, combining the concept of a zero seek interface command with the discussion of obtaining zero position in an actuator that uses open-loop control. I'm not convinced a redirect is a viable option, as I couldn't find any sources that would use the term to define the mechanism as described (it usually refers to relative motion rather than absolute position). Even if it is, neither the stepper motor nor a number of other related articles I looked at contain any information on the subject. PaulT2022 (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elmidae FYI as this addresses your proposal. I have no opinion as I am not familiar with the topic beyond the basics. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither am I, really. If someone who actually understands the topic states that no reliable sources at all can be found, then that does point to delete. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hoping for some expertise in coming days, to help decide whether this article should be Redirected or Deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Note that on 17 March 2024 User:Лисан аль-Гаиб added three references to the article without commenting in this AfD. However, only the first reference appears to use the term in a way that could be possibly relevant to the article, and doesn't mention anything such as "hard end-stop" and "sensed end-stop", to which three paragraphs are devoted.

I expect there to be sufficient sources somewhere for this subject overall, but probably under a different name, perhaps "return-to-zero". If someone is interested in covering this topic, e probably should do that in a section of stepper motor. But in the current form the article is better gone per WP:TNT. NicolausPrime (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of IDE choices for Haxe programmers

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

This doesn’t meet WP: N. I can’t find any reliable secondary sources that actually compare different IDEs for programming in Haxe. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NLIST, the grouping itself has to be shown to be notable by reliable sources, which it does not appear to have been. popodameron ⁠talk 04:43, 16 March 2024 (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!} 04:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NLIST I'm afraid. Something like C++ might, but this is an obscure language and this comparison is not made in any reliable sources. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Anyone is free to create a redirect if they see fit. ✗plicit 04:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inertia negation

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

Hypothecial (fictional) concept that seems to fail WP:GNG. BEFORE shows next to no hits on GScholar, what we have is pure WP:OR (unreferenced) mixing speculations about real science with fiction. Sole reference (not footnoted) is a book on UFOlogy and sole EL is to the Star Trek wiki. I have no suggestion for a plausible redirect this time - this is so bad I fear it needs to be blown up with a vengeance. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Science. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My guess here is that someone wanted an article on Star Trek-style inertial dampeners, but was cranky that they're named "wrong" (because there are real world things called inertial dampers) and so made up this name. There's really nothing at all, anywhere, using this term, and not really enough on the Star Trek fictional tech to pin an article on THAT, either. There's some conceptual crossover with inertialess drive, but not that sources really come out and address, so that's no help (and that article is also facing the axe unless my workshopped rewrite wins people over, I suppose). Regardless, there's no rewrite possible for this one. Lubal (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lubal Did you meant to say intertia dampener? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as junk science. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Per WP:TNT even though I think that the concept of an "inertial dampener" could be a viable topic. It needs a full rewrite regardless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm FYI: inertial dampener is a (bad) article _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced speculation. It's best to cover these fictional concepts at the fiction itself. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pretty much everything about the article, including the term being used for the title itself, is the product of WP:OR. Rorshacma (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: completely made-up concept with no coverage and no scientific basis. DrowssapSMM 17:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article contains nothing that was not derived from original research. Even the title was an original creation of the article's creator. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 15:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Inertial dampener which is a viable page. To me that makes more sense if someone is hunting around to learn more about inertia and similar; point them towards something that exists as against fantasy. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I'm closing this as Keep on the basis of editors arguing that GNG is met by the new sources. As AFD regulars know, "international caps" are no longer a sign of notability and haven't been for several years now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Molina

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Honduras. Joeykai (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A century of caps for one of the most successful teams in the Honduran top flight over an eight-year-old career makes him notable and significant, at least locally. Here are two substantial sources: [2] and [3]. Anwegmann (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be an important figure for F.C. Motagua, winning titles with them, there are probably more local sources for him. But the article certainly isn't the best, needs a lot to be added too it. Govvy (talk) 08:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article needs improvement, but it doesn't fail WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has international caps therefore he is undoubtedly notable. IJA (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IJA: That statement is not supported by our notability guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Robby.is.on (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. If editors disagree, please ping me with two or three sources that you believe contributes to WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: Anwegmann linked "two substantial sources". Robby.is.on (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He linked one source, as articles from the same media outlet are not independent of each other. We need more than that to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[4] is another brief profile. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've expanded the article with the three sources that have been mentioned here plus a fourth one. I think the article's okay now though it could be more detailed. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I think the El Heraldo and Diez pieces are decent enough for GNG considering the subject. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Long Valley, Lassen County, California

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

Another leftover from a failed group nom, this was synthesized from Durham and a couple of other sources, neither of which testifies to a town by this name. I was able to "verify" the post office against Jim Forte's site, which is technically self-published but which we have never run into cause for doubting; he gives its dates as 1869-1912, for what that's worth. There's no GNIS entry for it and I haven't seen any sign of it on topos, and I cannot work out where the coordinates came from. The part about the "Beckwourth Trail" refers to the valley, not a town, so it's irrelevant. Someone who has a copy of Durham may be able to shed more light on this but the most reasonable guess is that there was a post office set up at the saw mill. That's not the same as a notable settlement. Mangoe (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There was never a settlement called "Long Valley" it was a valley, and there were settlements in it. They were not called "Long Valley". The post office was and it served settlements there. In the newspaper there are mentions of people from Long Valley, but there is no reason why people cannot say they are from the Valley they live in. People used an address of Long Valley, because that was there post office. Here is and example: https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-lassen-advocate-just-a-valley/143501762/ There are also numerous examples in these newspapers of post offices not being named for the town or valley the serve.James.folsom (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting previous AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashton, California.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment re previous nomination In spite of the barrage of procedural keeps, all of the articles were eventually deleted except for this one and two others, neither of which has been subjected to an individual AfD. Mangoe (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. TH1980 (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to World Scrabble Championship or another location yet to be created. These can be handled editorially as there's no indication a 4th relist will bring on a different consensus or further input Star Mississippi 14:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 WESPA Championship (WESPAC)

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

Unfortunately seems to be a non-notable event backed up by just a single secondary source from Slate -- no independent third-party coverage apart from that (I was unable to find anything meaningful myself). The rest of the article is just spun off from primary sources. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 21:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Games, and Nevada. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to Slate, coverage from Australian Broadcasting Corporation [5], The Guardian (Nigeria) [6], The Forward [7]. ~ A412 ^talk! 22:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I saw those, they aren't SIGCOF about the tournament by any means, but the ABC and Forward pieces could certainly add to David Eldar's notability. With all due respect, I think we should be more discerning with what exactly constitutes notability and significant coverage... It was a different story with past events that actually were "World Scrabble Championship"s (TM) (2018 for instance), but this one is a far cry from those... KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 23:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, we're going to have to disagree on both points here. First, I don't think "officialness" / manufacturer-association of the event, versus those titled "World Scrabble Championship", should make any difference when assessing notability, otherwise we're just introducing editorial bias on what we subjectively find more important. Second, sure, I'll concede that the Forward piece is primarily about Eldar, not the event, but the first two sources discuss structure, standings, context, and specific plays of the event. That sounds like coverage of the event to me. ~ A412 ^talk! 23:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not misunderstand what I meant in the latter half of my statement. I did not mean to imply that being the "official" Worlds automatically makes it notable, but that the previous events that had, in my opinion, much more substantial coverage were incidentally "official" events (but it is easy to see why the BBC and NYT eould be more inclined to run stories about an actual WSC as oppposed to a "WESPAC".) To your second point, I insist that those sources are by no means adequate as far as this event is concerned — you can find similar pieces with such details about other random tournaments, so by your metric we ought to have articles about them too. But, really, SIGCOV is a higher standard than just that. If we had a few more articles like the Slate piece, then fine, but we don't. Cheers, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 10:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just tell me honestly if you feel the benchmark set out in WP:EVENTS is met: "An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." I think the answer should be fairly obvious... Nuff said, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 10:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I honestly do. There are sources across multiple continents (global scope); before, during, and after the tournament (lasting coverage). While yes, it may not be as notable as the "official" tournament, I think it cleanly passes WP:NEVENT. I don't think we disagree on policy here, we disagree on whether it's met, so I'm going to disengage here and let others comment. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, guess we have to agree to disagree. I consider myself an "inclusionist" but I just don't see it here, sadly KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Considering the WP:EVENTS benchmark that Kingoflettuce cited above, I would be inclined to merge this, and all of the other individual event pages, into two articles: the existing one for World Scrabble Championship and one covering all WESPAC events. I'd also like to apologize to Kingoflettuce for conflating the two. I'm new to following the Scrabble tournaments and was trying my best — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElatedCoder (talk • contribs)
- Hey, no worries — it's nothing personal. I'd like to think that we all edit in good faith and I can see the effort you put in (hence I opened this nom with "unfortunately"...). And you certainly don't owe me an apology! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Could the nominator move their Merge comment to be close to their nomination statement? Right now, it looks like a comment from an editor who is new to the discussion. Also, please be specific about what Merge target article you are proposing, the closer shouldn't have to guess what you mean.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz The "Merge" comment was not by me... I see even you got confused. It was an unsigned comment by the article's creator, and I was merely responding to it. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 14:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ElatedCoder, question for you above czar 19:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A merge target is greatly appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. (non-admin closure) Why? I Ask (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DJ D. Pewee

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

Appears to fail WP:NBIO and WP:NMUSIC, could not find reliable secondary sources for this BLP. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Liberia. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, did not win awards claimed, nothing popping up for this guy at all. Mach61 05:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not to be confused with Anderson .Paak's alter-ego, DJ Pee .Wee, this fellow has nothing for him. Could not verify that he won the awards listed. Why? I Ask (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DDP DJ Dominic Pewe€ DJ D P and other discussions. Long-term abuse. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. It was deleted by Bbb23 under CSD G5. (non-admin closure) – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Selma-Winchester tornado

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

The swiftly created article does not meet notability guidelines, and tornadoes of such small magnitude like this do not typically warrant article creation. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LASTING, WP:EVENT. Wikiwillz (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Wikiwillz (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It will be expanded in the future. More information will come out in the following weeks Iamakid836e5 (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to let everyone know this user is most likely a sockpuppet, and I have opened a discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lokicat3345 Wikiwillz (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There were multiple more notable and and deadlier tornadoes than this one, such as the Lakeview tornado (which in itself doesn't even necessarily qualify for an article) ( ͡°( ͡° ͜ʖ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ʖ ͡°)͡°) (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No lasting impacts proven. This is a similar case to the 2023 Clarksville tornado. Individual tornadoes in an outbreak shouldn't be given an article until months afterward, so WP:LASTING can be satisfied. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ without prejudice against early REFUND if SIGCOV is found. Owen× ☎ 19:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok Attri (diplomat)

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

Ambassador who doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. The citations in the article do not appear to pass WP:GNG, and the closest I could find with Google search was this one newspaper article, which looks a bit short and routine. It is my understanding that diplomats/ambassadors do not auto pass WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, Oman, Denmark, United States of America, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. I can't find enough for WP:GNG. However, I consider this a pass of WP:ANYBIO#2 because he's going to come up in writings about relations of India with Oman, Denmark, Zambia. And he passes ANYBIO#1 as a recepient of one of Oman's highest civilian honours. Someone's going to write who all have received that award and there, write something about who he is and what he did to get that award. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And he passes ANYBIO#1 as a recepient of one of Oman's highest civilian honours. Got a citation? I don't see it in the article. If Ashok Attri received the Order of Al-Said, I'll withdraw this AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Novem Linguae, This is what I found. I don't think this is that. That appears to be for heads of states; this appears to be for diplomats. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae. Ashok received Wisam al-Na'Oman, or The Order of N'Oman per TOI. This is the highest Omani honor for diplomats, which was started by Sulatn Al Qaboos in 1982. You may wish to see Honor's description in this book by Guy Stair Sainty and Rafal Heydel-Mankoo from 2006.
World Orders of Knighthood & Merit - Page 1439.

Maliner (talk) 07:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Attri has served as India's ambassador to Denmark and Oman and a high-ranking member of its missions in Zambia and the US, and took up his last post c. 2010. So it's likely that much of the available sources are a) in Arabic, Danish, Hindi and other Indian languages, and b) in print newspapers. A simple Google search isn't going to find any of that up, and as such I don't think this nomination presents adequate grounds for deletion. Searching just in Danish turns up dozens of sources, especially with regard to the Niels Holck extradition, a diplomatic dispute between Denmark and India in 2011 in which, as the Indian ambassador to Denmark, Attri was obviously a key figure.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] This case was also covered in the English press[16] and doubtless even more so in Hindi and Bengali, but I don't have the language skills to search for those. – Joe (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't find any significant coverage in Denmark. How are the above hits about Ashok Attri? I know from Denmark's neighboring country (Norway) that the only foreign ambassadors who attract media attention about their person are those of the US and Israel. Having a key role in an "affair" is an argument for merging with said affair. Receiving orders is common for diplomats. Geschichte (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say there was significant coverage (there might be, I wasn't really checking). My point was that offline sources and sources in languages other than English are very likely to exist and that, unless those are checked, we can't properly assess the level of coverage. I take the fact that five minutes of searching, in a language that I only have limited proficient in, produced eight additional sources as a strong indication that significant coverage is probably out there.

A merge would only be appropriate if Attri had a key role in one event. Given the he was an ambassador or high-level diplomat to multiple countries over at least two decades, I find that implausible, but you never know. – Joe (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This whole premise gravitates to "there must be sources out there" and "He's bound to be notable in other languages", both of which do not amount to much. -The Gnome (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that a banned account has created the text is the least of its problems. There's a breath-taking dearth of source-supported notability. All the sources proffered above are about the case of activist Niels Holck where our subject is perforce name-dropped in passing, e.g. here, here, here, here, and so on. We are left with listings such as this irrelevancy, typical announcements by the Ministry of External Affairs, such as this, or, worse, a commercial event which our subject attended. Truly nothing to prop up even a modicum of specific, individual notability. Ambassadors and diplomats are not, as such, notable in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the Gnome's assessment. Ambassadors are not inherently notable and routine coverage does not meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge one; no consensus for rest‎. Discussion had a clear consensus to merge Fortune Indonesia to Fortune (magazine), but most participants either expressed no opinion on the others or specifically called for them to be renominated separately. RL0919 (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fortune Indonesia

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

Insufficient notability as a franchisee of Fortune magazine. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IDN App, another properties of IDN Media.

I am also nominating the following related pages which are also properties:

IgelRM (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Indonesia. IgelRM (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Websites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Was GGWP meant to be in this nomination? – Pbrks ^(t·c) 01:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some sources aren't independent of IDN Media and it doesn't appear to have WP:SIGCOV. IgelRM (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mention this because it that article is not currently in this AfD, so the deletion template has been removed from the article. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 04:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh whoops. Edited in above, thanks. IgelRM (talk) 10:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I went through this list and was planning to take all of them to Afd, so its fortuitous they have been bundled together like this. They are typical UPE fayre, brochure advertising and have value. References are very poor. scope_creep^Talk 16:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Fortune (magazine). Voting only on the main article for now, as I have not checked the other properties yet.Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to hopefully get more editor opinion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IDN App, which the nominator refers to was closed as Merge. Is that the outcome you are seeking and, if so, what would the target article(s) be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the messy nomination. Maybe closing Fortune Indonesia as merge/redirect to Fortune. And then separately relisting the other nominated IDN Media websites. IgelRM (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Fortune (magazine) for Fortune Indonesia. For the rest I would say it could be fair to just merge into IDN Media because a lot of it relies on non-independent circular-ish referencing here. TLA^tlak 03:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Per above. Svartner (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per ADT as above, topics on their own fails GNG/WP:NCORP notability guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sto. Tomas Integrated High School

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

tagged as unreferenced and promotional since 2018. GSearch only provided directories and social media sites. GNews, GBooks and GNews Archives did not turn any substantial sources either. Normally I would suggest redirect to Calauan per WP:ATD but there's no Educational institutions section there to point to. -Lenticel ^(talk) 00:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced for over 5 years and fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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