Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 20	September 22 >

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Abramov

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

The subject does not have enough news coverage. Mysecretgarden (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. Mysecretgarden (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Volleyball. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he won a bronze medal in the Olympics, and that’s verified. Maybe I’m mistaken, but isn’t that automatically notable? Bearian (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Not exactly. It does meet WP:NOLY, but that only says sigcov is 'likely to exist'. No modern Olympic medalist has ever been deleted, however. From a glance, it looks near-certain that this athlete has sigcov – we just have to find it... BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, does not need news coverage now, only from when he was active. Geschichte (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is plenty of coverage in non-English sources. Try searching "Paweł Abramow" for Polish sources or "Павел Абрамов" for Russian. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raid of Carpetania

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

Not Notable to remain as an Article, It should be redirected. Untamed1910 (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Not Notable, No Reliable Sources Exists, it needs to be redirected Untamed1910 (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominators should not make bolded "votes" like this, your desire to see the article gone is already made clear by the fact that you started the AFD.★Trekker (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Untamed1910, as stated, your nomination statement is considered your "vote", you don't get to make a second. If you want to change your nomination statement, go ahead strike the portion you no longer are arguing for and add this statement. Just a comment, to change an article to a Redirect, you didn't need to bring it to AFD and you also haven't specified a Redirect target article. So, this opinion is likely to go nowhere. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reliable sources DO exist about this event, see: [1][2][3][4]

Javext (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article could use some improvement, but appears notable. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly appears to be notable; and it looks too detailed to be merged into the war of which it was a part. There should probably be more citations to both ancient and modern sources, but that can be addressed through ordinary editing. P Aculeius (talk) 13:01, 23 September 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. Owen× ☎ 11:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Nicholls

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

WP:BANDMEMBER, notability is solely inherited by being a member of Bring Me the Horizon ---FMSky (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FMSky (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bring Me the Horizon, and possibly add protection to prevent that redirect from being reverted, as has happened several times already. The edit comments seen on the History page show that some editors insist that he has achievements outside of the band, but that is false. The current article is dependent on trivia about his gear and non-notable personal matters, and the fact that he made the top ten in a magazine's list of best drummers can be mentioned at the band's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep as per rockmuscifanatic20… that was an incredibly convincing argument that the article passes notability criteria. The broken hand articles especially address him as an individual, rather than a band, since he broke his hand, not his band members. Absurdum4242 (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The user who's previously deleted the article (without going through this process) cited WP:BANDMEMBER, which says: "Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability."

Individual notability through WP:MUSICBIO states that musicians are notable if: · 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 content of Nicholls' article directed about him specifically are sourced to Music Radar, Drum!, Alternative Press, Noisecreep, NME and the BBC.

· Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

Through the band he is apart of contributes to, they have had multiple number-one albums in their home country, as well as eight different UK Top 40 Hits.

· Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.

Through his band that he contributes to, has multiple platinum-selling singles and albums in their home country alone, as well as Gold records in the United States as certified by the RIAA.

· Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.

Alternative Press and Noisecreep reported about his broken hand that he sustained while touring.

· Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)

Four of the albums he has worked on with his band have been on major labels such as RCA and Sony Music.

· Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.

Nicholls is in a band with Oli Sykes, Jordan Fish and Lee Malia who are all prominent musicians who display their independent notability, through other collaborations, producing other works and music scoring for films.

· Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

Nicholls is a prominent drummer in his genre who is well-known and has been featured on MusicRadar's list of as one of the best drummers in rock music, making him a good representation as a drummer in rock music.

· Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Note that this requires the person or band to have been the direct recipient of a nomination in their own name, and is not passed by playing as a session musician on an album whose award citation was not specifically for that person's own contributions.

He has been nominated for several Grammy's and BRIT awards, winning a BRIT award with his band for best alternative act this year.

· Has won first, second, or third place in a major music competition.

Nicholls has never been in a music competition, rendering this one of the only guidelines for independent notability he won't meet.

· Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album.

He has performed on Channel 4's (UK Broadcasting Network) Sunday Brunch, a television show, with his band.[5]

· Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.

His music has been persistently played on BBC Radio One and Kerrang! Radio for well over a decade now.

· Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network.

Nicholls appeared on BBC Breakfast in October 2021, a segment he was apart of in the studio collaborating with the BBC for Children in Need.

Out of all of the independent notability guidelines, there is only ONE he fails to comply to. At the top of the section, it's said that: Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. He follows not only one, but ELEVEN of the twelve listed criteria, so therefore the article should be kept. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He does have a few specific articles in drumming-oriented publications, but almost every accomplishment listed above was by the band, not him (or any of the other members, for that matter). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he has achieved a lot with his band. However, let's not pretend that he isn't apart of the band. His achievements lie with the band, and the guidelines apply for not only an ensemble, but musicians in general too. That individual member still shares the same accomplishments as the band. Again, to highlight the first line of the guidelines at the top of the section: "Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria." Again, on an individual level, Matt Nicholls applies to ELEVEN out of the TWELVE applicable guidelines, not just one of them, regardless on whether they are with his band or not. This is like arguing that if Lars Ulrich isn't a notable drummer because all of his accomplishments are through Metallica and not his own, he just shares his achievements with other members. To add to this, Nicholls also qualifies for the composer's list as he contributes to songwriting: WP:COMPOSER "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." He is credited as a songwriter to two of Bring Me The Horizon's biggest hits such as "Throne" and "Drown". Ulrich has also co-written some of Metallica's biggest hits. Do you see what I'm getting at? This article is a must KEEP. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shows individual notability per above. Seacactus 13 (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reminder that any claims to notability "through his band" are claims for his band, not him specifically. Does he pass WP:NMUSIC in his own right? Does he pass WP:GNG?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, voted *keep above the line somehow, instead of down here, and not sure how to delete / change that vote. Anyway, as per Rockmusicfanatic20, it seems obvious he clears the notability guidelines, and in particular the articles on his broken hand treat him as an individual, since it’s him breaking his hand, not his band members. Absurdum4242 (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Bring Me the Horizon. Agreed with doomsdayer520. The evidence does appear very much to point towards the subject being very much notable but in the context of the band. Any information not in the band article, such as the drumming listing, should be merged. ResonantDis_tortion 19:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSICBIO, meets point one and six at the very least. There are multiple sources that are independent of the individual, breaking down his playing style/technique and his equipment: [6], [7], [8], as well as an outside appearance from the band, [9]. Also a source about his early life [10]. As for point six, Oli Sykes, Jordan Fish and Lee Malia all have individual articles showing independent notability, as Rockmusicfanatic20 already mentioned. Shout4Serenity (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. I am not persuaded by the argument that everything that makes the subject notable is in connection with their being in the band. Examined in a vacuum, I do think the cited sources point to notability of the subject as a performer. BD2412 T 01:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helaman Jeffs

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

No indication of standalone notability. Hardly any coverage of the subject; notability is not inherited. (NPP action) C F A 💬 20:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Christianity. C F A 💬 20:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latter Day Saints-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple references (already found on the article) are stating that he is claiming to be the current head of the FLDS church, I will hunt down some more sources. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really matter. There needs be significant coverage in independent, reliable sources in order to meet WP:NBASIC. C F A 💬 14:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify -- I feel like draftifying this until further notability is presented later on is suitable, considering he is the son of a cult leader so there is probably something likely to come up in the future and if these sources are presented by User:Thief-River-Faller then we could improve on the article. 79lives (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:INVALIDBIO So far, we only know he's a presumed possible heir to his imprisoned father. And possibly being used to carry out his father's wishes. He may or may not be viewed by others as his father's heir as a cult leader, but Wikipedia does not predict or presume the future. — Maile (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'll just add that no new sources have been added during this AFD. A review of sources might be useful as there is not much discussion of them here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Whether it should be kept outright or merged can be addressed via a merge discussion, but it's clear that we have no consensus to delete this article. asilvering (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solid State Records

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

Redirect, or selectively merge into Tooth & Nail Records. It was disputed by one editor and reverted, thus seeking community input. The imprint itself doesn't satisfy WP:NCORP and not fit to have a standalone article. Graywalls (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, Companies, and Washington. Graywalls (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. The nominator himself doesn't argue for deletion, and if a merge is desired, that is typically handled through the use of the merge template; there's no reason that this needed to go through AfD. The label clearly meets the sense of one of the more important indies as described in WP:MUSIC, and as the article's sources already demonstrate, it routinely gets coverage in the music press (which makes sense, since it has had several dozen notable artists signed to it). Since this is a sublabel of Tooth & Nail, I'm not terribly picky over whether it is merged into the parent label article or not, but since we very clearly wouldn't want a redlink here, I don't understand why this discussion was even opened. Chubbles (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Record labels are not evaluated under WP:NMUSIC. We've been through this discussion a million times. This article is uanble to satisfy NCORP to have its own standalone article. Graywalls (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly have been through this discussion a million times, and it doesn't change the fact that NCORP doesn't make any more sense as an evaluative tool for labels as it would for bands (which are nearly all for-profit corporations). I am as tired of arguing about this as you are. Chubbles (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to Village Pump if you want to see "record labels" classified into a different bin of SNG. Until consensus grants a change, it remains under NORG/NCORP. @Chubbles:, you said don't understand why this discussion was even opened. I would have been happy with the re-direct I made or re-targeting. This is the reason it ended up here for further discussion. Graywalls (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What in this particular case, would satisfy the NCORP criteria? I am aware of sources, primarily interviews, that cover the origins and history of Solid State Records. I would be willing to dedicate some time to adding that history if that would benefit the article and this conversation. Metalworker14 (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Metalworker14: It's explained in depth at WP:NCORP. Amateur interviews and podcasts do not count whatsoever. Contents from interview that come things said by company/band personnel do not count towards notability, because that's not in-depth independent coverage. Please ask after having fully read the guidelines. Graywalls (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Subject is a long-lasting indie label, seeking to delete because coverage is primarily discussed in context of their signing seems silly, and actively making Wikipedia less valuable as a resource. The notability of releases from this label should contribute, not sure what we could ever find to make a label notable in the eyes of those who wish to delete. glman (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not sure what we could ever find to make a label notable in the eyes of those who wish to delete I mean, Motown has multiple books written about it. More reasonably, Warp Records comes to mind as an example of a WP:NCORP-meeting indie label. Mach61 17:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We are hovering between Keep and Merge but those are two very different outcomes. I can say that, at this point, this article is safe from Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 28 September 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. Sandstein 19:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sidi Mara

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

There doesn't seem to be significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, Croatia, Serbia, and Hawaii. toweli (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree if no changes to the article are made to the article, the deletion is proper. Orhov (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Sadko (words are wind) 13:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One source on the page and that too with Page not found error. No other source. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:54, 24 September 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. Sandstein 19:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish exonyms

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

Indiscriminate unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, and Europe. toweli (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What's the use of an endless list of examples of the obvious fact that each language adapts foreign words to its own phonology and orthography? —Tamfang (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDICTIONARY. There are also some serious quality issues where outdated or rare names are presented as valid.Sjö (talk) 10:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY and WP:LIST. I’m confused why it’s here. If there are scholarly articles about how exonyms are formed in the Swedish language, then please produce them. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 25 September 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!} 23:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom_Whalen

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tom Whalen

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

notability; apparent self-promotion LoveGermanLit (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Poetry, Arkansas, California, Louisiana, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see adequate sources here. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Not sufficient on WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:GNG. I don't know any film-specific guidelines well enough, but I can't imagine screenwriter for an art-house film that got only 6 credit reviews (none top prestige) would suffice there. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable and worthy for expansion Tesleemah Talk 07:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even though the discussion appears to be moving into delete, we're not seeing due diligence per WP:BEFORE. Arguments lack detail (especially from the keep !voter).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Finley

AfDs for this article:

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

There is no significant coverage of Guy Finley, his work or his teachings in reliable secondary sources. Most of it is blog posts and primary sources. A 2007 discussion ended with a Keep result, but the votes all relied on notability determined by Google hits, a Google featured link and Amazon sales rankings. These are outdated standards. Ynsfial (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Philosophy, Spirituality, and United States of America. Ynsfial (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Radio, California, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a great example of a clear WP:NBIO fail. None of the sources are reliable as they are blogs, and I couldn't find any other coverage of this specific Guy Finley (there were other hits but nothing of interest). Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

!vote I think most musicians deserve a chance Natlaur (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't find any non-trivial coverage. Shapeyness (talk) 18:46, 30 September 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. ^Complex/_Rational 17:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pasta all'Ortolana

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

Appears to be a non-notable dish. Sources were only to recipes and a single very short discussion. Versions in other language wikis are similarly unsourced or poorly sourced, and a google search in English pulls up nothing but recipes. No claim to notability in text. A 2021 reference book on Italian food^[1] doesn't mention the dish. Valereee (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Italy. Valereee (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable dish - basically anything you can mix with cooked pasta is a pasta dish, and this one doesn't seem to have a particular historical or cultural story. I, too, only found recipes under this name. Lamona (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- @Lamona: it's a typical Italian pasta dish, but not encyclopaedic; for example, the it.wiki article is only a stub (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasta_all%27ortolana).
  A curiosity: pasta primavera is a dish similar to pasta all'ortolana, from which it may have taken inspiration.
- I too support the deletion of the page. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable pasta dish. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Let's Eat Italy. ISBN 9781648290596.

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. Ineligible for soft deletion, but no one is arguing for retention or providing any input. As a PROD like close, this can be requested for restoration, but there's no point in another relist. Star Mississippi 14:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine of Bosnia, Grand Princess of Hum

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

An article ostensibly about a princess but in reality entirely about her husband and brother. The dates and places of birth and death are pure poppycock: literally nothing is known about her. No historian ever has put together two sentences about her. WP:GNG failed. Surtsicna (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Royalty and nobility. Surtsicna (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but on grounds different from the nominated ones. Before the 18th Century, rarely was a woman ever named in sources without naming her male relatives. There’s only one source, and that is tantamount to original research, which is my biggest problem. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is not that her male relatives should not be mentioned. It is that the article should not be entirely about them. There is nothing to say about her. Surtsicna (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:29, 21 September 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!} 05:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Pierce (CEO)

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

Not notable enough to warrant its own article, and there is pretty much nothing more to add about the person. The person and the reference in this article is already mentioned in the history section of Atari SA and that's all we need. Sceeegt (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, Video games, and Entertainment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like only routine sources exist. The disambiguator makes it pretty useless as a redirect. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:43, 21 September 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. However, this does not preclude a merge or rename. Consensus is not going to develop to delete the material, therefore a relist is not needed. Star Mississippi 14:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gąsawa massacre

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

The article only describes the motives for the massacre and nothing more, the course of the crime is also lacking, in addition, most things (sources) in the article have a trivial mention of the subject in one sentence, which is incompatible with WP:SIGCOV Polski Piast from Poland (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I could not find here this footnote Labuda, Gerard (1995). The death of Leszek the White (1227). Historical Annals. 61: 7-33. Gerard Labuda describing the views of Józef Uminski. If somewhere you Marek still has about this study then it's cool, but if not, well, we have problems. I hope that we will be able to keep the article after all. Polski Piast from Poland (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, History, and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Leszek the White There do not seem to be adequate sources for an article. It's already covered in Leszek the White#Assassination. Maybe only one or two sources refer to it as a massacre, since massacres usually result in more than one death. TFD (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There are adequate sources - six of them with one or two specifically dedicated to this event. Whether or not it should be under “massacre” or something else is a naming question, not a reason for deletion. Volunteer Marek 16:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Also probably a good idea to read the talk page first before !voting [11] or the relevant DYK discussion. Naming issue was discussed. More than one person was killed though most sources focus on the most important one - the Duke. Volunteer Marek 17:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One would think that the assassination/murder of the ruler of Poland would be notable. YMMV I guess. There’s six reliable source in the article with one or two of them specifically dedicated to this event. This is also a very well known event in Polish historiography. The text in Leszek the White article is different (and frankly with worse sourcing). This article was featured at DYK and no one had a problem with either notability or any other issues then. Now it’s getting nominated for deletion by some brand new account with just a few edits who for some unknown reason calls me out by name. Yup. Volunteer Marek 16:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly rename. The term (in Polish) seems to have been coined in Semkowicz, W. "Zbrodnia gąsawska." Ateneum 43 (1886): 328-348., who wrote a dedicated article about it in pl:Ateneum (czasopismo), so it is a reliable, if dated, piece of SIGCOV. Since then this has been mentioned here or there, although I don't think it got much more coverage under that name, but the assassination/death of Leszek Biały did, under more generic names. See for example another, a bit more modern, article about this: Umiński, Józef. "Śmierć Leszka Białego." Nasza Przeszłość 2 (1947): 3-36 and more modern, but I think not digitized, Labuda, Gerard. "Śmierć Leszka Białego (1227)." Roczniki Historyczne 61 (1995): 7-36. Here's an article from a modern Polish history magazine (Histmag). So this is a notable event, but the name might be better as Assassination of Leszek the White or Death of Leszek the White. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 11:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Kean (musician)

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

WP:BANDMEMBER, notability is solely inherited by being a member of Bring Me the Horizon --- FMSky (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FMSky (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bring Me the Horizon as an alternative to deletion. ✗plicit 00:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSICBIO, demonstrates notability for point one and six. A few sources independent of the individual that show more than trivial interest, breaking down his playing style/technique, how he got started on bass in his early life and influences: [12], [13]. Point six mentions, "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians." Oli Sykes, Jordan Fish and Lee Malia all have individual articles showing independent notability through musical collaborations and features, as well as production. Shout4Serenity (talk) 02:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BANDMEMBER:Individual members: Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability. --FMSky (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you tried to remove an article when someone did demonstrate individual notability, doing so with the same argument for Lee Malia just for being a band member even though he was clearly notable. If the guideline says about this and three musicians in the band are notable in their own right outside of the band, then surely Matt Kean is protected under this guideline? Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The user who's previously deleted the article (without going through this process) cited WP:BANDMEMBER, which says: "Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability."

Individual notability through WP:MUSICBIO states that musicians are notable if: · 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 content of Kean's article directed about him specifically are sourced to Music Radar, Bass, EMG Pickups, Guitar Parts and the BBC.

· Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

Through the band he is apart of contributes to, they have had multiple number-one albums in their home country, as well as eight different UK Top 40 Hits.

· Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.

Through his band that he contributes to, has multiple platinum-selling singles and albums in their home country alone, as well as Gold records in the United States as certified by the RIAA.

· Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.

While there's nothing currently in the article about this, there are likely articles online discussing Kean on tour which should be added to help demonstrate his independent notability.

· Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)

Four of the albums he has worked on with his band have been on major labels such as RCA and Sony Music.

· Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.

Kean is in a band with Oli Sykes, Jordan Fish and Lee Malia who are all prominent musicians who display their independent notability, through other collaborations, producing other works and music scoring for films.

· Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

Kean is a prominent bass guitarist in his genre who is well-known and has been featured on guitar magazines specifically about him as a bassist. If he wasn't notable, a guitar magazine would not be using him as the headline of the magazine.[14]

· Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammy award. Note that this requires the person or band to have been the direct recipient of a nomination in their own name, and is not passed by playing as a session musician on an album whose award citation was not specifically for that person's own contributions.

He has been nominated for several Grammy's and BRIT awards, winning a BRIT award with his band for best alternative act this year.

· Has won first, second, or third place in a major music competition.

Kean has never been in a music competition, rendering this one of the only guidelines for independent notability he won't meet.

· Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album.

He has performed on Channel 4's (UK Broadcasting Network) Sunday Brunch, a television show, with his band.[15]

· Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.

His music has been persistently played on BBC Radio One and Kerrang! Radio for well over a decade now.

· Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network.

Kean appeared on BBC Sport's Premier League Predictions that former professional footballer Mark Lawrenson hosts.[16]

Out of all the independent notability guidelines, there are only TWO he fails to comply to. At the top of the section, it's said that: Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. He follows not only one, but TEN of the twelve listed criteria, so therefore the article should be kept. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add to my point as per above, Matt Kean also qualifies for WP:COMPOSER. He is also credited as a song writer on some of the bands biggest hits including "Drown" (the band's only UK Top 20 single), "Throne" (UK Platinum-selling single) and "Mantra" (Australian Platinum-selling single). By virtue of this, he ticks off two of the composers criteria for notability, as well as the previous ten I've mentioned for MUSICBIO above. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Displays notability per above points. Seacactus 13 (talk) 03:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ and no indication of further input Star Mississippi 14:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moza Sultan Al Kaabi

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

I don't believe she meets the notability criteria, as almost all sources only mention her death in a car accident. And the page was created three days after her death. فيصل (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Arab Emirates. فيصل (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Medicine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack significant coverages about her works and yes maximum sources are about her death. Xegma(talk) 17:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of the article is notable per WP:ONEEVENT - the first Emarati woman to become an orthopedic surgeon.--jojo@nthony (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment made after relisting.) Before I assess the sources myself, I must point out that this is not how ONEEVENT works. First, ONEEVENT says that people notable for only one event are generally not notable. Second, ONEEVENT applies to people notable for a single event (which could also be notable), not to people notable for a single achievement. Being the first female Emirati orthopedic surgeon is a claim to notability; sources are still needed to show that she is notable. Toadspike [Talk] 13:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Finsbury railway line. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actil railway station

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

Despite the name, this wasn't an actual public train station. From the article: "Due to the line being for industrial purposes, it never really carried actual passenger train services apart from some trains that were scheduled for the workers" although this isn't cited to anything. The existing sources are useless; one is a single word mention that doesn't even support the content it is cited to, and the other is a YouTube video. A basic BEFORE search did not turn up anything promising. At best, this could be redirected to Finsbury railway line. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and Australia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Finsbury railway line per nom. A search for sources shows that the ACTIL factory/company may be notable [17][18], but the station is not. Toadspike [Talk] 13:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for the Redirect suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Finsbury railway line. Sources are meager, and certainly no reliable secondary sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. There is not content that exceeds Finsbury railway line. Pygos (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also see no usable sources branched from the Youtube video the article cited. Pygos (talk) 09:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Tel al-Hawa with the history retained for the selective merger, if desired Star Mississippi 01:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle at Tel al-Hawa

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

WP:SYNTH: No source evidence that a series of engagements in the vicinity actually constitute a battle as such and the term is not a Wikipedia artifice. Tagged for notability last month but no evidence of any discussion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 16:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Israel, and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure. There is this article in Countercurrents.org. These articles[19][20] also give a higher level overview of the topic. Might need to do more research.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is very little in searches about a "Battle at Tel al-Hawa"; in theory we could create many other "battles" around this conflict. We should stick to the ones that are noted in quality military sources; many such contrived battles in the Ukraine-Russia conflict are being rationalised (we get historic cases re-imaged as "battles" like Battle of Nicosia Airport). Aszx5000 (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seen sufficient proof that there was a distinct battle at Tel al-Hawa. Warfare for sure. The concern with this article is practical, not theoretical. I'm very open to legitimate SPINOFFs for battles. gidonb (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip: possibly with a very selective merge. This comes across as a SYNTH aggregation of several events during the war, some separated by half a year, grouped together solely by geography. "Battle at <x>" brings to mind a single, continuous military conflict at that spot, not a collection of skirmishes separated by months of nothing there. Owen× ☎ 11:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ok, so far we have a "we probably shouldn't have this" consensus - but does that mean we delete it or redirect it?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the "Battle at Tel al-Hawa" is SYNTH (and OR), suggesting that while warfare occurred, no well-defined battle took place, then proposing a merge becomes completely illogical. Even a redirect would be irrelevant. gidonb (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a likely search term. I don't see how redirecting a user to the relevant article on the war would be "irrelevant". Owen× ☎ 15:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting an erroneous title potentially leads to the propagation of an error. Also, you are now downplaying the weak logic above. You suggested that we may need to merge parts of an article that you have classified as SYNTH. gidonb (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I say a very selective merge, I mean exactly that. Content that is well sourced, encyclopedic and relevant to the target should be merged to it, per our usual practice. But I'm intrigued by your "propagation of an error" concept here. Are you suggesting we prevent users from finding the article they're looking for if they made the sin of typing an erroneous search term? An argument like that would be laughed out of RfD. If you have a legitimate reason to specifically delete the history of this article in addition to blanking and redirecting, I'd like to hear it. Owen× ☎ 16:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer this be redirected to Tel al-Hawa instead. And I'll go ahead and add the relevant encyclopedic content to that destination.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That can also work. Owen× ☎ 21:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Parks Operational Command Unit

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

Whilst this unit does exist (see here), it does not seem to be particularly notable, with very few non-primary sources. On searching, almost all external sources relate to the Royal Parks Constabulary instead. The existence of a police unit should not automatically warrant an article. Elshad (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Royal Parks Constabulary. Nothing is to be gained by removing information for dogmatic reasons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and keep improving. Potentially rename to Royal Parks Police after AfD is closed, as that it seems that is how the unit is referred to these days. Added several references including the 2008 article in Horticulture Week; even though the article quotes PC Derek Pollock, it includes commentary by journalist Magda Ibrahim, who has monitored policing of the parks over the years (see her other articles citing the unit in 2008 and 2009). Also interesting was this 2012 Ham & High article examining why the number of crimes recorded in Royal Parks jumped from 465 in 2003 (the year before the Met took over) to 2,373 in 2011 (answer: 'proactive' cannabis arrests). But anyway there is a lot more recent coverage if you search on "Royal Parks Police" instead of "Royal Parks Operational Command Unit". While I have added at least one source using the two names interchangeably, I haven't yet found any source explicitly calling it out as an actual name change. More research and improvement is required, but this is a pass from me. I wouldn't merge it with the historical constabulary article as that refers to the former organisational entity which was independent of the Met. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Cielquiparle. There appears to be sufficient sourcing for a GNG pass. Rupples (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Jigsaw puzzle. Owen× ☎ 21:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzle globe

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

At very best, this subject deserves a sentence or two in an article on jigsaw puzzles. Qwirkle (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Which are already there, by the look of it. Qwirkle (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to jigsaw puzzle. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Jiaoriballisse (talk) 14:38, 3 October 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. asilvering (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung SPH-A460

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

I couldn't find evidence that this is a notable product. There are various Samsung-related articles it potentially could be redirected to as an WP:ATD, but none stand out as ones that are suitable. Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:45, 28 September 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. asilvering (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piper Race Cars

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG or have a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:45, 28 September 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 23:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The World Challenge (competition)

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

Article about a business competition, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for business competitions. The main notability claim on offer here is that this existed, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself -- making this notable enough for a Wikipedia article would be a matter of showing that it passed WP:GNG on its sourceability, not merely of stating its existence. But the only source here is the self-published website of the thing itself, rather than any evidence of third-party coverage about it, and a Google search didn't find much else.
I'm willing to withdraw this if a British editor with much better access to archived British media coverage from 15-20 years ago than I've got can find the sourcing needed to salvage it, but it can't just be kept in perpetuity without sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Events, Environment, and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can’t find any third party coverage, the competition itself seems to have fizzled out in 2008/9, and there doesn’t seem to be any sources talking about it as having happened at any point after it stopped. Can’t seem to turn up further coverage on the winners either, so THEY don’t seem to be notable either… Absurdum4242 (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:45, 28 September 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 Bangladesh–India border. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1979 Bangladesh-Indian skirmishes

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

No significant casualties, no WP:LASTING coverage. Wikipedia discourages articles based on WP:NOTNEWS and this is nothing more than that. Nxcrypto Message 14:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bangladesh, and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article seems well sourced, and several sources are in the late 2010s, some 40 years after the conflict itself, making a nonsense of the “no lasting coverage” claim… it’s… difficult not to see this as politically based spamming since the last couple of nominations on Indian-Bangladeshi border skirmishes from this same editor are just cut and paste, and they have nominated other similar articles last week too… I’ll assume good faith though, and just say that I disagree that the article meets the criteria for deletion based on the merits. Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a notable incident, Lasting effect? It did have some. Nxcrypto, I noticed that you are copying the same message in similar AfD Discussions, Without even checking the page and It's content and aftermath a lot. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Message)
True - The 1979 clash is very notable and it does not violate Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Nxcrypto for some reason is copying and pasting the same message in multiple AfD Discussions, And some people will not check the page and just want to delete it, So they will say "It does not establish WP:GNG and WP:Lasting", Even when, It is clearly notable event with coverage many years later. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Message)
Citations - The page has several citations including from books and newspapers, some require subscription or have limited information but I think the page meets with General Notability Guidelines. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Talk with BangladeshiEditorInSylhet)
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Creating an article by collecting outdated archives instead of modern sources ensures that the subject failed to attract lasting coverage. --Dympies (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The incident was itself so insignificant that it makes sense why it fails WP:GNG. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remain confused at how the three last-minute delete votes on the day this was set to close can claim a lack of “modern sources” when the Indian Foreign Policy book, for example, was first written in 2007, with the 7th edition being linked to being published in 2018. Add in the cut and paste nature of the original nomination and… as much as I hate to suggest everyone isn’t arguing in good faith, this feels like brigading?

Also…. I don’t think that’s how WP:NOTNEWS works? Given that this happened almost 50 years ago? Absurdum4242 (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Absurdum4242: Notwithstanding how other participants have phrased it, WP:LASTING refers to lasting effects, not lasting coverage. The single 75-word paragraph in the book is lasting coverage, and distinguishes this event from some discussed at AfD recently which have none, but that paragraph's conclusion is telling: "forces of the two countries clashed but the tension soon cooled down." Nothing significant happened. No one was killed, injured, or taken prisoner; no territory, booty, or reparations changed hands; no new method of determining the border was adopted; no treaty was signed. The event was not a precedent or catalyst for anything. There were no lasting effects. The paragraph in the book suggests that the event may be worth a paragraph in an article more broadly focused on Bangladesh-India border relations. It is not suitable for a stand alone article. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so the correct WP would be WP:Continuedcoverge instead, where “ The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance.”? Absurdum4242 (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG, enough coverage in WP:RS including editorials. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not at all. Nxcrypto Message 08:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft if Needed - I suggest draft if this does get deleted. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet
Participants are allowed one bolded !vote per discussion. If you wish to change your !vote, please strike out the old one. Thank you. Owen× ☎ 11:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet to see a single source that addresses the concerns of the nom. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BangladeshiEditorInSylhet, this is not a constructive comment, and is unlikely to serve your argument. Please remain civil. Owen× ☎ 11:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bangladesh–India border as an alternative to deletion. This article is not primarily about the 1979 border firing. Three-quarters of it is about border incidents before or after that. The 1979 event had no lasting effect and there is limited sustained coverage of it in secondary sources, making it a poor choice of topic for a stand alone article. It would, however, be worth a paragraph in a broader article that put it in context with the many other exchanges of gunfire across this border. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Passes WP:GNG] and Wikipedia is well-known for its systemic bias against topics in this part of the world. A merge to Bangladesh–India border would also be acceptable as a secondary result. Deletion should not be an option here.--User:Namiba 16:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bangladesh–India border. Though I would prefer deletion but merging is not bad either. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 04:10, 7 October 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 Deaths along the Bangladesh–India border. as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 14:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Bangladesh-Indian border clash

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

No significant casualties, no WP:LASTING coverage. Wikipedia discourages articles based on WP:NOTNEWS and this is nothing more than that. Nxcrypto Message 14:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nxcrypto Message 14:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - this article seems well sourced, but I think that this particular clash is minor enough that it should be merged with the main “Deaths along the Bangladesh–India border” page. That way the information can be retained, while making it easier for someone searching on the topic of border clashes more generally to find. Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is no evidence of notability. desmay (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Deaths along the Bangladesh–India border. WP:NOTNEWS seems to apply to this article, but the comment about "no evidence of notability" is honestly nonsensical, as the subject very much meets the WP:GNG criteria. BilletsMauves^€500 09:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong here because "WP:NOTNEWS" articles fail notability (as described by WP:GNG). Dympies (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Dympies (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Lists of Pokémon episodes. as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 14:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon special episodes

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

This list greatly fails INDISCRIMINATE and OR. There is no real clear inclusion criteria as to what a "special episode" is. There are bonus anime shorts and exclusive anime episodes, which appear to be the focus, but it then transcludes information from a variety of unrelated Pokémon series, such as Chronicles, Generations, and Origins. Are these really "special episodes" when they're whole series unrelated to any larger Pokémon series? What correlation do these have to any other topics within the article? This article even includes random Pokémon Go promotional shorts that have nothing to do with even these other series, and shorts shown in planetariums, again with nothing to do with anything else on this list.

Normally I would consider working out an inclusion criteria, but this list physically cannot have one because of how loosely it is using the term "special episode." It's impossible to define it, and it's including content that is largely unrelated to each other under this one umbrella term, which gives me OR vibes, as it's impossible for this exact categorization to be determined. A brief search for the term "Pokémon special episodes" also yielded quite literally nothing across all of News, Books, and Scholar, indicating this term is not widely used in any capacity outside of Wikipedia, and as a result, means that it is impossible for any external sourcing to verify what a special episode is.

I would suggest a deletion of this list, primarily because not only is this list just an OR and INDISCRIMINATE mess, but it also happens to largely consist of items that have articles or alternative redirect targets. The Pikachu shorts, for example, can redirect to their respective Pokémon movie they were shown at. Special anime episodes can go to their respective anime series, as another example. While a few things are missed out on, those things largely lack any form of significant coverage or are just non-notable as a whole, and a few of them (Such as Bidoof's Big Stand) have potential to be made into separate articles and have the information carried over there. As it stands right now, this list is impossible to verify, largely redundant due to large swathes of transcluded content, and overall just a flawed article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Anime and manga. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As you say, its inclusion criteria are unclear. "Special" or not, episodes should be bundled with the list on the requisite series to most help the reader, not be thrown into a separate article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:LISTCRUFT. A vast majority of the article is completely unreferenced, and the descriptions appear to be OR. Sir MemeGod  18:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the majority of the world these are just packaged the same as regular episodes and the rest are not part of the regular mainline series or not meant to be viewed as standalone episodes. Nate • (chatter) 19:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It does not appear to serve a useful purpose, and the criteria for inclusion are unclear. Bensci54 (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added sources, so WP:OR is no longer an issue. This article needs cleanup rather than deletion; if not, then merge and redirect to Pokémon (TV series) or Pokémon#Anime, opposed to deletion. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 20:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the sources you have added are either primary or from sources that do not attribute notability, and they only serve to verify individual list entries. OR is still an issue since the sources have not clarified anything in regards to what a "special episode" is and what the inclusion criteria for such a list should be. Additionally, redirects to those two articles you have mentioned would be unwieldy, as neither article covers the article's content, and even if some content were merged, the target article would not be a "list of special episodes," making the redirect inaccurate and thus unhelpful to readers. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While some sources may be primary, they do help verify the entries. I acknowledge the need for secondary sources to establish notability and clarify the "special episode" criteria. Moving forward, I'll focus on finding better sources to define what qualifies as a "special episode". If those redirects are unwieldy, then I think it should be redirected to List of Pokémon episodes and I still believe this article deserves cleanup rather than deletion. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 13:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zxcvbnm. The TV series should be covered together, and the reason for this split is unclear. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lists of Pokémon episodes: (of which this could be considered a WP:SPLITLIST maybe, coverage including https://www.jeuxvideo.com/news/1686046/pokemon-une-nouvelle-serie-devoilee-et-des-episodes-speciaux-pour-terminer-l-histoire-de-sacha-et-pikachu.htm https://gamergen.com/actualites/pokemon-serie-histoire-sacha-va-terminer-episodes-speciaux-nouvelle-serie-autres-heros-teasee-330524-1 etc, so not opposed to Keep) and add there, in a merge, the most notable episodes. A redirect would allow to preserve the page history. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:13, 25 September 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. Since nomination, the article has been disambiguated. Editors commenting on the page in its current form !voted to keep it. (non-admin closure) Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia national youth football team

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

I do not believe that the subject of this article satisfies notability guidelines. A cursory search did not turn up reliable independent sources that could be used to improve it. Even looking beyond that, the article in its current state appears to be entirely deserted, consisting mainly of empty tables. It is debatable how relevant this information would be anyway as per WP:NOTDB. ElooB (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ElooB (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Estonia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment Estonian Football Association pages for these U18 U16 U15. I'm not sure why these articles are grouped together as there is no 1 youth team, all of them are different teams. I rather see them seperately. So I'm not gonna argue they have notability in this discussion. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ElooB: I made it into disam page [21] such as England national youth football team, Belgium national youth football team, Poland national youth football team, Scotland national youth football team, Spain national youth football team, Sweden national youth football team. I say keep it as disam. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pelmeen, and to match similar articles. Giant Snowman 13:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pelmeen.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ijaz Hussain Batalve

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

Article is not fit for main article space - too many problems with language, grammar, style, etc., but Draft:Ijaz Hussain Batalve already exists. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

article is good enough and unique...grammar or language may be corrected...Article should be retained. Mottoo99 (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So fix the grammar and language first, in the draft article, then move it to mainspace? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bastun, as you said, a draft exist for this, so why not put in a history merger template before an AFD? Even if it goes through not, at least give it a try! Intrisit (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On which version? One contains at least one copyright violation (now removed)? Simpler to just have the draft to work on, then have that go through AFC? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I drafted it because I had concerns that it might not easily meet WP:N. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is still a famous and most respected personality of Asia adding his profile on Wikipedia is very much appropriate and knowledgeful for Wikipedians and otherwise. His contributions deserve to be appreciated by Wikipedia etc. Emmay33 (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is saying there can't be an article. The problem is the language and grammar are currently too poor to publish. The article can be improved in draft space, then get moved to main article space. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I would say to draftify it again. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - AfD template removed by IP editor 116.71.176.235, restored now. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he was a notable lawyer and a law professor per some of the sources in the article. AFD is not a place for article cleanup but to delete articles falling below notability thresh hold. What this article needs is cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's editorial guidelines. Piscili (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Notability is not at issue. The subject is absolutely worthy of an article. Agreed, AfD is not a place for article cleanup. Draftspace is. This article is not currently fit for article mainspace though - a lot of what's there makes literally no sense - sorry to be harsh, but some is just gibberish. But the article can't be moved to draft space because there is already a draft article there, and nobody bothered going through WP:AFC, they just copied and pasted back to a mainspace article. If the article is kept, I will be removing a lot of the content that makes no sense, the unsourced, and the hagiographic and unencyclopedic. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Histmerge to draft then delete: Looks to be a copy-paste fork from the draft. Needs significant language work, which is an appropriate use of draftspace. UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. There is no reasonable prospect of any consensus in favour of deletion. Editors noting that the article needs work can continue to do so either boldly or on the talk page. This can alternatively be read as a SK1 close. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Critical raw materials

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

This article is in very bad shape. It just lists random raw materials a few countries deem important. I feel like this information is insufficient for a stand-alone article, so should probably be merged or deleted altogether. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 12:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did write on the talk page that it needs expansion and I will be doing some of that myself. Nor are the raw materials "random", one of the points of expansion is the how and why the countries make these lista (EU + US is not a "few" and I will be adding the UK, etcetera). Merged with what? The article has just gone up, what's the big hurry to delete it? Wait a while and if it isn't expanded, then nominate it. Selfstudier (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article, with all due apologies, doesn’t seem to have a single focus. Either we need to userfy it, or decide what needs to be cut out in the next week or so. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bit baffled by this comment, what are the multiple foci? From my perspective, the focus is on critical materials as designated by governments around the world and it easily meets GNG for that. Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I am sympathetic to the statement that doing an AfD ~2.5 hours after creation is a bit too rapid. I think the topic is notable, albeit the page needs work. Since the original editor is currently changing it a lot I would be OK with Draftify; I do think delete is too harsh. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:26, 28 September 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. asilvering (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jude ssemugabi

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

I have to mistaken by cut page and already exists the draft named Draft:Jude ssemugabi Zach (talk to me) 12:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zach (talk to me) 12:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:42, 21 September 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 23:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Triangle and Robert

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm not sure if this webcomic is notable. The single reference that's in the article brings up Triangle and Robert a few times ([22]), though Google Books only lets me see snippets, so I can't tell if it's significant coverage or not. It has also been mentioned ([23]) in The Comics Journal, where it even says "This [...] strip is virtually never talked about when Web comics are discussed". The article was previously kept at an AfD, but that was back in 2005 when standards were very different. toweli (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Webcomics, Internet, and Websites. toweli (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Nothing in my literature either, and a google is giving me nothing reliable. There's not much for us to work with here. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:41, 24 September 2024 (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, RL0919 (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notyability. --Altenmann >talk 19:49, 5 October 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!} 00:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afrikaans exonyms

AfDs for this article:

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

Indiscriminate unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, and Africa. toweli (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What's the use of an endless list of examples of the obvious fact that each language adapts foreign words to its own phonology and orthography? —Tamfang (talk) 05:41, 22 September 2024 (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, RL0919 (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced list. Does not meet the requirements of WP:V. Frost 15:59, 28 September 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Latvian exonyms

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

Indiscriminate unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 10:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, and Europe. toweli (talk) 10:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of these (without exception?) have been ruled by Latvia throughout history, there is no natural connection between Latvia and a set group of cities to establish a selection, making it fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Geschichte (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What's the use of an endless list of examples of the obvious fact that each language adapts foreign words to its own phonology and orthography? —Tamfang (talk) 04:56, 22 September 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. Editors may additionally want to consider whether the entry for this incident at Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1950s should be removed, given the sourcing concerns. asilvering (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1952 Aeroflot Ilyushin Il-12 crash

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: There exists no (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects and no long-term impact on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Russia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. The Soviet Union was notoriously tight-lipped about aviation accidents that occurred in that era, and many domestic accidents were never widely reported. This article is based primarily on what appears on the airdisaster.ru website, which was briefly discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_446#airdisaster.ru a couple of months ago. I found that discussion by searching for such a discussion, as my gut feeling was already telling me that this isn't a reliable source, and the "sources of information" field on the entry on that site has been left blank. I've spent some time trying to find even a brief mention of this accident in reliable sources, and have failed. While Wikipedia's notability guideline is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the current state of sourcing in an article, the policy does state that information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1950s. Incident is sufficiently covered there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meltdown627 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: does seem notable as an accident causing several fatalities, I just can't find any sources on it besides ASN and other accident databases. Sir MemeGod  19:03, 21 September 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, as the nominator later voted to keep in agreement with other voters‎. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzie West

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

No references SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 09:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as easily meets WP:GNG. No mention of any WP:BEFORE search for sources. Added references including reviews of her music in The Press, Morning Call, and The Village Voice, and a 2003 feature article in The Los Angeles Times. Keep improving by adding more citations; because this is a WP:BLP, we should remove any unverifiable information, but per Wikipedia guidelines this is not grounds for deletion. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to sources identified by Cielquiparle, in addition to the reviews I added. toweli (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And there are some other sources I found but haven't added (yet?), such as [24], [25], [26]. toweli (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to added references SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as nominator has now !voted "keep" and no-one has suggested Delete. PamD 08:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above, as sources have now been added to show that the topic meets the GNG. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:33, 22 September 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ISO/TC 176

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

I couldn't find sources to establish its notability. Possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect to ISO 900 family or International Organization for Standardization but could unbalance those articles. Boleyn (talk) 08:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No GNG met. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:02, 28 September 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 Savar. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Colony Model School and College

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

Deleted via PROD last year, recently recreated as a translation of bn:রেডিও কলোনি মডেল স্কুল এন্ড কলেজ. Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:ORG, so fails WP:NSCHOOL. Searches in English and Bengali found nothing but passing mentions and indiscriminate directory listings. Without significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources, should not be a stand alone article. Worldbruce (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dhaka District, where it is not presently mentioned, but where a section on the district schools would be due. There is only enough information for a few lines in such a section. Insufficient sourcing to meet GNG for a standalone page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support a merge, although a district in Bangladesh is a very large area (like a state or province elsewhere, not a school district), so I would suggest Savar (the municipality where Radio Colony is located) as a better target. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm content with this alternative. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:31, 1 October 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. Happy to restore on request as a pseudo PROD as there's zero sign of input forthcoming and no one is arguing for retention. Star Mississippi 02:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Methos Chronicles

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

There doesn't appear to be significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Note: there's a story by Don Anderson also titled "The Methos Chronicles", but it seems to be unrelated to this project, besides sharing the same character and name. And then there's also a "Highlander zine, "The Methos Chronicles," brought to you by Carol Ann Liddiard and Sheila Marie Lane", again, seemingly unrelated. toweli (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Internet. toweli (talk) 14:26, 14 September 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!} 07:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 28 September 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!} 05:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2014 in Turkish television

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

Searched but I cannot find enough good sources. No Turkish article Chidgk1 (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 14 September 2024 (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, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 23 September 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!} 05:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2012 in Turkish television

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

Turkish article also uncited, and tagged as maybe unencyclopedic Chidgk1 (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:29, 23 September 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!} 05:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2011 in Turkish television

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

The Turkish article is also uncited, and it has been tagged as possibly unsuitable for Wikipedia Chidgk1 (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:29, 23 September 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 00:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey at the 2009 World Games

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

Tagged uncited over a decade ago. Nothing in the article shows it is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 11:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 03:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC Barcelona–Manchester United F.C. rivalry

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

article fails to even explain the actual existence of any purported rivalry, nevermind one that is notable. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spain and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. the article could be sourced better, with this BBC article being one, but past that, I can't find anymore sources past head to head pages. SparklessPlug (talk | contribs) 13:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. The NYT source is good, but not enough. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Enough with these head to head articles, too many of them. There is certainly coverage, but how we use sources and what we do with the content is one thing. You do get rivalries like Spurs-Arsenal, Manchester Derby, the Madrid derby, however, this one. I don't think it really counts. Govvy (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just because head to head stats between teams exists, that doesn't mean it's an actual rivalry. I see no reliable sources in the article that actually call this a rivalry. We need to stop the creation of these "random teams X and Y that only play occasionally" rivalry articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not for something someone made up one day. Geschichte (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a stats list proving nothing. Two big clubs so they occasionally (but not very often compared to some) meet in important matches, but not every combination of A vs B = 'A-B rivalry'. It would be worthy of mention in the respective 'in international football' articles that they have met in 3 finals, but not much more than that as there isn't much more to even say. Crowsus (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Same situation than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Madrid–Manchester City rivalry. Two clubs with the potential for international titles that frequently compete, not an established rivalry with a significant number of matches. Svartner (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Really shouldn't be one of these pages for a rivalry between clubs in different countries. Just not enough frequent games for it ever to become one in all likelihood. NapHit (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above and do not think that a specific rivalry has been noted and discussed by, for example, sportswriters or experts on the clubs. Dunarc (talk) 22:49, 26 September 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 some, merge or redirect some‎. Specifically, The Adventuress of Henrietta Street and Unnatural History (novel) are kept since I can't see any reasonable prospect for arriving at a consensus to delete. As for the other three, there seems to be some consensus to either redirect or merge. What and how much can be left to a merge discussion on the relevant articles' talk pages, and any suggested action here might be altered by said discussion on those talk pages.

Might I also suggest for next time, that WP:MERGEPROP, as a more flexible discussion format, might more easily handle this type of situation where each article might have a different result and the most "delety" result needed is a redirect, which nobody seems to object to. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventuress of Henrietta Street

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

LACKS WP: NBOOK, refs, reliable external links, plot summary, WP: SIGCOV; should be deleted, or merged or redirected into Faction Paradox DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons (though the last one has a plot summary; however, the other issues still persist):

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some, merge rest. The obvious redirect is Eighth Doctor Adventures, but there are various merge choices. Faction Paradox works for The Adventuress of Henrietta Street, but the individual authors may make more sense for some material. I’ve just added a citation to Unnatural History, which is the most developed article and I suggest worth keeping. Bondegezou (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Unnatural History (novel), (very selectively), redirect all the others to Eighth Doctor Adventures. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV besides the single mention of Unnatural History in Women in Doctor Who, which is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Otherwise nothing on Google Scholar, Google Books, or JSTOR. All the articles besides Unnatural History are too short for there to be much point in merging. Masskito (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am unclear why you said there was nothing on Google Scholar. I've just found a second citation there (Third Person: Authoring and Exploring Vast Narratives) and have added it to the article. I've also added a third citation. Let's do some proper WP:BEFORE work. Bondegezou (talk) 10:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I've just added three citations for The Adventuress of Henrietta Street. Butler goes into some depth discussing it. I suggest keep for Adventuress, Unnatural and Angel. Bondegezou (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Doctor has been characterised as a Messianic figure lots of time, it's not notable enough for an entire article, at best it should be merged into Faction Paradox, Angel uses unreliable sources, should be redirected/merged, and same for the other two; keep Unnatural. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus as different outcomes are being proposed without identifying what happens with each subject which really complicates a closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Articles about 5 books from the same series have been nominated together, so, yes, apologies, the discussion has become complicated. To attempt to summarise my position... if any of these are deleted, a redirect should be left to the book series, Eighth Doctor Adventures.

The Adventuress of Henrietta Street: I have expanded this since nomination. I propose Keep. If not, then there is content to be Merged into the Faction Paradox article.
The Shadows of Avalon: I've not touched this. I propose Delete.
The Taking of Planet 5: I've not touched this. I propose Keep, but the article definitely needs work.
The Blue Angel (novel): I have expanded this since nomination. I propose Keep. If not, then there is content to be Merged into the Paul Magrs (the author) article.
Unnatural History (novel): I have expanded this since nomination. The proposer has changed their view to keep, so I think that counts as the AfD being withdrawn.

I hope that provides some clarity. Bondegezou (talk) 09:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Henrietta Street and Unnatural History per WP:HEY based on Bondegezou's additions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Making my position clear (also, merge/redirect to Faction Paradox, not Eighth Doctor Adventures, it's kind of a specific sub-series of the EDAs)
- The Shadows of Avalon and The Taking of Planet 5: Delete or redirect (Reason- Nothing significant about these books)
- The Blue Angel (novel): Merge or redirect (Reason- same as above, but it has gotten some coverage)
- The Adventuress of Henrietta Street: Merge (Reason- Not notable in of itself)
- Unnatural History (novel): Keep (Reason- seems just about notable enough now)

DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are some sources I found
1. For The Adventuress of Henrietta Street:
  1. Beardsley, Paul (June–July 2002). "Doctor Ho-Hum and the Scribes of Metafiction 3". Interzone. No. 180. p. 58. Retrieved 2024-10-02 – via Internet Archive.
    The review notes: "The Adventuress of Henrietta Street by Lawrence Miles is mostly set in London in 1782, and sees the Eighth Doctor Who running a brothel. It is a long novel and it is written in the style of a history text- book. It is demanding, and rewarding for the most part. The historical insights are utterly fascinating, and some of the fantastic imagery is very powerful indeed. However, there were many occasions when I found myself wishing I was reading a “pure” history book by, say, Dr David Starkey and/or a straightforward adventure story with minimal exposition."
  2. Michael, Matt (July 2003). "Further Adventures Books". Doctor Who Magazine. p. 77. Retrieved 2024-10-02 – via Internet Archive.
    The article notes: "A new arc begins with The Adventuress of Henrietta Street, another Lawrence Miles novel, which introduces ongoing villain Sabbath, a human time traveller who thinks that the Doctor and his people are responsible for the worsening problems with Time. It also has the Doctor binding himself to the fate of Earth, tearing out his diseased second heart in a symbolic gesture that makes him more human than ever before. Sabbath subsequently crops up in many of the EDAS, seeking to impose his own laws on Time, and being continually frustrated by the Doctor."
  3. Parkin, Lance (2007). AHistory: An Unauthorized History of the Doctor Who Universe (2 ed.). Des Moine, Iowa: Mad Norwegian Press. pp. 80–81. ISBN 0-9759446-6-5. Retrieved 2024-10-02 – via Internet Archive.
    The book notes: The Adventuress of Henrietta Street -> At the limit of human consciousness was the "horizon", and beyond that was the Kingdom of the Beasts and the babe- wyns, bestial ape creatures. The destruction of Gallifrey destabilised time, allowing the babewyns to escape to Earth at the point when humans were beginning to con- ceive of time as a dimension. The eighth Doctor arrived in this era, suffering physical symptoms as a result of his being linked to his homeworld, which no longer existed. He allied himself with a brothel owner and ritualist, Scarlette. Together, they agreed that the Doctor should marry Juliette, a young woman working in the brothel, as this would link him to Earth and allow him to serve as its protector."
2. For The Shadows of Avalon:
  1. Parkin, Lance (2007). AHistory: An Unauthorized History of the Doctor Who Universe (2 ed.). Des Moine, Iowa: Mad Norwegian Press. p. 409. ISBN 0-9759446-6-5. Retrieved 2024-10-02 – via Internet Archive.
    The book notes: "The Shadows of Avalon -> President Romana now put the survival of the Time Lords over more ethical considerations. While she was concerned with the dispute with the People of the Worldsphere, Romana was aware that the War with the unknown Enemy would soon be upon Gallifrey. Learning that the eighth Doctor's companion, Compassion, was mutating into a TARDIS thanks to her contact with future technology, Romana sent Interventionist agents Cavis and Gandar to capture her. Romana planned to force Compassion to breed with other TARDISes. Compassion made her transformation into a TARDIS, but the Doctor rescued her and they fled the Time Lord authorities."
3. For The Taking of Planet 5:
  1. Parkin, Lance (2007). AHistory: An Unauthorized History of the Doctor Who Universe (2 ed.). Des Moine, Iowa: Mad Norwegian Press. p. 38. ISBN 0-9759446-6-5. Retrieved 2024-10-02 – via Internet Archive.
    The book notes: "The Taking of Planet 5 -> A Celestis outcast became concerned that the Celestis base of Mictlan might attract the Swimmers—beings large enough to crush the universe. The outcast hoped to destroy Mictlan before this occurred. Using a Fictional Generator, the outcast brought the Elder Things from HP Lovecraft's work to life in Antarctica. This attracted Time Lord shock troops from the future, who slaughtered the Elder Things and subsequently readied a fleet of War-TARDISes. They intended to break the time-loop around Planet Five, hoping to use the Fendahl trapped within against the Time Lords' future Enemy."
4. For The Blue Angel (novel):
  1. I found a passing mention here.
5. For Unnatural History (novel):
  1. Parkin, Lance (2007). AHistory: An Unauthorized History of the Doctor Who Universe (2 ed.). Des Moine, Iowa: Mad Norwegian Press. p. 199. ISBN 0-9759446-6-5. Retrieved 2024-10-02 – via Internet Archive.
    The book notes: "Unnatural History > A dimensional scar, the after-effect of the singularity that befell Earth on New Years Eve, 2000, appeared in San Francisco. The eighth Doctor investigated the anomaly, but his companion Samantha Jones was lost to it. He sought out Sam's original self, a dark-haired drug user, to assist. The Doctor also recruited Professor Joyce, a resident of Berkeley, to craft a dimensional stabilizer."
I think there is enough coverage for The Adventuress of Henrietta Street to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. For the other books, if they cannot be shown to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria, I recommend a merge/redirect to Eighth Doctor Adventures.
Cunard (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cunard. I've used those finds to make some additions to Unnatural History (novel), The Taking of Planet 5 and The Adventuress of Henrietta Street. Bondegezou (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While these are good sources to make additions to the articles, I don't think they are independent enough to grant notability; one can always find mention of any DW media in DWM given that it is the official magazine (and BBC is ofcourse involved, might count as advertising), and AHistory mentions every DW story- does not make it anymore notable than as a part of the Faction Paradox or EDAs. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that DWM has some independence issues. I note that Ahistory is an unauthorised (i.e. independent of the BBC) book about Dr Who and related fiction by an unrelated publisher. It is, thus, independent of the makers of Dr Who or the publisher of these books. Interzone is also an independent source. Bondegezou (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh No It Isn't!

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

LACKS WP: NBOOK, refs, reliable external links, reviews, WP: SIGCOV; should probably be deleted, but if not, merged or redirected into Bernice Summerfield DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Virgin New Adventures, which is the series of books it was published in. Bondegezou (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve done some work on the article, expanding it and adding some citations. Will try to do some more. Bondegezou (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my earlier comments, I've done some work on the article. It is, if I do say so myself, improved and better addresses WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG concerns, although others will have to decide if it's enough. (And more can certainly be done.) I favour keeping. If not kept, there's chunk of text under "Writing and development" that would usefully go in the Virgin New Adventures article, and maybe some other text and a citation on the audio adaptation that would usefully go to the Bernice Summerfield article. Bondegezou (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bernice Summerfield, which is a more focused redirect target given this book focuses primarily on the character. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. O'Mahony, Daniel (September–October 1997). "Oh No It Isn't!" (PDF). Vector. No. 195. p. 19. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-09-24. Retrieved 2024-09-24.
  The review notes: "When good Time Lords die, they go to Cambridge. This is the upshot of Oh No It Isn't!, the first of Virgin Publishing's attempts to spin off the self-originated elements of their Doctor Who: The New Adventures series now that BBC Books have nabbed back the rights. The good bit of the collective title having been pinched, these are just The New Adventures. It's a reasonably accurate (if feeble) description though, and thankfully the embarrassing publicity strapline: 'Science Fiction has never been this much fun!', is absent from the jacket of the actual book. ... Is it a novel or a comedy? It starts as the former. The first chapter, laid out in relaxed, delicious prose, establishes Bernice's world and her inner life without the punctuation of incident. Cornell makes Bernice a real woman—a qualified fake, a divorcee trundling towards middle-age (though not as fast as she thinks), a bitter wit and a frustrated lover. This is easily the finest passage of the book. It is the introduction the series demands."
2. Hinton, Craig (May 1997). "NA: Oh No It Isn't!". TV Zone. No. 90. p. 64. Retrieved 2024-09-24 – via Internet Archive.
  The review notes: "I'll be honest: I had my doubts about Virgin continuing this series without the Doctor. Would Benny and the supporting cast drawn from the Missing and New Adventures be strong enough to carry what is effectively a new line of novels? If Oh No It Isn't! is anything to go by, it will be a breath of fresh air. This book is a scream: funny, exciting and clever, all in one. Of course, it will be interesting to see how much of this is because of Paul Cornell's writing and his knowledge of his own creation, Benny. ... Her resourcefulness, her character flaws, her sheer enjoyment of life make her convincing and three-dimensional, and being dumped in a pantomime universe is a wonderful way of exploring all of these facets. Her companions are just as richly drawn, from ..."
3. Owen, Dave (1997-05-07). "Shelf Life: The New Adventures Oh No It Isn't". Doctor Who Magazine. No. 251. p. 44. Retrieved 2024-09-24.
  The review notes: "At least Oh No It Isn't! has some scene-setting at the outset; Bernice, having taken the chair archaeology at St Oscar's University on Dellah is succumbing to premature middle-age. Even without the prefacing quotation from Emma Thompson, I would soon have envisaged Bernice cycling around the campus as Thompson's character in the film Junior. She's accompanied by pet cat Wolsey, and her colleagues include another old recurring character, Menlove Stokes, ... He presents an immature, laddish character, whose inarticulate utterances are peppered with terms like "stuff", "basically", "sort of like", and even "pissed", "bonk", and "shag". This unrecognisably carnal Bernice exhibits a curiously selective memory of her specialisation too, cracking a joke about nineties pop groups yet completely forgetting the phenomenon of pantomime. In telling this story, Paul exerts so much effort playing to the gallery that the main narrative topples over from the weight of in-jokes, parodies, and pointless contemporary references that it's required to support. All of them obfuscate the existing two layers of reality, and for little gain; they are all deeply unfunny."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Oh No It Isn't! to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This book probably has sufficient reviews to establish notability, but I can't shake the feeling that this is a scenario similar to TV pilot episodes, which get media coverage within the context of the new show but not as notable episodes themselves. So editorially speaking, it may still be better to cover this book and its real-world info within Bernice Summerfield. The other books will probably have a much harder time to establish notability, and the result of this AFD should not be auto-extrapolated to the other books. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Yes It Stays! (Thanks to the S.S. Cunard.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:51, 28 September 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!} 07:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FeetFinder

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

Does not appear to be notable under WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. No significant coverage, and the two sources cited in the article appear to be based on press releases. – notwally (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and the article has poor footnotes (ducks 🍅s). Nate • (chatter) 19:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I can find are "you can make money!" sites - these promote rather dubious earnings fads. There's nothing serious out there. This was clearly an attempt at promotion. Lamona (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable for multiple events. Having references on New York Post, Daily Hive, Mid-Day, MSN and LADbible Group which are generally reliable resources. Aalam Ara (talk) 11:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aalam Ara, in what sense are any of those "generally reliable sources"? Only NYP is listed on WP:RSP and it is not generally reliable. The Mid-Day article is labeled as an advertisement, and the MSN article is syndicated content from "Decan Times". The only discussion about LADBible on RSN describes it as low-quality clickbait [27]. There are no discussions about Daily Hive, although the cited article's author byline is "National Trending Staff", which looks to be largely clickbait-style articles, and the Wikipedia page for the outlet states: "Prior to its 2016 rebranding as Daily Hive, the Vancity Buzz site was the subject of numerous criticisms and controversies. Notable accusations included unethical journalism practices, plagiarism, and fearmongering." – notwally (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Deccan Times died in 1960 and the 'current version' is SEO pink slime trading off a dead trademark. It should absolutely not be used as a source. Nate • (chatter) 17:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borderline speedy. I would suggest the article author do some work on their ability to identify questionable sources if I expect to be listened to, but I don't, really. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:31, 26 September 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 Virgin New Adventures. which was not seconded, however nor was it refuted. Star Mississippi 02:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC) ETA Bernice Summerfield can also be considered as a target. Star Mississippi 13:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Romance

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

LACKS WP: NBOOK, refs, external links, plot summary, WP: SIGCOV DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Virgin New Adventures, which is the series of books it was published in. Bondegezou (talk) 06:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the consensus is to merge, it should be merged to Bernice Summerfield; one of its sections deal with the VNAs that she is the primary character in, and even the Bernice Summerfield section at VNA's article links there. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Brazier, Paul (August 1999). "War, Who & the Web". Interzone. No. 146. p. 62. Retrieved 2024-09-24 – via Internet Archive.
  The review notes: "There is nothing challenging about this book. It is a Ten-Little-Indians archaeological romp with a certain amount of self-doubt and self-pity for Benny. People do heroic things and people die horribly, and the serial killer and the truth are duly revealed, and Benny doesn’t stuff up quite as badly as she thought. I enjoyed this book simply as an undemanding romp; I didn’t like The Mary-Sue Extrusion for its involuted knowingness, although I am sure there are people who would admire the skill with which it is carried off; and I enjoyed Dead Romance a lot because it made me reconsider solipsism all over again. If there is one thing I do like, it is variety in my diet, and those people at Virgin Books certainly seem to be supplying that."
I found one review that provides significant coverage about the book. If a second review that provides significant coverage about the book can be found, this article can be kept. If a second review cannot be found, I support a merge to Virgin New Adventures.
Cunard (talk) 11:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if this source is sufficient or whether or not a Merge would be preferred.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 28 September 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. The person who notability-tagged this article has !voted keep, so I think we can call this "withdrawn". Feel free to revert if you disagree. (non-admin closure) Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 01:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murders of Keona Holley and Justin Johnson

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

This is (admittedly) a weird maneuver, but I created this article a few months ago with the ultimate goal of bringing it to good article status. However, it was tagged {{Notability}} by Lettler (courtesy ping), which would make it a quickfail at GAN. Of course, I wouldn't have created the article if I didn't think it were notable, but it would be inappropriate for me to just remove the tag. If this is kept, I'll fix it up and nominate it; if it isn't then ah well (although I'd suggest this could become a paragraph or two somewhere in Baltimore Police Department); I don't have a strong opinion either way. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 06:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Police, and Maryland. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 06:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This is well written and the coverage is quite in depth and over a length of time, with continuous coverage that discusses its effects beyond merely trial documentation, the only problem is for event notability the coverage is rather local. Then again Baltimore is the biggest city in Maryland and contains the biggest newspapers in the state of Maryland, seemingly all of which covered the case extensively, so my regional concerns may be satisfied. There is coverage that seems quite analytical and in depth. It did get some stories about the conviction from UPI and AP, as well as police publications which are not Baltimore specific. When it happened it was news internationally and nationally. Brief bit of coverage in this book talking about the media coverage [28]. At worst this should be merged selectively to Baltimore Police Department. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep for me too per Parakanya - I also found coverage in CNN, New York Post, Washington Post, and Newsweek too, which seems like more than just local coverage. Coverage was also sustained over a 3 year period, and the crime seems like the sort of thing that will have ongoing coverage over time via true crime podcasts, documentaries, publications etc. That MIGHT not happen, in which case it could be revisited for deletion in the future as “just news”, but there seems enough there not to be hasty. Absurdum4242 (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I apologize for my hasty conduct, I do agree that because a police officer was murdered, there will likely be anniversary coverage in the future (as I've seen at least) and there is coverage from different sources. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:34, 22 September 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!} 22:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Carry

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

From the sources provided by the article and my own research, I have come to the conclusion that Florida Carry as an organization has not received significant media coverage as per WP:SIRS' notability criteria. The articles cited mention Florida Carry only in passing or in one sentence, and do not maintain the focus upon the organization for the source to be considered significant. However, while I was looking over the references cited, I noticed that Florida Carry apparently authored House Bill 463, which was passed in 2012. The article in question: [29], and the bill in question: [30].

If better coverage can be found of Florida Carry as an organization or its actions, then there would be a stronger case for cleaning up the article instead of deleting it. Sirocco745 (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Firearms, and Florida. Sirocco745 (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - Most references to the organization are minor, and the majority of the sources are merely links to the bills that they supported. Their actions are also somewhat irrelevant considering the activities of larger organizations that likely made a much larger impact on the bills in question. JohnWarosa (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear from more editors on this subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. APK hi :-) (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and others. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 16:54, 4 October 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!} 03:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Rangamati

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

Contested PROD. The relevance of the "further reading" is unclear, it doesn't mention the newspaper. Searches of the usual types in English and Bengali found passing mentions in directories, lists of newspapers, lists of event attendees, in connection with the local press club, etc., and one article in an obscure newspaper saying three staffers were among five journalists acquitted in what appears to be a routine-course-of-business legal case.[31] No sources that would meet WP:GNG, WP:NMEDIA, or WP:NPERIODICAL. Worldbruce (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NMEDIA, or WP:NPERIODICAL. Youknow? (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another similar article is The Daily Ajker Jamalpur and I request it to be deleted completely.

103.48.160.35 (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:42, 28 September 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. Not eligible for soft deletion, but no one arguing for retention and no indication input is forthcoming. ANyone is welcome to request restoration later. Star Mississippi 03:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC) ETA amended to redirect per TP request. Redirect is in place. Star Mississippi 14:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bondage tape

AfDs for this article:

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

I have concerns this does not meet WP:GNG. I cannot find any SIGCOV of this (and some uses refer to tape as in video tape). I checked the cited source (Fulbright 2008, located through AA), and it is a glossary of all things related to sex, and its entry on bondage tape is 122 words. Unless we find more SIGCOV, I think this can at best be redirected to the List of BDSM equipment per WP:ATD-R. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted. Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 21 September 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!} 21:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dokibird

AfDs for this article:

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

This streamer does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. The Siliconera sources are WP:ROUTINE, trivial, and based off of primary sources. The Japan Times and Polygon sources are based off of tweets and leverage notability from a corporate controversy. Doing a WP:BEFORE search brings up nothing else of use. Relisting this deletion discussion since the last one did not get much attention. Sparkl^talk 04:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Video games, Anime and manga, Entertainment, Internet, Japan, and Canada. Sparkl^talk 04:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The subject of the article has only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs and does not meet WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion. This article was just at AFD two months ago, why was a new discussion started up so soon? We advise more time between visits to AFD unless the content is severely problematic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Her termination from her former employer is extensively covered at Nijisanji#Controversy and also has a sizeable paragraph at the end of VTuber#The VTuber trend. Currently, I see little merit for a standalone article on her current persona. Perhaps later in the future. Jotamide (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and my previous nomination. Fails general notability criteria. The coverage of the article subject stems almost entirely from a single event (WP:1E), with the rest of the references being routine coverage of announcements (WP:ROUTINE). The article also seems like a content fork, as it covers a lot of material already present at Nijisanji. ArcticSeeress (talk) 13:58, 3 October 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 ‎ G3'd. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fretïmio Assocão di Planka

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

Suspected hoax created by sockpuppet account. No results for this name in JSTOR, and the picture is of Willie J. Hagan. Joofjoof (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3. I agree it’s a hoax. Mccapra (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per nomination and G3. Sir MemeGod  19:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Per nom Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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!} 00:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ihor Kulakov

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Most (if not all) of sources are self-published sources. GTrang (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see self-publishing sources. If you can see it, you may delete them. Not article at all. Thank you. Abcrad (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources aren’t self-published, but I agree they are inadequate to support a biography as they do not demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:00, 28 September 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!} 05:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rumpology

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

This article is terribly sourced (most sources are unreliable or passing mentions) and my BEFORE is not finding anything better (bunch of sources cite Wikipedia, there is SIGCOV in a self-published book here, etc.). I am not sure if this is not a hoax (creation of a arbcom and site-banned user Meco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), but it seems to have serious WP:GNG issues that do not appear to be easily addressed; and the current crappy article, which really belongs in urban dictionary or such, is just lending credence and leading to increasing WP:CITOGENESIS, I fear. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Science. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. How can this article survived for 17 years on the project? And how are there 0 editors with a point of view on this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the nominator's assessment of the present article's quality. Searches find several articles mentioning the topic, but usually drawing on Ms Stallone and her famous son, so no use here as notability is not inherited. (I seldom agree with the Daily Mail, but the assessment in their 13 Oct 2004 article that this is "more Monty Python than medical" seems about right.) I suppose a redirect to the Jackie Stallone article could be a WP:ATD, as it is mentioned there, but I think it would be better deleted altogether. AllyD (talk) 10:06, 22 September 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. Given the new sources, I'm closing this as Keep. A discussion on an article rename can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wright Investors' Service Holdings, Inc.

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

Fails GNG. There’s a news article about them donating some dam properties but that’s it. Northern Moonlight 03:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : The nominator is right.--Gabriel (……?) 11:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a very detailed article about this company's history at Cengage / encyclopedia.com under its previous National Patent Development Corporation name. The end of that article also includes a list of sources (on paper). AllyD (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as National Patent Development Corporation meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The NPDC's role in the history of the development of soft contact lens, as well as its IP, is very well documented (though it is tricky to untangle the "real" story with all its legal twist and turns and international intrigue). A few examples include this 2022 article in Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History; the 1989 book Communist Entrepreneurs: Unknown Innovators in the Global Economy; and this 1997 Business Week article, "Ready to Rise from the Dead?" which explains the company's poor financial performance in the late 1980s and 1990s. It's to the point that I did wonder if this article should be renamed to its historical name, but given that there is more recent coverage about the company as Wright Investors Service Holdings, particularly with regard to the dams in Connecticut as the nominator pointed out, it's fine as is for now. Sources have been added, but the article still needs more citations and clean up, which can take place over the normal course of editing. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the references added by Cielquiparle and discussed above plus the Bruce Montgomery International Directory of Company Histories item that I previously linked are sufficient to demonstrate that this firm has met WP:NCORP. Like Cielquiparle, I have been thinking that the article would be better under the National Patent Development Corporation name, but the present redirect is adequate. AllyD (talk) 07:17, 10 October 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!} 02:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uplers

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

While Ulpers is by no means a small business, I believe they fail to meet the WP:ORG notability criteria due to a lack of sizeable media coverage, as well as most of the article's refs being links to blog posts. Ulpers may perform well, but in the grand scheme of things, I cannot see a valid reason to call them notable by Wiki standards. Sirocco745 (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Management, and India. Sirocco745 (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Gujarat. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : No significant coverage from independent reliable source.--Gabriel (……?) 12:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a recruitment platform, sourced largely to announcements of partnerships, products and personnel, none of which exceeds WP:CORPTRIV. Similar for the founder's Indian Achievers Forum award which appears non-notable (though I am intrigued by the idea of "a dire passion for adopting new market trends"). A company going about its business but I am not seeing evidence that it has attained notability here. AllyD (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the interviews are WP:PRIMARY and don't count for WP:GNG, everything else lacks WP:CORPDEPTH and a lot of it stinks of paid placement anyway. No GNG sources apparent from English language searches, and given the transparent WP:REFBOMB I doubt any exist. If something non-English turns up, leave a pointer on my the talk page for this IP, I will monitor it for a few days even after my IP changes, and I will look it over but as of right now there are insufficient GNG sources to establish notability. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:F142:4FEC:F59C:4BCB (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Mölnlycke Health Care. with history retained should there be a desire for a merger Star Mississippi 02:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epaderm

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

Did not see any information about the product outside of articles selling skincare products. Just seems to lack sources. GamerPro64 02:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Products. GamerPro64 02:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google Books shows snippet views from several professionals healthcare handbooks, though whether these go beyond brief descriptions of the product is unclear. There is also a published study, visible on open-access: "A Clinical Investigation of the Performance and Safety of Epaderm®, an Emollient Cream". AllyD (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of significant independent, reliable sources to demonstrate the product's notability. The article mostly reads like a product description and lacks substantial third-party coverage or critical analysis--Mind-blowing blow (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if we can get an assessment of the source AllyD brought into the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the parent company that owns this brand. Prone to fails (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mölnlycke Health Care --Jiaoriballisse (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Gallo (politician)

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

This is a local politician at the city government level so fails WP:NPOL. The sourcing does not pass WP:SIGCOV, so fails WP:GNG as well. It's telling there is no Italian language wiki page. 4meter4 (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes need more significant coverages to stand. Xegma(talk) 04:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Election to the regional council of Veneto does not make someone notable. Mccapra (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete falls short of WP NPOL and the broader WP GNG --The editing spirit (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just to be clear, the Regional Council of Veneto is not the city level of government in Venice, it's the first-order divisional legislature of the entire region of Veneto (which is much, much larger than just Venice) — that is, it's equivalent to a state legislature in the US or a provincial parliament in Canada, not to a city council. Venice's city council is the Consiglio Comunale di Venezia, not the Regional Council of Veneto. So this certainly needs improvement, but he was a state/province-level officeholder under WP:NPOL #1, not a "city councillor" under NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, could editors arguing for Deletion counter Bearcat's information? Does it make a difference?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearcat; as a regional council member, he would pass WP:NPOL. I understand the confusion and the difficulties in finding sources. My Italian is poor, and my Veneto is even worse (I bought a 30-day pass instead of two day passes for the people mover). On top of that, there’s a different Giovanni Gallo who works and lives in Veneto who is a potentially notable public health scholar who has published well-cited articles about HIV (called HiB in Italian), coronavirus, and hepatitis. Then of course the famous choreographer from Venice, Giovanni Gallo (choreographer). Giovanni is the Italian name for John, and Gallo is an extremely common family name in Italy, so ordinary searches for this name is like sifting between needles and hay. In any case, I think these sources might be good: 1 2, 3, and 4. Of these sources and others, some are just a passing reference that the subject spoke out in favor of a local energy law and such, but overall I think it is just enough for significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I also added the infobox and few sources.--Alienautic (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Bearcat, since The Regional Council of Venice compares to a statewide legislature, the subject passes WP:NPOL.

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!} 21:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motivation and employee engagement

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

This article functions mostly as a cross between a lower quality version of Employee motivation and a dump of summaries of studies. I don't see how having the page is useful when Employee motivation and Work motivation both exist. Hihyphilia (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Management. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:Hihyphilia, I see you are a relatively new editor. Did you conduct a WP:BEFORE before nominating this article? Did you assess the sources? Do you have a policy-based reason for arguing for deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was reassessing the sources and realized that the current page is a structured like a modified version of one of the sources (The thesis by Bergström, Emma; Garcia Martinez, Melanie (2016), cited 19 times). While I don't think the similarity is close enough to be a copyright violation, it is kinda sorta plagiarism? Quite a few of the sources seem more like someone picking sources that kinda look right from a google search, and don't support the text. I would need to visit a university library to 100% confirm they're bad though. Hihyphilia (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hihyphilia, thank you for the response to my query. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK; a merge may work only if the above concerns of plagiarism are clarified and the content adds something sufficiently novel. pluckyporo ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:08, 28 September 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 05:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1993 TAC Cup season

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

I am bundle-nominating all league season pages of the Talent League competition for deletion. This bundle incorporates the 25 articles listed below.

On balance, these articles fail WP:GNG. This competition does not garner the level of coverage or references about its seasons and results to justify having season-by-season articles. I include the italicised caveat because, as this is the main underage recruitment competition in Victoria, the league's players and structure do receive a decent amount of non-routine individual coverage, as a WP:BEFORE search will attest; but this coverage is all primarily focussed on the league's function as an under-aged talent pathway. The seasons themselves (i.e. who won/lost, grand finalists, etc.) receive only passing WP:ROUTINE coverage. I note also that 19 of the 25 articles (those from 2000–2018) are currently based entirely on a single database reference, and those which aren't are almost entirely from non-independent sources. I see no valid alternative to deletion and that all content worth saving is already found on the main Talent League page.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all part of the same bundle:

Aspirex (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. TarnishedPath^talk 08:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sorry, but that's way too much for me to work through to see if it needs deletion or not. WP:TRAINWRECK. Govvy (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: TRAINWRECK is a term for AfDs that cover many topics, but fail because the topics are too dissimilar – some are notable, others aren't. But surely any given TAC Cup season will be about as notable as the next? What makes you think TRAINWRECK applies here? – Teratix ₵ 02:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it is possible that I did not make clear enough that these pages are all different seasons of the same competition with different sponsored names. Aspirex (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment @Aspirex and Teratix: Because on my first look, I assumed the AfD was for two different leagues. I didn't say don't delete, I just felt it was too much on one AfD. Maybe splitting between two AfDs might have been easier to manage for some people such as myself. Govvy (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a strong case for deletion on the face of it – I would be surprised if enough sources exist for individual seasons of a state-level underage development competition. The point Aspirex makes about TAC Cup coverage mainly focusing on individual players or general aspects of competition structure, not specific results, rings true to me. – Teratix ₵ 02:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Aspirex, this AFD is not formatted correctly for a bundled nomination. You can't just write down a list of linked articles and consider them to be included in this nomination, our closing tool, XFDcloser will not recognize them as nominated articles. Please review the instructions at WP:AFD for nominating multiple articles and format this nomination correctly. No matter how this discussion is closed, this needs to happen. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Liz (talk · contribs) Thanks. Did this edit fix it or have I still missed something? Aspirex (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aspirex, everything looks good. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We still need to hear arguments from more editors on what should happen with all of these articles or this AFD may close as no consensus. What outcome would you like to see? Why? Could anyone supply a source assessment of at least one of these articles?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I know from a closer's perspective it's frustrating to not have participants take a clear position, but frankly it would be very time-consuming to go through each season and exhaustively demonstrate no significant coverage exists. All I can do at this point is give my judgement as a user who has edited a fair amount in the area – based on my experience, probably the level of coverage is as Aspirex says it is. Perhaps soft delete, with no prejudice against someone who does find some coverage and wants to restart the pages? – Teratix ₵ 03:43, 27 September 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!} 01:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Verma

AfDs for this article:

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

Still unnotable. Not a key member of the Himesh team as he is not even mentioned on Himesh's article. Same weak references from previous AFDs. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: My concern regarding this nomination is that it overlooks the substantial updates made since the last discussion, including the inclusion of relevant sources published after August 2020. Despite the availability of reputable articles from sources like The Diplomat, Hindustan Times, and Times of India, I have focused on incorporating recent sources to align with Wikipedia’s guidelines for establishing notability.

Extended content ((non-)sources)

1. Notability and Wikipedia Mentions:The statement "as he is not even mentioned on Himesh's article" highlights a common misunderstanding of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Being mentioned on another Wikipedia page does not, by itself, establish a subject's notability. What is crucial for establishing notability are independent, reliable sources that document the subject’s contributions and achievements.

In this case, the subject demonstrates notability through various reliable sources that cover both aspects of their career—both as an indie artist and a Bollywood musician. The presence of multiple independent sources that cover different facets of their career supports the argument for notability. Still ypu can check him mentioned in the core team in many different projects including Action Jackson (2014 film).

Additionally, coverage in independent sources for distinct work profiles (Bollywood and indie music) further strengthens the claim for notability, as per Wikipedia’s guidelines. Getting covered for two different work profile (Bollywood & Indie Music) also cancles WP:1E.

2. *Independent Artist Notability:

The nominator’s comment in the recent nomination mentions "same weak references from previous AFDs." However, the subject's notability as an independent artist is well-supported by reliable sources published after the last discussion in August 2020. This period of time has allowed for the accumulation of substantial coverage and recognition of the subject’s work as an indie artist, distinct from their collaborations with Himesh Reshammiya. The updated sources included in the article reflect this enhanced recognition and demonstrate the subject’s notability within the indie music scene.

The new sources provided in the article explicitly highlight the subject’s achievements in the indie music scene, demonstrating a clear and ongoing recognition of their notability. The passage of time since the last discussion has enabled a more comprehensive evaluation of the subject's contributions, as reflected in the present sources

While articles used from sources such as The Diplomat, Hindustan Times, and Times of India in the last discussion that could have been used, I have adhered to Wikipedia guidelines by incorporating only those sources published after the last deletion discussion. This approach ensures that the references are up-to-date and relevant for establishing the subject's notability.

Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 12:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NMUSICBIO. 7 sources on the page and from it 5 sources on the page are not independent of the musician or ensemble itself. They are also promotional materials. Source india.com is unreliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES. 1 other source fail significant coverage worthy of notice to consider notability. I did not find information if the singer released two or more notable albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels or won any awards. I can not find any source where the singer has had a single or album on national music chart or has been in any international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. I see the subject missing all criteria for a notable singer. RangersRus (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per all the many and varied reasons given at previous AfDs, DRs, etc., with particular reference to ANYBIO (done nothing to fulfil any criteria), BLPSOURCES (no independent, reliable third party sources support an assertion of notability), NMUSIC (ditto: criteria fail) and NOTADVERT (fundamentally the root of these repeated attempts to inflict this article upon us). The time may yet still come when his career trajectory makes such a change in dynamic as to justify a neutral, source-based, independently-written article. That time is not now, however. SerialNumber54129 19:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like another opinion on the new sources added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 21 September 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. The nominator failed to give intelligible grounds for content deletion. (non-admin closure) Frost 09:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DXJR

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. I can't find any AFD Because deletion without any reason given. Kirby Xtreme 01:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:KirbyXtreme, I don't know what that means, but if you're nominating something for deletion you should provide an argument for deletion. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No reason given for AFD, notable enough for inclusion. LR.127 (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. 112.210.53.141 (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This radio station in the Philippines actually meets the GNG with some surprising sources (including the South China Morning Post). With no actual deletion rationale, this nomination is procedurally defective. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep for failure to state a valid deletion rationale. Nominator can you please withdraw the nomination so it can be closed?
Note that this account was created just minutes before the deletion discussion was created and has already nominated another article for deletion. WP:Articles_for_deletion/Horror_Stories_(film)#Horror_Stories_(film). Oblivy (talk) 04:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Sources are solid which was unexpected. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I Think for List of Radio and Philippines. WP:GNG.

_{Xtreme founder...} (talk) 07:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so Draftify is an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _{Xtreme founder...} (talk) 07:54, 21 September 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!} 01:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Pestryakov

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this Russian footballer. Seems like the article creator moved the draft to the mainspace. JTtheOG (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. JTtheOG (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Everything I'm finding is pretty run of the mill and insignificant. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probably WP:TOOSOON. I found Premier Liga, which shows that he had an impressive match recently. I also found an image caption in August News but there is little else in Russian and the Russian Wikipedia doesn't give any SIGCOV either. It's a shame that this got moved out of draft space as that wouldn't have been a bad place. Since this would only be moved back if draftified, I have to support deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – Has the potential to become notable during the current season. Svartner (talk) 18:14, 23 September 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!} 01:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chong Tsun

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of this footballer to meet WP:GNG after using different search terms in different scripts, which is understandable as he has seemingly played one game. Sources in the articles are databases and social medias. JTtheOG (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Hong Kong. JTtheOG (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Chong Tsun (traditional Chinese: 莊晉; simplified Chinese: 庄晋) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of political parties in New Zealand#Parties that never held seats. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Commercial Airport at Whenuapai Airbase Party

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

Political party that existed for less than a year and advocated for a single issue. Only limited coverage, and it all appears to be from 2008, except for a single article about "the stranger parties of NZ's past and present" from 2018. This seems similar to how political candidates may receive limited coverage during an elecetion but are not considered notable. The article creator has reverted an attempt to redirect this page to Whenuapai#Reverting to Military Aerodrome and recent developments. – notwally (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – notwally (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with ~~Single-issue_politics#Oceania~~ List_of_political_parties_in_New_Zealand#Parties_that_never_held_seats: I couldn't find articles showing lasting impact other than an article that justifiably says their lasting impact is the absence of a commercial airport there Oblivy (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_political_parties_in_New_Zealand#Parties_that_never_held_seats - basically one guy who got fewer than 300 votes the one time he stood for election. it is an idiosyncrasy of NZ politics that anyone who can scrape up a deposit can say they are a party even if their unregistered "party" is basically a laptop and a printer. Daveosaurus (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of political parties. I feel the inclusion anywhere else would be undue given how little there is about it. Whilst the Whenuapai air base has been a recurring topic in NZ politics, this party had no impact on it and there is an IP edit that suggests the founder of the party (and it's only member) doesn't want to be associated with it anymore. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daveosaurus and Traumnovelle, I notice the section on that list specifically notes that it should be for notable parties. I would expect a non-notable party be ineligible for inclusion? Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice that. Many of those parties listed are not notable by Wikipedia's standards. If there is no suitable place to redirect/mention it at then deletion would be best. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NCAaWAP seems notable enough for a list of unsuccessful parties, particularly since they've been outrageously successful in preventing that airport being built! If consensus firms around the parties list, then I'll change my proposed redirect target. Oblivy (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is jocular about it. The party itself really had no impact. The commercial airport at Whenuapai has always been a terrible proposal unlikely to go through (estimated to cost around a billion just to move the military operations and other reasons relating to national defence that I can't mention on Wikipedia). Traumnovelle (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my attempt at jocularity. I'm happy to follow the consensus on redirect target, waiting to see if any other views emerge Oblivy (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is such a nothingburger I really don't think it even qualifies for merging. Maybe a merge to the single-issue politics page as per previous comment could make sense, but this is such a tiny thing I think it would be undue there. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 20:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Single person single issue party. Was never registered to contest elections and only the founder contested a seat under that tikcet (without success). Ajf773 (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have three different Redirect/Merge target articles being suggested here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even notable enough to go on a list of failed parties - given that it was never actually a registered party, just a name the one dude gave himself to look better on a ballot form. Absurdum4242 (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does it really matter if it's a non-registered party? Sure, there's this which says that at the time it was an unregistered party name. But we have the NZ Herald saying it's a party[32] and this from the government registering the logo[33]. In my view, the name is verifiable and that should be the end of it. Notability is lacking which is why I support merge. Oblivy (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is when one of the other voting suggestions is “redirect to a list of parties” - there is an actual process to forming a political party in NZ, with steps and criteria to follow, none of which he managed to achieve. It’s like calling a lemonade stand your kids make a “company” because they drew a logo on the front - unless they legally incorporate, not a company. Don’t register as a party, not a party. Not a party, can’t be listed on a list of parties. Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the information that this organization appears to be a single person who never registered it as a political party, if the organization is not notable, then I do not think the redirects to "Single-issue politics" or "List of political parties in New Zealand" would be appropriate. While the redirect I suggested to Whenuapai may be acceptable as there are a few mentions in newspapers, given the discussion since I filed this AfD, that is probably excessive as well. I now think simply deleting is the most appropriate. – notwally (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The electoral commission registered their logo and listed it on a report called "REGISTER OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND LOGOS". What you say may make intuitive sense to you, but disregarding secondary sources in favor of our own opinions is OR. Oblivy (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source says nothing about registration of the party. It says "The Commission approved an application to register a logo for No Commercial Airport at Whenuapai Airbase Party". If the party had registered, it would presumably say "The Commission registered the [party name] and its logo". Also, the NZ Herald does not call actually call it a party either (outside of the WP:HEADLINE); the article says that the person "says he will form the party". Do you know of any sources saying that he did so? – notwally (talk) 23:16, 1 October 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 procedural close‎ as incorrect venue. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 18:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burglary (history)

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

Orphaned redirect with a title of an unlikely search term Cyber the tiger (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced, requesting procedural close: This belongs at WP:RFD, not here. Left guide (talk) 18:18, 21 September 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.

[1] Let's Eat Italy. ISBN 9781648290596.

[1]