Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 15	March 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Brown (fighter)

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

Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NMMA and WP:NBOX. Not having WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS, WP:RS where by the subject is talk about i length and in dept and not passing mentioned for WP:V. Sources talking about announcements and results of fights are considered routing report and can not be contribute to the subject notability. Cassiopeia talk 23:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Boxing, Martial arts, and Florida. Cassiopeia talk 23:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no coverage other than autogenerated/boilerplate profiles.Hi! (talk) 10:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's never been close to being ranked in the world top 10 for MMA, which is what WP:NMMA requires. Appearing in multiple databases and an article on one of his fights does not constitute significant independent coverage. I found nothing that shows he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO or any SNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing I find is largely match reports. What's used isn't enough for notability. This is typical of what I find [1]. Oaktree b (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:NMMA and WP:NBOX.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. It might be an "important" street but those editors arguing to Keep this article didn't attempt to counter Pppery's source analysis illustrating how the existing sources didn't establish notability. I found their argument persuasive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Street (Massachusetts)

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

No evidence of notability. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least one of the sources mentions the street in the title and appears to be significant coverage. It's unclear why the rest of the sources don't count for GNG. Garuda3 (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's trivial local coverage. One could probably find a construction announcement of that sort for pretty much any road in existence. The other sources: 1 is primary, 2 contains a picture of the road but no actual in-depth coverage. 3 is not in-depth coverage, 4 is the source you listed above, 5 is just a map - a street appearing on a map does not establish notability. 6 is a company boasting about its own work hence primary, 7 is about a park on the street rather than the street itself, 8 is both primary and seems to only mention the road in passing, 9 has the same problem as the source you listed above, 10 only mentions the road in passing. Compare with Washington Street (Boston) which has a sourced description of the history and significance of the road. That seems to be lacking here, and I can't see how this isn't just an ordinary city street. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or convert to disambiguation page. I can't find any good sources that discuss the whole street as a coherent concept, unlike comparable streets like Washington Street (Boston), Commonwealth Avenue, and Beacon Street that have plenty of detailed information available. I can't even find anything that indicates this is a defined corridor in any meaningful way, rather than several otherwise unrelated streets given the same name. All of the sources currently in the article are either trivial mentions or routine coverage; it does not add up to significant coverage. I can see a plausible case for a disambig page that points at Route 9, Route 16, and some of the other significant Washington Streets in Massachusetts (Route 129 in Lynn, and the major streets in Somerville and Dorchester if there are good targets for those. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "This is one of the most important transportation corridors in the City, serving many businesses and residents along its route," Fuller said in a Sept. 15 statement. From the above-linked article. Seasider53 (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A village of a hundred people in the middle of nowhere has some street or another that is its "most important transportation corridor," leaving aside the plain fact that being a municipality's "most important transportation corridor" satisfies no notability criterion on Wikipedia. Would the keep proponents care to point out a couple sources they claim provides the "significant coverage" in detail to the subject that the GNG requires? Ravenswing 14:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we discounting a valid source and instead asking about a theoretical scenario? Seasider53 (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a higher standard required for sources used to establish notability, than for sources used for citations. James.folsom (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any street in heavily populated area is going to have a lot of sources. This doesn't make it notable. These sources need to go beyond trivial and routine, in order to establish notability.James.folsom (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generic road with routine local maintenance coverage. Reywas92^Talk 22:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

WHAT?

Washington Street is a significant thoroughfare in the city of Boston, Massachusetts. It is one of the oldest streets in the city and serves as a major commercial and transportation artery. Washington Street runs south-north through the heart of downtown Boston, passing through several neighborhoods including Downtown Crossing, Chinatown, and the South End.

Historically, Washington Street has been a bustling commercial hub, lined with shops, restaurants, theaters, and other businesses. It has also been an important transportation corridor, with various forms of public transit operating along its route, including buses and the MBTA Orange Line subway.

Washington Street is known for its rich history, architectural landmarks, and vibrant street life. It remains a vital part of Boston's urban landscape, attracting locals and tourists alike with its diverse array of attractions and amenities. MaynardClark (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is Washington Street (Boston), which still exists. The article deleted here was about a different Washington street. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whew! MaynardClark (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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!} 21:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walsall Hospital Radio

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

An exhaustively in-depth look at the inner workings of a hospital radio station which is sadly almost entirely unencyclopedic and should be kept online somewhere other than Wikipedia. I'm unable to find any meaningful coverage of this radio station to source the article - it looks like mostly WP:OR. Flip Format (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Charity profiles on the government's website, are about all there is. No decent sourcing used in the article either and no inline citations. Oaktree b (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Editors can create a Redirect if they believe it is suitable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Len Bratley

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

Article about a hospital radio presenter created originally by a COI editor and filled with unencyclopedic trivia. Nothing of note here other than routine local human-interest news coverage of the presenter. WP:BEFORE reveals no rich untapped seam of coverage of the individual. Flip Format (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems very local in nature. It's best to mention him in the article about the radio station. Geschichte (talk) 08:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this one is deleted or merged Len Bratley (rugby league) can be moved to the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The hospital radio wasn't notable, I don't see how working there makes you notable. Outside of references to that, there is no claim to notability in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trust AM. He's significant to have a paragrah on that page. There's also good potential for other articles to mention him which would then go to Trust AM. Karl Twist (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Toledo vs. Michigan football game

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

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. Supported by no reliable sources. BullDawg2021 (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. BullDawg2021 (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - found this BleacherReport article called Grading the Worst Loss in Wolverines' History and SBNation article called On This Day: Toledo Stunned Michigan 13-10. But these are not Reliable Sources, at least I don't think? Can't say if this article meets the requirements, can't find anything else. I'll leave that to others - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first source was published a mere two days after the event, so that source fails WP:PERSISTENCE anyways. Left guide (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Individual games have to be historic to warrant articles, and this contains no claim to historic status. Seems WP:ROTM. Geschichte (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG, could find nothing that makes this game notable or even redirect worthy. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Upsets happen all the time in college football and nothing to make this game significant (such as the previous year’s Appalachian State. - Michigan game). A redirect to this game on the 2008 Toledo or Michigan season page is a reasonable WP:ATD however “ 2008 Toledo vs. Michigan football game” is an unlikely search term. Frank Anchor 14:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not historic. The game can be adequately covered at the team-season level. Cbl62 (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not historic.Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete upsets happen all the time in sport, this doesn't have WP:SUSTAINED coverage to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Erik Hedman

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

The subject of the article does not appear to meet WP:BASIC as I cannot find any sources which make more than a passing mention of Hedman. The existing article could be expanded with a list of works he has created, but secondary sources do not exist to expand the prose of the article beyond its current contents. Uffda608 (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disney, Comics and animation, Denmark, Sweden, and Artists. Uffda608 (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing in Swedish Mediearkivet, not really anything in a Danish web search. This has a one-page article. Geschichte (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WorldCat lists him as an author/creator of numerous books in multiple languages. — Maile (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ones where he (and not another person by the same name) was the author are tiny children's books, we also have a comic about Phantom Blot. What we do need however is secondary sources about his work (reviews) or about him, a library listing does unfortunately not cut it in 2024. Geschichte (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chanuka Wijesundara

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

Sources all appear to be WP:PRIMARY either interviews with the subject or clear press release republications. Promotional and fails WP:BIO. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not all sources are primary. Also there are some secondary sources which are not interviews. Making a global website useful to Sri Lankan is a huge thing, it may be not as important as in USA, UK or other developed countries. But, it is remarkable for Sri Lanka. He has made websites and two more global connections to uplift Sri Lankans in the other countries. So I think he is notable. More citations will come in the near future. NireshaJAththa (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sri Lanka, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The claim to notability is Lankan Square, but the non-interview sourcing there doesn't go actually deep about Chanuka Wijesundara and really only has quotes. TLA^tlak 10:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage about the subject Chanuka Wijesundara fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of years in South African sport

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

I believe this is a Navigational list, but it is serving almost entirely red links.
The content it does serve hinders navigation. Take for example the unsourced 1962 in South African sport which is a Content fork of 1962_in_South_Africa#Sports, except the latter section has no content.
Rather than work bottom up and further degrade the usefulness of this list by proposing mergers of the subarticles, I wanted to see if there was consensus for deleting or merging the main article.
My policy argument for deleting or reworking this article is that per WP:NOPAGE we are not serving readers best by organizing content this way. If a particular year of sport in South Africa can get enough significant coverage, it can then be built out and perhaps expanded into a true content fork. But by spreading ourselves out across these pages that aren't yet ready to be separate, we're making things more clunky. ForksForks (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ForksForks (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Afd is not for cleanup. After doing a random sampling, I can say that there are legitimate year lists, so it does serve a navigational purpose. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Clarityfiend says AfD is not from cleanup. That the nominator doesn't find is useful is poor evidence that it actually hinders navigation as they claim. Talk page discussion on the proper format for this content ("Timeline of South African sport" perhaps) is the way forward, not deletion. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I really hate to say this but given how much I've seeing too much fuss with stuff in favor of deleting articles in AfD discussions, especially where there's a lack of evidence that an article should be deleted. I have to agree with Eluchil and Clarityfiend on this. Given that it does have a purpose to help users navigate to a year in a specific history in sporting event, it does have a purpose. 20chances (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I'm closing this discussion as No consensus because it is not a Delete discussion, it is primarily a Merge discussion, diverging on which article should be Merged to which one. This discussion can occur on the article talk pages but there is no consensus here for a particular Merge/Keep closure. Arguments have not been based in policy but seem to rest on which article is referenced more properly and tangents about article renames. These are all editorial decisions and I see no consensus here that this article should be Deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoonotic origins of COVID-19

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

This is a WP:POVFORK of Origin of Covid-19 and any content that is salvageable should be Merged into that article. TarnishedPath^talk 09:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. TarnishedPath^talk 09:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. There are no legitimate reasons I can think of to have two articles on the same subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a first brief look, I am not convinced that this article in its current state is a WP:POVFORK of Origin of COVID-19. The first sentence, for example, is SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, was first introduced to humans through zoonosis. Also, it seems to spend quite a lot of space refuting some features of SARS-CoV-2 that have been proposed as 'evidence' by conspiracy theories ('furin cleavage sites' etc.) which its parent article does not do (and perhaps should). Perhaps someone can point out where this article diverges from the mainstream consensus, or contradicts or undermines the parent article (preferably without mentioning blocks or sanctions against the original author). In fact, the structure of this article looks a lot like the 'Zoonosis' section of the Origin of COVID-19 article should look. Perhaps we should move Origin of COVID-19 to Chronological history of investigations and reactions to investigations into the origin of COVID-19, then move Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 to Origin of COVID-19, and add the unlikely theories like lab leak and the other kooky stuff to the bottom? Tewdar 12:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Biology, COVID-19, and Medicine. TarnishedPath^talk 12:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Tewdar has a point that this article includes a few details that the parent article does not. However, that does not justify the existence of this fork article, and certainly does not justify turning this into the primary parent article. A merge retains the information we need, and then any formatting & layout concerns can be brought to the remaining article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there is more than enough here to warrant its own article. I don't see this a fork at all, but a fuller discourse on the subject.Graham Beards (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If anything, some material from the Origin of COVID-19 article should be moved here. The Origin of COVID-19 works well as an overview ("Main") article, and specific sub-subjects should have their own article. Abiogenesis similarly is a carryall "Main" article with a number of separate articles on various theories for the Origin of Life. This article would become massive and unwieldy if merged. Jaredroach (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - having now reviewed the article, I can find no evidence that this is a (POV) fork, and I can't really see how it could be, since its 'parent' would probably be better titled 'Chronology of Investigations into the Origin of COVID-19'. Per Graham Beards, this article appears to be a fuller discourse on the subject which probably couldn't reasonably have all its relevant content merged with its supposed parent. Incidentally, there is no good reason not to have a more detailed child article just because an overwhelming majority of scientists believe something: some article groups don't even seem to have a parent article, even though there is one theory that near-completely dominates competing theories, e.g. Recent African origin of modern humans vs Multiregional origin of modern humans (but no Origin of modern humans parent article, which is a redirect to Early modern human#Age and speciation process). Tewdar 15:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic currently. Perhaps we should prune any chronological details from parent and move before a merge. 2600:8804:6600:4:E857:BFEB:7B9A:9779 (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a chronology of the pandemic, not a chronology of investigations into the origin of the virus. Tewdar 22:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, should we use it as a template for Timeline of the COVID-19 origin investigation? 2600:8804:6600:4:4C95:F6C6:D097:4C8B (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Whether it is a POVFORK, a non-POV fork or just a spin-off article, it does not seem necessary to have two articles. A reasonable estimate of the size of a merged article would be a little over 6,000 words. That's not big enough to require a WP:SIZESPLIT. One could argue that, while we would not split it if it was already merged, it is unnecessary effort to merge it given that it is already split. That's arguable but I feel that having one less COVID article to protect from the interventions from cranks would probably justify that effort in the long term. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How have you arrived at this estimate of 6000 words? I make it ~7307 words. 5247 (prose size of Origins of COVID-19 article ) - 374 (current Zoonosis section in Origins... article, assuming 100% duplication in the other article) + 2434 (size of Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 article) = 7307 words, for which WP:SIZESPLIT does not tell me 'What to do'. The article has had 6 edits, and 428 views, in the last 30 days, so protecting it from interventions from cranks does not appear to be a pressing concern at the moment. And, if having two articles is a problem, we should probably delete Origins of COVID-19, not this one. It only has four paragraphs in the Zoonosis section, and is mainly a chronology of investigations into COVID origins. Perhaps it should be moved to a more suitable title. Tewdar 19:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are currently two theories regarding the origins of covid: a lab leak and zoonosis. Even though zoonosis is the mainstream theory, for some reason its page is only the third of the size of the lab leak theory page. For balance I think it would be a good idea to keep the zoonosis page instead of merging it. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, these theories are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they cannot be. Whether or not anything happened in a lab that contributed to the pandemic, whatever happened before the lab was zoonotic. Not that this nuance is terribly relevant to the keep/delete discussion, but it may not be widely appreciated. Jaredroach (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaredroach, "whatever happened before the lab". Can you clarify what you exactly mean by that? TarnishedPath^talk 04:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @ජපස, @Sennalen, @DFlhb, @MisterWizzy, @Aquillion, @Bon courage, @Generalrelative and @Novem Linguae as editors who were all involved in a previous merge discussion which seems to have gone nowhere. Apologies if I missed anyone. TarnishedPath^talk 05:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there was agreement to merge, and it's on my (long) TODO list. But there's an amount of fiddly busy work to be done reconciling the citation formats, so it's not just a cut and paste job. Bon courage (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bon courage, it seemed to me that there was consensus for a merge, however that seemed to have gone stale so I thought it best to raise this especially considering I couldn't find a merge template? TarnishedPath^talk 07:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems fine to me. I am sympathetic to the complaints that there ought to be more real estate to this explanation than the lab leak flights of fancy. jps (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might I suggest that the end result for this reconciliation process should be a well-organized bibliography section that uses sfn, like the Zoonotic origins... article, rather than just shoving the references in any old how at the end of a sentence with <ref name= scattered all over the place, like the Origins... article. Tewdar 09:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Origin of Covid-19. This was created as a WP:POVFORK, and efforts to salvage it are a solution looking for a problem - everything here is simply the origin of COVID-19 and should be covered on that article. --Aquillion (talk) 06:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Should have Origin of Covid-19 and Covid-19 Conspiracy Theories 2600:8804:6600:4:D29:B065:C6ED:8647 (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updating to TRIPLE Reverse Merge after reviewing comments below it seems best to move content to this page and retire Origin of Covid. All theories that have no scientific basis should be contained to Covid-19 Conspiracy Theories because they rely on broad accusations of conspiracies perpetrated by scientists or governments. 2600:8804:6600:4:C85E:667E:14B1:53B (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Talk:Zoonotic origins of COVID-19#CFORK or POVFORK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinker78 (talk • contribs)
Keep per Jaredroach and Graham Beards. - SchroCat (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This content would work best in the origins article; in the unlikely event it ever gets too big it can be spun out again. Bon courage (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TRIPLE Keep … The COVID topic, including its origins, has unfortunately fallen victim to over-politicization. My 'triple' remark is intended as a light-hearted joke, albeit one that may not translate well through text. However, setting jest aside, nobody here has disputed the fact that this article outshines the main COVID origins article in terms of its organization, composition, and fidelity to the source material. While I certainly don't claim expertise in this field, I find it noteworthy that editors with proven knowledge, including Jared Roach and Graham Beards, have overwhelmingly supported its retention. XMcan (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
nobody here has disputed the fact that this article outshines the main COVID origins article

That's an incredibly hyperbolic statement that does not match what people have said. At best, there are some facts in this article that can be merged into the main one. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case Perhaps we should move Origin of COVID-19 to Chronological history of investigations and reactions to investigations into the origin of COVID-19, then move Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 to Origin of COVID-19 was not clear enough: the Origins of COVID-19 article is not an article about the Origins of COVID-19. It is a chronological history of investigations and reactions to investigations into the origin of COVID-19, with four pathetic paragraphs about the mainstream Zoonotic origins theory, two lousy paragraphs about 'Unlikely scenarios', and a whopping 50+ paragraphs about investigations and reactions to investigations into the origin of COVID-19. In short, in my opinion, this article outshines the main COVID origins article and should probably be the basis for that article. Also, the referencing system used in the other article suuuuuucks. Tewdar 19:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per my reasoning in the earlier talk page discussion. DFlhb (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge other content into this article as needed. This article is higher quality than the other COVID origins articles, particularly in NPOV. Better to raise the other articles to this standard than to lower it to theirs. - Palpable (talk) 06:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've not given an argument for why this article is more NPOV. PS, reference formatting isn't it. TarnishedPath^talk 13:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a start, the 'Investigations' section of the Origin of COVID-19 article is massively undue for an article purportedly (according to its title, at least) about the evolutionary pathway of the virus and the manner of its transmission to humans. This section, which is comparatively massive, is heavily dependent on relatively low-quality news sources. The level of detail about controversies surrounding the various investigations is ridiculously undue in such an article. The chronological summary style also results in undue weight for the lab leak theory ("an investigation found lab leak unlikely ", "another investigation found it unlikely" "a third investigation found it unlikely", "ooh, this investigation found it plausible", "oh look, this one doesn't rule it out either"...) This is not how to write an NPOV encyclopedia article on the Origin of COVID-19. Also, I'd like to take this opportunity to once again give my opinion on the terrible reference formatting, which is just thrown together, much like the rest of the article.

Incidentally, nobody has given any argument for why this article is a WP:POVFORK, despite this being the original reason given for why this article should be deleted/merged and despite me asking if Perhaps someone can point out where this article diverges from the mainstream consensus, or contradicts or undermines the parent article and even putting this request in bold font. Zero Zip Zilch Nada. Tewdar 15:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you don't recognize the house style, the discussion history makes it clear that the Origin of COVID-19 article is proudly and unashamedly polemic. - Palpable (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These articles are apples and pears. This article describes what it says it does, looking carefully at the hypotheses and explaining as it goes, whereas Origin of COVID-19 tells us more about the investigations than the actual origins of the virus. So, if we had to only keep one, I would say it should be this one, and we should merge the other article into here, largely as a kind of addendum about the investigations and politics. Or we could keep both, and perhaps signpost between them. This is clearly not a POVFORK. There is no POV here. It could be classed as a content fork, but forks are acceptable as long as they are not a WP:BADFORK. If not a POV fork (and again, it isn't) then the other BADFORK is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. But it isn't redundant. There is plenty on this page that is not on that one. So not a bad fork, and no case for deletion. What about merge? Well that is an available outcome at AfD, but in this case the AfD was started during an unclosed merge discussion, and the merge discussion may have foundered because there is a prima facie case it was backwards. That Origin of COVID-19 should be merged here. Nevertheless the discussion is ongoing and this AfD is thus out of process for that merge discussion. Better that this is closed as keep and then the merge discussion can then proceed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm intrigued by this 'reverse merge' idea which will effectively shut down Wikipedia saying the origin of SCV2 was anything other than zoonotic. Maybe people are getting more sensible here! Bon courage (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The four pathetic paragraphs about zoonotic origins and the two lousy paragraphs about 'Unlikely scenarios' in the other article can quite easily be merged into this one. Then Origin of COVID-19 can be moved to a more appropriate title, like Chronological history of investigations, controversies surrounding investigations, politicisation of investigations, email correspondence regarding investigations, and architecture of buildings used to carry out investigations into the origin of COVID-19 or something like that. Tewdar 19:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Market Village. If this Centre is ever built, this decision can be revisited. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remington Centre

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

I am proposing this article for deletion. This mall/development was never built and w and apparently the developer cancelled it. I don't think this would warrant inclusion in Wikipedia if it was never built in the first place. If you visit the proposed site around Steeles and Kennedy in Markham today, all you'll find is an empty patch of land. It is next to Pacific Mall.

You may want to search on Google- there are complaints about people who bought condos as part of this development that was never built.

Wikipedia should not host articles about proposed developments that didn't get off the ground. WizardGamer775 (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Market Village: Could be a brief mention there, not notable otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Market Village Another one of these vague 'Chinese marketplace malls' that seem to only exist to horde land (re: Northridge Mall) and never actually broke ground. Nate • (chatter) 23:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 21:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nulloy

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

I can't find any coverage from a reliable source about this software, so I think it fails WP: N. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. failed WP:GNG. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been edited quite a lot since the nomination. What did you think of the additions, Youknowwhoistheman? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Thanks, you with warm Regards! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don’t think any of the sources that have been added thus far establish notability, because there is no way to establish the reliability of the sources. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Red Bull#Team ownership and sponsorships. Owen× ☎ 19:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Bulls (esports)

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

Red Bull making a venture into esports is notable; this is attested to by the reliable sources given. The organization itself was never notable during its history as it never made it to a top-tier league, nor did it ever sign notable players. The sources given may justify a few sentences talking about this failed venture at the Red Bull article, but it does not justify this former esports organization having its own article. Yue🌙 19:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Organizations, Sports, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is pretty borderline here. At the very least we should be merged/redirecting to Red Bull or another suitable target. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Red Bull had other esport teams and hosted tournaments. I suggest expanding the article scope outside League. IgelRM (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Red Bull#Team ownership and sponsorships until the scope is expanded (like said above) and notability better established. --Mika1h (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Red Bull#Team ownership and sponsorships .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 19:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Václav Sršeň

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Czech Republic. Joeykai (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page needs to be rewritten, not deleted. Cswiki lists literature from which to draw so reliable sources exist. FromCzech (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. His career was a lot longer than the article lets on, 16 years. Geschichte (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added a second source which confirms he played over 200 top-level matches in Czechoslovakia in a career spanning from 1942 to 1958. C 679 06:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 17:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems obvious given the source provided above and the numerous substantial sources in the article. Not sure why this one was tagged. Anwegmann (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has an international cap therefore he is undoubtedly notable. IJA (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is not supported by our notability guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Robby.is.on (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems to have something there, but without knowing whats in the books etc, it's hard to determine. But based on the amount of football he played, I wouldn't be surprised if there are other sources out there. Govvy (talk) 09:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The book sources, which we cannot access, appear to have a good chance of being significant coverage. Considering the subject (200+ top-level matches, national team member), I'd lean towards keeping. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mozilla localizations

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

Localization of Mozilla Products do not warrant a separate article. Greatder (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Greatder (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTCHANGELOG StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero point in having this article. Srijanx22 (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ben Azura (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Grand Erie District School Board. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mt Pleasant Public School

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

Nothing of particular note about the relatively small K-middle school. Newhaven lad (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grand Erie District School Board per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drumheller, Washington

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

Declined PROD. This location is non-notable and I can find no evidence it was ever a "town"; the existence of a post office for three years and the appearance of a dot with the name "Drumheller" on a 1963 plat map do not establish notability. Reference 3 (Meany) does use the word "town", but other recent AfD's have shown that source played fast and loose with its research. GNIS is not notability, and a rural schoolhouse with a co-located rural post office is not a "town". Satellite view of coordinates shows a single farm. WP:GEOLAND is clearly failed. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Washington. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Here are some possible sources that Meany may have gotten his information from. So, I don't think it's his fault, beyond his obvious plagiarism. https://www.newspapers.com/article/spokane-chronicle-placenames1918apr26/129354957/ https://www.google.com/books/edition/Washington_Historical_Quarterly/pNC42qbpD20C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22sam+drumheller%22+washington&pg=PA117&printsec=frontcover . I couldn't find anything, until I looked at Sam Drumheller himself. He did in fact found a town named after himself in Alberta, Canada. He was famous at the time because of his Coal Magnate status. Drumheller was the name of a grange district in Franklin county, that was also probably named for him, since he had spent time farming in the area. I believe one of the earlier sources may have become confused, perhaps because of the post office named for the grange district. Regardless there is only one source that says Drumheller was town and two sources that just plagiarized that that source. I think that 1918 source was wrong, and this place didn't exist. Just to cover my bases, the existence of post offices is not proof because they were not always located in towns.James.folsom (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I overlooked the fact that the 1918 washington historical quarterly states as a source for this as "Peter Klundt, Names MSS, letter 27" and also that Meany was involved with this too. I can't figure out what this orginal source was exactly, but Peter Klundt was a postmaster in Franklin county Washington and from what I have seen, Names MSS seems to be some kind of collection of letters from postmasters. Regardless I think some wires got crossed somewhere, because if the place existed there would be more evidence than these inbred sources.James.folsom (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources in the article are in sufficient to demonstrate that this was ever a town or populated place within the meaning of WP:GEOLAND and neither I nor James.folsom, who is quite good at finding such things, could locate any such sources in our searches. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 15:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Numbi

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Joeykai (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Democratic Republic of the Congo, Czech Republic, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we are past the times when 1 game in the USL Championship = an article. Geschichte (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One professional appearance in a five-year career clearly fails WP:GNG. Also fails WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Robinson (footballer)

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Joeykai (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Had a reasonable career in the Mexican second and third divisions but hasn't played, it seems, in four years. Definitely fails WP:GNG on that note. Anwegmann (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 14:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Turner (therapist)

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

Unable to find sources meeting WP:GNG or WP:NBIO, (in particular, we are lacking in significant coverage) there may be something meeting WP:NACADEMIC but I have not been able to find it. Page sources mostly amount to profile pages, interviews & unreliable sources (Metro, Medium) ASUKITE 14:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Organizations, Medicine, and Australia. ASUKITE 14:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the editor User:Human Insider has been indef blocked as a sock puppet. — Maile (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: any reliable source is directly quoting Lisa Turner about a different subject. She was ^afairy 10:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and per User:Shewasafairy above, no SIGCOV yet in reliable sources, just interviews, quotes and passing mentions. Wikishovel (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Yep, too much quotations in reliable sources guarantees that they are interviews, aside from unreliable content. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 20:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only mentions are insufficient to prove the subject's notability and no reliable references were found.Yolandagonzales (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:G5‎. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zumrud Mirzaeva

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable individual. Googling her name in both English and Russian yields nothing in the news section. Current sources are in Russian, but Google Translate revealed they are just profiles, unreliable, and have only a couple of passing mentions. GSS ^💬 13:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Russia. GSS ^💬 13:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails notability guidelines; no actual reliable sources found. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 20:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page created by globally banned spammer User:Papa2004 (confirmed). Same page in simple. I added CSD mark. Кронас (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sweble

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

Nominating on behalf of 86.23.109.101 (talk). Their rationale is as follows:

I am really struggling to see how this wikitext parser is notable. The page has been tagged as being of questionable notability and using primary sources since 2011, so I think it's about time it went to AFD.
There doesn't seem to be a single source in the article that demonstrates third party coverage of this software. Citations 1, 2 and 3 are links to the software's own website. Citation 4 is an announcement that the authors of the software will be presenting it at a conference. Citations 5, 7, 10 and 11 are papers written by the authors of Sweble. Citation 6 is a dead link to what seems to have been an open source community page? Citations 8 and 9 are pages on the mediawiki wiki, unusable as sources.
A few google searches failed to turn up anything usable, mostly software repositories and the papers written by the software's authors. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Liu1126 (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Liu1126 (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little to no independent, reliable coverage. The top Google Scholar hits are student theses from advisees of the software creators. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 14:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lin-ay sang Tablas

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

Unsourced town-level beauty pageant. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 14:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concepcion–Clark Transmission Line

AfDs for this article:

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

Per precedent at both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermosa–Duhat–Balintawak Transmission Line and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mexico–Hermosa Transmission Line: the article of an obviously unnotable transmission line lacks at least 3 or more reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject itself. It only has one such qualified source (this), which is not enough unfortunately. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator: it appears I have already nominated this way back 2021, yet there has been no substantial sourcing improvements. A single citation to the Philippine Star helps, but is not sufficient to keep this article. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nomination seems based on a false premise that we need three WP:GNG sources. One quality source is enough. Garuda3 (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Garuda3 I don't think it's enough. It still makes the notability point weak. The transmission line is just one ordinary transmission line that is like all transmission lines here in the Philippines. Much of the article is also original research, with the editors' claims of steel pole details relatively based on what they heard or seen in person. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article of an obviously unnotable transmission line lacks at least 3 or more reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject itself. It only has one such qualified source (this), which is not enough unfortunately. It mostly contains primary sources (information that came from National Transmission Corporation (TransCo) and National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) which are companies that were involved on a power line and its associated projects during their operations and maintenance (O&M) period on the line, whether on documents for the construction of a power line and its projects or physically (Danger: High Voltage signs placed on steel poles or lattice towers)). Ervin111899 (talk) 06:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say we need three sources? Garuda3 (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks -- ‍ Shonyx

Delete. I see only one, brief, source that supports notability. WP:GNG says "reliable sources", plural, which generally excludes topics with only one good source, even a very good source much more in depth than [2]. While three sources are usually preferred, I, and I think many other wikipedians, would be okay with two provided they are fully independent and provide sufficient depth of coverage to base an article on them. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Confirming delete by the contributor: Otherwise, the article has only single source that only supports notability. At such older WP:AFD requests, like this one, has no clearer consensus. To all Philippine contributors that contributes local transmission line articles, add more or reduce the number of references from respective, couraged, affiliated and notable owners. Since NGCP has no notability supporting documents due to privacy and confidential issues, use the alternative, notable sources from affiliated companies who constructed this line. I am not agree that this page will delete. WP:GNG said that "reliable sources, plural" means that the affiliated sources are only used in this page. Basic references is nothing in this article. ‍ Shonyx 10:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Mason

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

Having a hard time to find any SIGCOV about Heather per WP:BEFORE, either at google scholar (I might be wrong). Ref 26 and 27 might be helpful, but isn't enough to pull WP:GNG around somehow. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters of the Silent Hill series#Heather Mason. I don't see any evidence of WP:SIGCOV at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] There are other scholarly sources that seemed to discuss Heather that I don't seem to be able to access, but these six sources cover Heather in a significant fashion. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: [9] This source goes over the character's recent resurgance on Tik Tock, and I believe Variety is a high profile source to count as a SIGCOV per Wikipedia's rules. There's also this piece from Collider that goes into the character from 2021 [10], but I don't know if Collider meets the SIGCOV guidelines. Transformers03 (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but both the sources you cited were unreliable but I think the article will survive because of the discovered sources above. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true, Vulture is a reliable source, and Collider is not listed as unreliable on either here or WP:RSP. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote down Variety, but I meant Vulture, and Cukie Gherkin is right. Vulture has been used multiple times as a reliable source for film and television, and is listed as reliable source on the Reliable sources/Perennial sources Wikipedia page. Vulture is listed reliable as as a subsidiary of the New York magazine. The Vulture piece is a real commentary about the subject within a modern context, showcasing the character is still relevant. Transformers03 (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've looked through the presented sources and am still unconvinced. It's essentially a few paragraphs of real commentary mixed with a lot of fluff - there is no slam-dunk evidence that the character list would be too small to hold all the commentary about her, which is what the argument must be here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what your point is here. A few paragraphs of significant commentary isn't discounted by the presence of fluff around it. It just seems like you admitted that there's significant coverage of Heather to me! As WP:GNG notes, the article itself doesn't have to be about the subject for it to constitute as sigcov. Also, "this character could fit into a list" isn't an argument either, as the question of if a character could have an article is weighed more on the character's individual notability than the character's ability to work in a list. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- To make a comparison, it was argued on the World of Ruin talk page that the subject, even if notable, could work better as part of the FF6 article. In that case, there is an argument to be made that the subject actively works better as part of the FF6 article, not just that it could be covered. Unless you've changed your mind on that article, I would contend "it could work in its main article" applies more there than it does here. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Pointing to an editor's other, totally unrelated article to impugn them is an argument to the person. You are essentially accusing me of bad faith when there is no evidence that is the case. AfD is a harsh enough environment without other editors insinuating you lack the credentials to ever participate there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I made the point that I find it difficult to understand the standard you are applying based on previous discussions, which I think is a perfectly valid thing to bring up. My argument is that I cannot understand the rationale behind your argument or why you're making it. As you yourself noted, Heather has real commentary, so I legitimately have no idea what your objection is. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I usually consider the nature of the commentary, whether it is done as an aside to a larger topic or as part of something largely focused on the topic in question. If there were a couple other articles like the Vulture one I would probably think it was weakly meriting an article, but I am seeing larger discussions about the plot of Silent Hill 3 in which Heather is brought up in passing alongside various other characters who are given equal billing (thus making it better for a character article reception discussion), and listicles. Unless some really good alternative sources come up I won't be swayed on this, but that's my opinion and people are free to dissent. I'm not gonna argue if everyone else thinks otherwise. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: useful sources discovered. The dogcat (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources linked by Cukie Gherkin and Transformers03—digital magazines like Vulture and Vice, the horror media network Bloody Disgusting, and the Changing Views – Worlds in Play conference proceeding—are what convince me of notability. I don't consider myself familiar enough with ~~Resident Evil~~ Silent Hill to give this article the work I think it does need, but I think we can keep it around to let that happen. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [Correction posted P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)][reply]
Correction. Silent Hill, not Resident Evil. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 06:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right! Sorry about that slip of the keyboard. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert Klyne Headley

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. No suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 08:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and West Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was able to find news coverage pretty easily. It's mostly local coverage, but it demonstrates that Headley's music was performed by notable orchestras and notable conductors. And some of it has been issued on a major label since his death. His California Suite seems to have been widely performed in the 1940's. So I think he meets the first criterion for notability by composers, and that's all that's needed for the article to survive AfD. I'll try to add some of the news coverage I found to document the various facts of his life and career. P Aculeius (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Afd proposal quotes the WP:MUSICBIO, which redirects to Criteria for musicians and ensembles, but as the subject of this article is a composer, it seems to me that we should refer to WP:COMPOSER for the criteria.
- In this context, this composer fulfills at least one criterion, for instance : Has credit for writing (...) music for a notable composition. as he wrote several compositions that are of high personal and skilled levels and that are published or listed as interesting on their subjet (this is how I interpret notable), and apparently one of the most notable one is the California Suite published by Naxos on the performance of Dmitry Yablonsky and that has several reviews on specialized websites for classical music, like Classics Today or Music Web International; this suite is listed in this this article from a specialized site on music of Hong-Kong (!) as containing a notable mouvement about the Golden gate, which "provides an impressionist depiction of the sights and sounds of San Francisco". In this page of the Canadian Music Centre, we can see that such a public institution celebrated recently (2017) this composer, by playing other pieces (chamber music in this case).
- Moreover, a second criterion may be mentioned, Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter, or lyricist that meets the above criteria., as it is mentioned on the netherlands version of wikipedia article for this composer that he was the teacher of Robert (Bob) Buckley, who apparently specialized on music for large scaled events like Olympic games, and arrangements for pop music artists like Brian Adams, and this student composer matches several criteria (despite he does not have a wiki page).
- The problem with this composer is that he was forgotten for some time (a few decades) and he just started to be rediscovered (the CMC Canada explains here how he was rediscovered in Canada), but this problem is very frequent for classical music composers and also happened to very important composers like Bach (completely forgotten after his death, until Mendelssohn played his music again almost one century later), or for a similar period of time than for Headley, to Mieczysław Weinberg.
- In conclusion, this article clearly needs improvements, but certainly not deletion. Galanga (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I spent most of the day gathering news articles about Headley, and incorporating their contents into the article. However, I was taking notes, and may have left out useful details. Some sources I had hoped would provide more information about concert performances either didn't, or weren't available (I wasn't able to determine which). I found a program, but wasn't sure how to cite it. There were also non-musical radio (and television?) appearances that I didn't cite, as I wasn't sure they were important enough to mention. I also know that Headley had a son, but not sure whether he had other children. I'm sure that the list of compositions could be more thorough and perhaps improved; I hesitated about where to place some things, and how best to cite them. Would be glad of any help in that regard. However, I think the article is now clearly sufficient to demonstrate notability and verifiability, and should easily survive AfD. P Aculeius (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with all the keep reasons presented. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Agrabad Balika Bidyalay

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

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

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

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

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

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

Georges Demulder

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I don't see the article failing in WP:GNG. It was commented in previous AfD that Belgium has a lack of online information about newpapers database, so I believe that there is a satisfactory amount of offline sources, as demonstrated by @gidonb. Svartner (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm in full agreement with Svartner. This is no notability failure, just an access to sources problem. There are plenty of sources offline. Also, the article is no longer a stub. gidonb (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are online sources as well, but don't expect google to find them for you. A first step is make an account on belgica.be [11] Cattivi (talk) 12:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mister Maker Around the World

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AC Express (Indian Railways)

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

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

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

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

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

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

High school rank

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of trains run by Indian Railways

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inertia negation

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Molina

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Honduras. Joeykai (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A century of caps for one of the most successful teams in the Honduran top flight over an eight-year-old career makes him notable and significant, at least locally. Here are two substantial sources: [12] and [13]. Anwegmann (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be an important figure for F.C. Motagua, winning titles with them, there are probably more local sources for him. But the article certainly isn't the best, needs a lot to be added too it. Govvy (talk) 08:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article needs improvement, but it doesn't fail WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has international caps therefore he is undoubtedly notable. IJA (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2023 WESPA Championship (WESPAC)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Games, and Nevada. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to Slate, coverage from Australian Broadcasting Corporation [15], The Guardian (Nigeria) [16], The Forward [17]. ~ A412 ^talk! 22:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I saw those, they aren't SIGCOF about the tournament by any means, but the ABC and Forward pieces could certainly add to David Eldar's notability. With all due respect, I think we should be more discerning with what exactly constitutes notability and significant coverage... It was a different story with past events that actually were "World Scrabble Championship"s (TM) (2018 for instance), but this one is a far cry from those... KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 23:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, we're going to have to disagree on both points here. First, I don't think "officialness" / manufacturer-association of the event, versus those titled "World Scrabble Championship", should make any difference when assessing notability, otherwise we're just introducing editorial bias on what we subjectively find more important. Second, sure, I'll concede that the Forward piece is primarily about Eldar, not the event, but the first two sources discuss structure, standings, context, and specific plays of the event. That sounds like coverage of the event to me. ~ A412 ^talk! 23:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not misunderstand what I meant in the latter half of my statement. I did not mean to imply that being the "official" Worlds automatically makes it notable, but that the previous events that had, in my opinion, much more substantial coverage were incidentally "official" events (but it is easy to see why the BBC and NYT eould be more inclined to run stories about an actual WSC as oppposed to a "WESPAC".) To your second point, I insist that those sources are by no means adequate as far as this event is concerned — you can find similar pieces with such details about other random tournaments, so by your metric we ought to have articles about them too. But, really, SIGCOV is a higher standard than just that. If we had a few more articles like the Slate piece, then fine, but we don't. Cheers, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 10:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just tell me honestly if you feel the benchmark set out in WP:EVENTS is met: "An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." I think the answer should be fairly obvious... Nuff said, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 10:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I honestly do. There are sources across multiple continents (global scope); before, during, and after the tournament (lasting coverage). While yes, it may not be as notable as the "official" tournament, I think it cleanly passes WP:NEVENT. I don't think we disagree on policy here, we disagree on whether it's met, so I'm going to disengage here and let others comment. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, guess we have to agree to disagree. I consider myself an "inclusionist" but I just don't see it here, sadly KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Considering the WP:EVENTS benchmark that Kingoflettuce cited above, I would be inclined to merge this, and all of the other individual event pages, into two articles: the existing one for World Scrabble Championship and one covering all WESPAC events. I'd also like to apologize to Kingoflettuce for conflating the two. I'm new to following the Scrabble tournaments and was trying my best — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElatedCoder (talk • contribs)
- Hey, no worries — it's nothing personal. I'd like to think that we all edit in good faith and I can see the effort you put in (hence I opened this nom with "unfortunately"...). And you certainly don't owe me an apology! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DJ D. Pewee

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

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

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

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

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

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

2024 Selma-Winchester tornado

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ashok Attri (diplomat)

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

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

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

Maliner (talk) 07:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Attri has served as India's ambassador to Denmark and Oman and a high-ranking member of its missions in Zambia and the US, and took up his last post c. 2010. So it's likely that much of the available sources are a) in Arabic, Danish, Hindi and other Indian languages, and b) in print newspapers. A simple Google search isn't going to find any of that up, and as such I don't think this nomination presents adequate grounds for deletion. Searching just in Danish turns up dozens of sources, especially with regard to the Niels Holck extradition, a diplomatic dispute between Denmark and India in 2011 in which, as the Indian ambassador to Denmark, Attri was obviously a key figure.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] This case was also covered in the English press[26] and doubtless even more so in Hindi and Bengali, but I don't have the language skills to search for those. – Joe (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't find any significant coverage in Denmark. How are the above hits about Ashok Attri? I know from Denmark's neighboring country (Norway) that the only foreign ambassadors who attract media attention about their person are those of the US and Israel. Having a key role in an "affair" is an argument for merging with said affair. Receiving orders is common for diplomats. Geschichte (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say there was significant coverage (there might be, I wasn't really checking). My point was that offline sources and sources in languages other than English are very likely to exist and that, unless those are checked, we can't properly assess the level of coverage. I take the fact that five minutes of searching, in a language that I only have limited proficient in, produced eight additional sources as a strong indication that significant coverage is probably out there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fortune Indonesia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sto. Tomas Integrated High School

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

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

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

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