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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Paramount+ original programming. Daniel ( talk) 23:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

List of Ended Paramount+ original programming

List of Ended Paramount+ original programming (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The user did not discuss this on the original talk page before creating the article. When you look at lists of ended shows on Netflix and Prime Video, it becomes clear that this article falls short, as Paramount+ does not have enough ended shows that warrant a separate page, compared to the previously mentioned streamers. My concern aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines, which stress the importance of authority and reliable sources. A thorough evaluation is needed to take a close look at how significant this article is in the context of Paramount+'s programming history, because right now, it doesn't measure up to the standards set by other well-established streaming services. BrickMaster02 ( talk) 18:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep: I'm not sure what the reason for the nomination is. If the article falls short of our writing standard, we improve it, not delete it. It does not have enough ended shows? The article currently lists almost 100 shows. How much is enough to warrant a standalone article? If sourcing is sufficient to provide notability, I see no reason to remove the page. Note that the nom previously tagged this article for speedy deletion with the reason, "Did not discuss on original talk page regarding the creation of this". I don't know why the nom believes article creation must be previously discussed with them. Owen× ☎ 20:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to List of Paramount+ original programming We simply don't break out defunct programming into separate articles, and section it under 'former programming', and these articles are wholly out of established WP:TV editing standards. Nate • ( chatter) 21:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Also..."A show is also assumed to have ended if there has been no confirmed news of renewal at least one year after the show's last episode was released." That's not how we source a program's end, ever. You can't make up criteria for something to be in an article based on something you made up. Nate • ( chatter) 02:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Yes, but then "List of ended Netflix original programming" and "List of ended Amazon Prime Video original programming" should be redirected too? IgelRM ( talk) 02:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to List of Paramount+ original programming This list is currently unnecessary, there isn't a large amount of ended shows, like other platforms have, that justified splitting out this list. Also, discussions should occur on talk pages prior to making a controversial edit, such as splitting an article, which is why the PROD probably is a reasonable rationale. Happily888 ( talk) 23:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Poorni

Poorni (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. No significant roles, no good sources either. Redirect to Boss Engira Bhaskaran, only cited role. DareshMohan ( talk) 20:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nom. Only two films with no significant roles. Definitely doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article. Deltaspace⁴² ( talk • contribs) 00:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel ( talk) 12:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Paulina Sarkanaitė

Paulina Sarkanaitė (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject, a Lithuanian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found was this. Otherwise, it's all passing mentions ( 1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG ( talk) 23:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Lithuania. JTtheOG ( talk) 23:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Here's the SIGCOV [1] to satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC, GNG. Hopefully the article can be improved. Respublik ( talk) 01:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

That source (a YouTube video produced by a football club) is neither reliable nor independent so contributes nothing towards notability. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

That source is not from the club, nor has anything to do with it. It's a reupload. Original source is the Lithuanian radio TAU. Respublik ( talk) 17:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

On a further analysis, the part from 00:00 to 00:05 is by the club. All the remaining content (00:06-23:48) is a reupload from an independent source as stated above. Respublik ( talk) 22:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I don't speak Lithuanian but it sounds like a direct interview with the player herself. Anything coming directly out of the player's own mouth will be non-independent. We need an article built on what people in the media are saying about her not what she says about herself. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete – An article " List of Lithuania women's international footballers" should be created to cover these athletes, as well as in other similar cases. Svartner ( talk) 13:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Growing American Youth

Growing American Youth (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:ORG. Most of the coverage is local press ie St Louis Post-Dispatch which doesn't meet WP:AUD. LibStar ( talk) 23:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, and Missouri. LibStar ( talk) 23:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nom. Google search showed that it is indeed only in St Louis. Yeah, the audience is too small. Deltaspace⁴² ( talk • contribs) 00:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete more coverage outside of the sources presented would be needed to meet notability requirements. UptonSincere ( talk) 02:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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!} 21:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Barbie Fashion Model Collection

Barbie Fashion Model Collection (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Couldn't find a single reliable secondary source. QuietCicada - Talk 23:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Toys and Products. QuietCicada - Talk 23:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete This really shouldn't have been created without any secondary sourcing. Fails WP:GNG evidently. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 01:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Washington Bridge (Providence, Rhode Island). Daniel ( talk) 23:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

2023 Washington Bridge closure

2023 Washington Bridge closure (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The bridge was temporarily closed ahead of a major incident, and reopened sooner than expected. Neither of these factors seem to convey notability. Explicitly not in favor of a redirect to Interstate_195_(Rhode_Island–Massachusetts)#Washington_Bridge_closure as I don't think it even merits long term mention there, but am fine with it if consensus emerges. Star Mississippi 22:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. Star Mississippi 22:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete, no redirect - This just doesn't seem notable. A bridge being closed due to maintenance issues is pretty routine and run of the mill. Unless something unexpected happens, like the bridge outright collapsing, I can't see this passing either WP:NEVENT or WP:GNG. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 22:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Washington Bridge (Providence, Rhode Island). Closure of a major bridge on an interstate highway tends to make the national news. (Note that the closure is ongoing - traffic has been diverted to the parallel span, but it looks like a few months til the north span opens.) While I don't see it as having ensuring enough notability for an independent article, a redirect is useful for categorization in Category:2023 in Rhode Island and so on. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 00:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep - This major road closure was caused by a junior engineer reporting rod failures, and was extremely sudden. The closure caused five hour traffic delays in Providence County, which have caused press conferences to happen every single day since the incident. Assuming that the page cannot be kept, it should be merged with Washington Bridge (Providence, Rhode Island). -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 15:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Washington Bridge (Providence, Rhode Island). desmay ( talk) 21:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Washington Bridge (Providence, Rhode Island). Disclaimer: I was asked by Sideswipe9th about this article's notability a few days prior to this AfD, and found myself agreeing that it wasn't worth its own article. The Hernando de Soto Bridge has no separate failure article despite being probably more notable of a closure, so I don't see why this one should have an article. LilianaUwU ^{( talk / contributions)} 06:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Washington Bridge (Providence, Rhode Island). We don't need an article on relatively routine infrastructure maintenance. Partofthemachine ( talk) 07:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge, no redirect. Traffic jams are not notable. Laughable that editors are voting to keep articles on bridge maintenance and traffic jams in the United States when we're deleting articles about traffic accidents in other countries that killed two or three dozen people. Clear case of WP:SYSTEMIC. What's the point of a redirect? Who's going to search on this title? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Reply - Per WP:CHEAP, why should the page history not be kept for a legitimate search term? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 16:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Washington Bridge (Providence, Rhode Island) per others. Fails WP:NEVENT and mentioned at the target. Seems obvious. And if we merge, then of course we redirect because we preserve attribution and redirects are cheap. If nobody searches for it, it won't get used (who cares). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Washington Bridge (Providence, Rhode Island). The section in the article is about as long and well referenced. Should be redirected and someone who feels that something is still missing can look in the history. gidonb ( talk) 02:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Washington Bridge (Providence, Rhode Island) as it doesn't meet a separate GNG. With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk) 22:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Redirect as there's sufficient coverage at Washington Bridge (Providence, Rhode Island) already (if anything a bit excessive). Elli ( talk | contribs) 02:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space and submit it to WP:AFC, let me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

List of Logitech Racing Wheels compatible games

List of Logitech Racing Wheels compatible games (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Combination list for 11 different models or series of controllers, sourced to primary game support pages, or secondary reviews of certain controller models. It would make more sense to list specific game compatibility on the pages for the specific controllers themselves. QuietCicada - Talk 21:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada - Talk 21:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It's potentially useful info for someone, but not necessarily the sort of information suited for a standalone Wikipedia article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 21:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete Wheel support is listed on the sites that sell games and on the box (if you still buy physical copies); it's not up to us to keep up a 'katamari list' where different models and console generations are listed without proper sourcing or demarcation and never removed when support ends. Nate • ( chatter) 22:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  So Toss it into the cosmos, then? :) QuietCicada - Talk 22:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete - this sounds like a compatibility list for Logitech's website, not an encyclopedia. Sergecross73 msg me 23:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete. per WP:NOTIINFO and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Ajf773 ( talk) 08:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. AryKun ( talk) 14:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE -- Artene50 ( talk) 12:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep/Change So I am new to this process so forgive me if I make mistakes. So I do think some of the points are valid . On the point of lack of citation, a major issue with a lot of the older games listed on this article there's essentially no citable source outside of the software/physical packaging. If this article would need a major rework to work around that (or if someone can inform me how to handle correct information about a piece of video game software outside of the software and manual itself, please do) I mention this because this counters the idea this information can be found via online stores, that's only true of newer, digital releases (and frankly isn't always true, as I've found out myself). However I do see issues with this article, personally I don't think it should have been originally set up to only use Logitech brand wheels, while during the PlayStation 2 console generation they were essentially the "Official" wheel controller for the console, that became less the case with each new console generation. I do have to ask why a list like this wouldn't be suited for Wikipedia, but lists such as Lists of software released for a specific console hardware, or exclusively for that hardware are, again I'm new to this article for deletion process so what specific differences allow for those articles, I genuinely want to know. If ultimately a more broad version of this article, or specific versions of this article broken up by console system, or specific model of wheel controllers (which personally I think would be a mess because there would be dozen of 3rd party models that older console hardware would detect as if it was a logitech one) then I'll understand, though if that is the case do articles have a certain amount of notice? JohnnyBagHead ( talk) 03:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep‎. If editors are interested in renaming this article, please start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Yekaterina Duntsova

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

Yekaterina Duntsova (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It looks like an advertisement for a potential presidential candidate. WP:POLITICIAN states that just being an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability. The article on the same topic was deleted in Russian Wikipedia due to the same reasons FlorianH76 ( talk) 21:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep: Her candidacy is the direct subject of several articles, so she meets the notability criteria for Wikipedia. JohnR1Roberts ( talk) 21:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep. Should satisfy WP:SIGCOV given multiple news about her 2024 presidential campaign in the context of Russia, where she probably is the lone opposition to Putin, other candidates are loyal to him. Deltaspace⁴² ( talk • contribs) 22:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Also I would like to add that while being an unelected candidate does not guarantee notability, it also does not guarantee non-notability:

"Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." Deltaspace⁴² ( talk • contribs) 22:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep She appeared on the biggest german news show just now ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi3ljQXB0qQ&t=471). We should also be careful about state actors trying to act here. Scisne ( talk) 23:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep. The subject of the article clearly has significance. Many reliable sources wrote about Yekaterina Duntsova ( Reuters, The Moscow Times, BNN Breaking, AP News and many others), describing her as Putin's main opponent in the upcoming elections. She passed the first stage of registration, collected the necessary 500 signatures, and held a meeting in Moscow. This was covered by the Russian federal media ( Kommersant, news.ru). The article about Duntsova in the Russian Wikipedia was deleted with obvious bias and is an example of political censorship. -- Yarkovesh ( talk) 23:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The only problem is that everyone found out about her existence just yesterday 178.252.127.236 ( talk) 11:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Journalism, Law, and Russia. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Draftify Generally, we've considered coverage of candidacy to a political office as WP:ROUTINE and we regularly delete articles about unelected candidates if they don't have any WP:SIGCOV beyond that related to their candidacy, which seems to be the case here. Even if we cast that general precedent aside, this would still be an issue of WP:BLP1E. As it is, Duntsova is only a declared - not a qualified - candidate (she needs a further 300,000 petition signatures to be ballot listed). Nonetheless, it's possible Duntsova may become ballot qualified and, subsequently, may emerge as the leading challenger in the upcoming election and, if all that transpired, it would most probably be enough to surmount my concerns about ROUTINE and BLP1E since a principal challenger is almost certain to attract coverage of such biographical depth and complexity as to crest those standards. However, it's too early in the petitioning process to ascertain that so this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Therefore, I !vote in favor of draftifying the article with no prejudice against its future recreation if the situation evolves or changes. Chetsford ( talk) 00:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  Yes, it seems to be a good decision. FlorianH76 ( talk) 01:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• This article needs to stay. Yekaterina Duntsova is the most important person of our time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:3037:611:6570:F6C5:FFB6:CA37:E51C ( talk) 12:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  We need this article to maintain freedom. Alxklg ( talk) 07:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  But no one really knows who she is, even in Russia 178.252.127.236 ( talk) 10:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep: you can mention that the official start of Ekaterina's election campaign took place yesterday. Over 700 supporters gathered in Moscow to express their support for her candidacy. The initiative group of 522 people also voted in favor of Ekaterina's nomination. The meeting was successful, despite some questionable incidents that did not affect the course of the event. Currently, Ekaterina has the support of over 110,000 people. The Telegram channel has about 150 thousand people. Has an article in the Belarusian Wikipedia and the Ukrainian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.59.206.179 ( talk) 04:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  More people studied with me on the same faculty lol 178.252.127.236 ( talk) 11:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Clearly satisfies general notability guidelines of significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Grnrchst ( talk) 15:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep per arguments by Grnrchst and Yarkovesh. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky ( talk) 15:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep it please. People want to find the information about her. I was disappointed not to find an article about her in Russian and was happy to find some information in English at least. 85.166.86.183 ( talk) 22:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep: I agree that running for office does not automatically meet notability but in this case there are plenty of sources. This is a national campaign of a major country, and she is publically standing up against a controversial government. She clearly meets notability. Rublamb ( talk) 22:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. No one knows her. This is clearly just an attempt to draw attention and create a facade for non-existent career and political weight. 178.252.127.236 ( talk) 10:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Ekaterina Duntsova's presence in the social media realm is far from negligible, boasting a following of 320,000 people — a number that continues to climb swiftly. To say that 'no one knows her' seems a stark underestimation of her growing popularity. Galstenreg ( talk) 17:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Move to Yekaterina Duntsova 2024 presidential campaign. Devil's advocate, but I think we're putting anti-Putinist emotions (which I do sympathize with) over well-established policy. The well-established policy is WP:BLP1E, and this person clearly fails it. That being said, I do think notability has been established for her presidential campaign, and thusly this page should be kept but moved. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 05:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply

What do you mean by "Devil's advocate" Yarkovesh ( talk) 13:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply

It does not fall under this rule because all three points must be considered.

About the third point.

Ekaterina Duntsova has a clear path in life - she worked as a journalist (editor-in-chief of RIT) and was a deputy in the City Duma. Now she is reaching a new level of fame, a lot is being written and talked about in Russian-speaking (especially independent) and English-speaking media.

To say that there is only one event associated with her or that she is insignificant is strange. 185.70.52.115 ( talk) 20:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Authoritative media pay a lot of attention to her. К.Артём.1 ( talk) 09:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above. There is more than enough news coverage. Mellk ( talk) 12:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep: I also agree that running for office does not automatically meet notability but as above there are plenty of sources including news / media outlets and social media it now does, especially standing up to Putin. Yekaterina, a very brave woman, and now very much notable, with her stance on Anti-War and bringing Russia back from the brink.

Just to point out the one that has mentioned delete has an IP inside Russia, a little obvious I think from Putins propaganda machine of silencing critics and opposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.87.161 ( talk) 00:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• quite ironic to be critical to the anon from the UK to claim that out. not every russian liberals' critics are from the propaganda machine, as one user was merely questioned Yekaterina's notability. — 95.24.32.118 ( talk) 16:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep. She's been written up in The Independent, The Moscow Times, Reuters, AP News, ABC News, and Stars and Stripes. How much more notable can someone be??? HandsomeMrToad ( talk) 02:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep Wikipedia has a neutral POV and articles should not be deleted because someone is not happy with the facts. Lotje ( talk) 12:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep She got blocked from the election process but got covered by the BBC, still pretty notable.-- Catlemur ( talk) 15:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep A lot of coverage about her the last days, meeting WP:GNG. That the page is deleted from the Russian Wikipedia is not a valid reason for deletion here. 109.37.156.249 ( talk) 22:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - as she has gained coverage from the Associated Press about her denial from the candidacy. Ivan Milenin ( talk) 00:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep far than enough coverage, especially now that Putin is up to his old tricks and repressing the subject's presidential candidacy. There has been a fair bit of news on the subject as of today alone. Inter&anthro ( talk) 02:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Per most of the above. Clearly notable as there are more than enough sources talking about her. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 10:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep for reasons given above by colleagues-- Noel baran ( talk) 12:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 00:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Anand Srivastava

Anand Srivastava (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject still fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG as most of these citations are mere mentions, quotes from the subject, or official statements from the local government. This article was already deleted once for good reason. Chris Troutman ( talk) 16:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and India. Chris Troutman ( talk) 16:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

This is the second AFD for this instance of the article but it is at least the third AFD because a previous instance of the article was deleted at least once. I recently did an AFD nomination during NPP, it was deleted but that deleted was reversed on the basis that it was a soft delete. My rationale during the previous nomination was: "No Indication of wp:notability. The most that any of those numerous references discuss him is covering his appointment to his position. All of the others are just coverage where he was either mentioned or quoted in a news story about something else. Article was previously deleted." Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 20:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete Indian Police Service just a indian govt job, not a notablity criteria Worldiswide ( talk) 04:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of Wiki97828) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^{( talk)} 20:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Appears to be a routine police position, nothing different than any such person in the service. Sourcing is largely of various things he was involved with at work. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  Mostly giving interviews, or helping an older lady, which is fine but the article is barely a few paragraphs. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete most of coverage is routine, or comments made as a senior police officer, not WP:SIGCOV about him. LibStar ( talk) 01:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel ( talk) 21:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Dispersive PDE Wiki

Dispersive PDE Wiki (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 5 § Dispersive PDE Wiki. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 20:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete or, failing that, put back to being a redirect. There's no way to make an article about a niche, nearly quiescent website with no secondary-source coverage. Content from this page was merged into Terence Tao on a flimsy rationale and then removed shortly thereafter. If the edit history of material that has been gone since summer 2007 and won't be coming back is actually necessary to preserve, then we can have this cruft hang around as an {{ R with history}}. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Zero coverage beyond the wiki itself, a mathoverflow question or a blog post found online. At the absolute most, merge (i.e. insert a single sentence about it) to Terence_Tao#Dispersive_partial_differential_equations. Sgubaldo ( talk) 18:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel ( talk) 18:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Bill Smyth (broadcaster)

Bill Smyth (broadcaster) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Little to no success in finding sources that back up the claims and establish standalone notability. There's a picture of Bill Smyth from the Belfast Telegraph about the 40th anniversary but most other mentions are from self-published sites, i.e. forums, and don't back up these claims. Kazamzam ( talk) 17:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Northern Ireland. Kazamzam ( talk) 17:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. I searched and was unable to find any meaningful secondary coverage focused on the article subject. Left guide ( talk) 21:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete: there does not appear to be anything much available to justify this article. ww2censor ( talk) 14:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Dial Global Local. (This is a soft-redirect, in a similar way to a soft-delete would apply.) Daniel ( talk) 18:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Rock 2.0

Rock 2.0 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of sourcing. Perhaps redirect to Dial Global Local? Let'srun ( talk) 15:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United States of America. Let'srun ( talk) 15:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. (This is a soft-redirect, in a similar way to a soft-delete would apply.) Daniel ( talk) 18:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

WWBK-LD

WWBK-LD (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG. Article was part of a bulk AfD earlier this year that closed as no consensus but there is nothing to indicate this one passes the notability guidelines. Let'srun ( talk) 15:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Virginia. Let'srun ( talk) 15:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. as an ATD, certainly not passing or sourceable otherwise. Nate • ( chatter) 22:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel ( talk) 18:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Jean-Paul Adela

Jean-Paul Adela (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Stats stub on a footballer with no clear evidence to support a WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC pass. The best sources that I can find are Nation 1 and Nation 2, both from the same newspaper and both only mentioning Adela once in passing. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. There are 250 million other footballers like him, I don't see how he stands out. Obviously we can't have 250 million articles about each of them. Deltaspace⁴² ( talk • contribs) 23:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 14:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Kishon Philip

Kishon Philip (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

'Kishson' appears to be the correct spelling of his given name but I still can't find any coverage that comes close to WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I found Soccer Kakis and Sports 247 but both of these are just trivial mentions of him. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Singapore. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 14:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Agavi

Agavi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Mdggdj ( talk) 13:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete: No evidence of notability. Greenman ( talk) 14:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 14:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 14:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete: for the same reason it was deleted in 2007, 2008 and 2009. The version before the last delete had a lot more information, as does the German language version of the page today, but no independent sources to establish notability. Owen× ☎ 17:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:NSOFTWARE or WP:GNG – FenixFeather ^{(talk) (Contribs)} 11:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 14:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Kurumin

Kurumin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article has been tagged as unsourced and perhaps not notable for over a decade - I did a Google search and the subject does not seem to be notable. As far as I can tell the Portuguese article is also not sourced. Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Brazil. Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete. There is Spanish Wikipedia article which has some sources, but they are either primary or from distrowatch.com which I think is user-generated (if you make your own Linux distribution, you can propose to list it there). Quick Google search showed some random dead blogs and merchandise. I believe that this Linux distribution is not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. Deltaspace⁴² ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete: I, too, couldn't find any independent sources. Owen× ☎ 17:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete typical WP:MILL distribution. - CHAMPION ^{( talk) ( contributions) ( logs)} 23:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Charles Stiebel

Charles Stiebel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Note tag. No indication of significance. scope_creep ^Talk 13:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. CptViraj ( talk) 13:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 14:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 14:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 11:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel ( talk) 12:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

2023 American Premier League

2023 American Premier League (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This tournament does not have enough coverage to warrant a specific season article, as the season article does not pass WP:GNG. Clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED- just because some notable international and former international players are competing, that doesn't make the season itself notable. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 12:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and United States of America. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 12:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The league is sanctioned by the ICC and the USA Cricket. ^[1] Vikas265 ( talk) 13:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Neither of which are demonstrations that this season article passes WP:GNG. Just because it exists, doesn't mean it's notable enough for an article. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 13:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The only "name" players involved are former internationals who no longer play in top-class cricket. This tournament is really nothing more than an exhibition event. Admittedly, the organisers are trying to generate US interest in cricket but that does not mean a season of second- or even third-rate competition deserves an article which is well below the WP:GNG standard. Batagur baska ( talk) 15:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Non-notable tournament. No matter which mercenaries... players take part, it doesn't make notability inheritable. The tournament also carries no status, so in an ideal world it shouldn't even feature on this site. StickyWicket aka AA ( talk) 17:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per the arguments given above. -- WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 06:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to American Premier League as a WP:ATD. Nothing here to indicate this meets the WP:GNG on its own. User:Let'srun 04:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Not sure the suggested redirect is a suitable WP:ATD as there is no season information in the parent article. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 20:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 00:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Phil Trow

Phil Trow (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable local radio presenter. Funky Snack ( Talk | Contribs) 11:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and England. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Another CV article about a local radio DJ. Nothing but interviews and passing mentions on a search. Just having appeared on the radio isn't a marker of notability. Flip Format ( talk) 15:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep How long does someone have to be active to be notable? He has worked in radio for more than 30 years, yet you still think he is not notable? There is no issue here about notability so this article should therefore be kept. Rillington ( talk) 01:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Notability isn't a question of how long somebody has been "active", it's a question of the quality of the sourcing that can be shown to externally validate his significance. That is, it isn't demonstrated by sourcing the article to his staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own present or former employers as proof that he exists — it's demonstrated by sourcing the article to journalism about him, in third-party media outlets other than his own employers, and/or books that weren't self-published by his own employers, as proof that his work has been externally validated as important by people without a vested interest in it. Bearcat ( talk) 17:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete, fails WP:NBASIC. No significant coverage found, I did find this but it's a routine announcement about the subject to be broadcasting live from a market. This interview is not going to satisfy notability guidelines either. ~ Tails Wx 19:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete. As always, radio personalities are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, but this features absolutely none of the WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him that it would take to bridge the chasm between existence and notability. Bearcat ( talk) 17:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Proofs of elementary ring properties

Proofs of elementary ring properties (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. The material better belongs on Wikiversity or Wikibooks; it's already been exported to Wikiversity. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nominator. Left guide ( talk) 07:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete: per nom. A well-intentioned, cleverly executed but ultimately misguided effort that doesn't belong here. Owen× ☎ 15:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nominator. This would be possible to verify many times over (using elementary textbooks) but it's out-of-scope per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. — Bilorv ( talk) 16:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Retranswikify to Wikiversity ( their current version hasn't really been updated in a decade), then Delete per WP:NOT. Folly Mox ( talk) 19:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 08:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Rob Walker (journalist)

Rob Walker (journalist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nominated for 3 reasons:

1. As a sort of "mercy killing". The person doesn't want an article about them, as they have said there multiple times.
2. Wikipedia's WP:SIGCOV policy says that the coverage needs to address the topic "directly and in detail". Discounting the citations that are connected to Rob, we are left with these citations: HBR, QZ, Design Observer, Salon, Chicago Tribune and several NYT articles. Most of these are fleeting mentions of Mr Walker, and the remainder are focussed on the topics covered by individual books (which already have their own articles) rather than Mr Walker himself. So I don't believe that the coverage addresses Mr Walker "directly and in detail", as required.
3. Aside from any Wikipedia policy, I don't believe there is any benefit of having an article which is basically a copy of Mr Walker's CV.

If anyone is wondering who I am, I have no connection to Mr Walker, I just read the article and thought I would try to help. My only other edits have been a few small additions (nothing relating to Mr Walker) from an IP address.

Regards, Capitan Farmhouse ( talk) 05:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 05:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 05:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 05:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 05:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 05:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 05:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:AUTHOR — Walker's work has been the primary subject of multiple independent RS pieces. As a side note, Walker's linked interview in which he's not crazy about having a page here is from 2015 and is ambivalent at best: I don’t need the page removed, he said, but mostly he just didn't want it to be incorrect. Retswerb ( talk) 08:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep, also per WP:AUTHOR. He definitely meets the criteria of having created a well-known that has "been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Jonathan Deamer ( talk) 09:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep, WP:AUTHOR really seems like it hits notability stuff and the article wraps up on a decent "Well I guess this is okay" note. I know Walker vaguely and I get where he is coming from (my own Wikipedia article is out of date!) but I think the response to that is to make his page more accurate and timely. Jessamyn ( my talk page) 18:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep — the photo has been changed and content updated (corrected, I think?) since he wrote that article (in 2015!), and he seems to meet the general notability and references requirements. Dotx3 ( talk) 17:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 08:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Rushaniya Safina

Rushaniya Safina (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions ( 2010, 2018, 2021, etc.) JTtheOG ( talk) 05:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Uzbekistan. JTtheOG ( talk) 05:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 11:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Redirect – Criteria already adopted in others similar AfD. Svartner ( talk) 17:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Judy Clendening

Judy Clendening (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject is a trial court judge for an individual judicial district at the provincial level. Not a province-wide official, and not remarkable in any encyclopedic sense. BD2412 T 04:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Canada. BD2412 T 04:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Subject just doesn't meet the GNG. User:Let'srun 15:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 08:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Lianozovo

Lianozovo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A disambig page with only two items is invalid per WP:MOSDAB - Altenmann >talk 04:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nomination. TH1980 ( talk) 04:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep': A disambiguation page with two entries is perfectly valid, where neither of them is the obvious Primary Topic. Pam D 08:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep as per PamD. Also, I'd like to add that Russian disambiguation page has 6 entries. Deltaspace⁴² ( talk • contribs) 16:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  I have just merged Wikidata, so that now this disambiguation page has links to three other languages. It is weird that there was two Wikidata for Lianozovo disambiguation page, I had to first resolve conflicts with descriptions in multiple languages and only then it allowed me to merge. Deltaspace⁴² ( talk • contribs) 16:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Perfectly valid DAB page. Absolutely no need for deletion. The nom apparently misunderstood what is stated at MOS:DAB which indicates that A disambiguation page with only two meanings is not necessary if one of them is the primary topic for that term, and since neither of the entries listed is the primary topic then the page is completely necessary. CycloneYoris ^talk! 17:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep as per PamD and CycloneYoris. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 18:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel ( talk) 12:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

A Choice of Magic

A Choice of Magic (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article has been unsourced since November 2015. A quick search through Google and Google Scholar have not offered reliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 02:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Meets WP:NBOOK. Though they aren't as long as I hoped, it has been reviewed in The Best in Children's Books: The University of Chicago Guide to Children's Literature, 1966-1972, The Courier-Journal and The Spectator (by Isabel Quigly). There's also a few more fairly short reviews on newspapers.com, and a few reviews hidden behind snippet views on Google Books. ARandomName123 ( talk)^{Ping me!} 14:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The three reviews presented by ARandomName123 are sufficient to demonstrate NBOOK/GNG. — siro χ o 03:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Miss Tennessee#Winners. Daniel ( talk) 12:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Chandler Lawson

Chandler Lawson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of sustained significant sources. Let'srun ( talk) 02:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Tennessee. Let'srun ( talk) 02:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Miss Tennessee#Winners as an alternative to deletion. The subject has not received sustained coverage and the subject is also only notable for one event. ~ Tails Wx 02:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Agent 47

Agent 47 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Video game character of dubious notability. Reception is limited to listicles and starts unimpressively with "In 2012, GamesRadar+ ranked Agent 47 as the 47th...". My BEFORE failed to find anything useful other than plot summaries; academic reception is limited to passing mentions in an undergraduate paper and one book (note: I could only access snippets which don't suggest SIGCOV is met). Per WP:ATD-R, a redirect to Hitman (franchise) will suffice. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  Me personally, I feel 47 as a character is too notable to be delisted, as he seems to be generally well recognized within gaming as a whole. This doesn't mean his article can't be edited with better citations to other articles discussing him and the critical reception around him, as well as a complete removal of any academic studies of his character (he's no Isaac Clarke or Adam Jensen when it comes to this). This is just my suggestion, and you don't have to do it. Chiefmister ( talk) 05:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Merge with Hitman (franchise): Currently, the Hitman (franchise) article has no descriptions of the games' characters, including 47. While I agree that the sources here don't establish notability, largely because they're listicles, and I haven't uncovered any further sources, several of the sources are from generally reliable publications and can be used to draft a description of 47 to be included in the article on the franchise. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 03:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  Although I appreciate the sources identified in this discussion, I still think that this should be merged. As @ Kung Fu Man has noted, the PC Gamer, Polygon, and PCGamesN articles are all basically game reviews with brief descriptions of 47. I don't think any of the listicles establish notability, including The Telegraph article cited by @ OwenX. There is nothing in the notability guidelines that says that once something hits mainstream news, it's notable. The book that @ Zxcvbnm cited uses 47 as an example for how the player navigates the game, rather than a description of the character himself. In all, I think the sources identified amount to a significant amount of trivial coverage, rather than a sufficient amount of significant coverage. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 19:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Merge...for now While my gut is telling me there should be more for 47 online, even looking at a 2018 version of it with a larger reception section shows it was all lists. I feel too WP:TNT should also come into play here: what's here, much like early Pokemon articles, is mostly uncited and useless, and if sources do manifest whatever editor works on it will likely be starting over from near scratch anyway.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 09:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge A was a bit surprised that this got nom'ed for afd. But, after some BEFORE search by other peeps above; probs not enough. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 09:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep Agent 47's a clearly notable character. He got a full PC Gamer article, Polygon article, and a PCGamesN article. At bare minimum this is enough to confer clear WP:GNG on the character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 10:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• While I do feel there is some commentary in those first two articles Zx, they feel primarily about the games and related gameplay. Keep in mind this is me skimming through them after only being up a few hours, but arguing they're full articles on the character feels like a misnomer. And that ends up another problem with Agent 47: a lot of his commentary is hard to separate from commentary about how the game plays.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 10:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  He also got an article in The Ringer about his character too. Vox is considered a WP:RS, even though they also own Polygon, it's different enough to be a distinct site and source. The articles may be about Agent 47's gameplay, but they still make it obvious they are referring to him rather than just the game in general. I am convinced he is notable given these sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 10:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  I can see your point. What do you think about the TNT argument though? I'm really convinced what's here isn't usable, and after this many years of being in this state (and until recently a much WORSE state), I don't see it viably being an article without being started over from zero with what's there. And yes, WP:NODEADLINE is a thing but at some point you have to question if it's better to let someone potentially wanting to work on the thing undo the redirect on their own.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 10:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  TNT doesn't make sense to me here, as no part of the article is technically "bad" besides the reception. The reception needs to be rewritten and current reception sources mostly or entirely discarded, but otherwise it can be kept. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 13:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  Per KFM, I'd like to see someone do something with those sources, which seem to be rather freely written (blog / social media style rather than academic) before I'd consider withdrawing this nom. Nice job finding those sources, though. Maybe this can be rescued. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  I have also found yet another SIGCOV here, in a book about villains in media. It talks about how players rationalize playing as a villain, giving Agent 47 as an example of a character who was created to be the perfect assassin, thus making it easier for players to "justify" what they are doing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 13:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like a consensus to Merge but recent comments offer some new sources that should be evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep, evaluating sources found by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. The Vader, Voldemort and Other Villains source is excellent secondary SIGCOV. That book, with PCGamesN and The Ringer are a solid three (Noting, The Ringer is an SBNation site with a proper masthead and the author is a professional journalist who has written for many RS). PC Gamer and Polygon are helpful as well—though Polygon seems to rely a bit on quotes from a creative director. This meets WP:GNG. — siro χ o 04:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep: significant coverage by reliable mainstream news such as the Telegraph swayed me away from my initial tendency to merge such articles. There is more than enough verifiable information here, and independent notability is well established. Once it hits mainstream news, it can no longer be dismissed as "cruft". Owen× ☎ 15:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep per all above JM ( talk) 16:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep per above, seems to have plenty of analysis discussing this character in specific.

PARAKANYAA ( talk) 00:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep there's some academic coverage of Agent 47. Dr vulpes ^{( 💬 • 📝)} 03:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep There are sources and I think the page is in somewhat of a bad state but WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, and the TNT arguement should be avoided Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep The sources that ZX brought up appear to be sufficient material to warrant Agent 47 keeping a separate article. Negative MP1 19:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 00:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply

TV Tonight Awards 2022

TV Tonight Awards 2022 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Like the 2020 and 2021 awards, the 2022 awards list is not notable, having no significant coverage outside of the TV Tonight website itself, failing WP:NTV and WP:GNG. At best, redirect to TV Tonight. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page) 01:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Websites, Lists, and Australia. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page) 01:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No independent reliable sources have been provided to establish that these awards are notable outside the website that organizes them. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge and redirect per WP:ATD-R. Happily888 ( talk) 21:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge/Redirect to, I assume, TV Tonight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete: I don't believe that the award itself is notable to warrant its own article, so individual years shouldn't have articles either. I do not believe that merging is appropriate because then the bulk of the TV Tonight article would be two years' worth of awards tables (and more if others decided to continue adding on), which is undue. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 01:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete for the same reasons discussed above. I don't see benefit of a merge for the same WP:UNDUE reasons already highlighted. Similarly, I don't feel a redirect would serve as a useful navigation aid for a reader, given the main article isn't offering information on specific years and the title is closely related to the main article's name anyway. Bungle ^{( talk • contribs)} 10:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete per above JM ( talk) 16:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Bungle. Agletarang ( talk) 04:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 00:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply

TV Tonight Awards 2021

TV Tonight Awards 2021 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Like the 2020 and 2022 awards, it is not notable, having no significant coverage outside of TV Tonight itself, failing WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page) 01:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Websites, Lists, and Australia. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page) 01:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No independent reliable sources have been provided to establish that these awards are notable outside the website that organizes them. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge and redirect per WP:ATD-R. Happily888 ( talk) 21:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not significant enough to keep here. Georgethedragonslayer ( talk) 03:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for Merge/Redirect, I assume, to TV Tonight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete: I don't believe that the award itself is notable to warrant its own article, so individual years should not have articles either. I do not believe that merging is appropriate because then the bulk of the TV Tonight article would be two years' worth of awards tables, which is undue. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 01:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete for the same reasons I set out in the 2022 list afd, WP:UNDUE per above and unnecessary as a redirect. Bungle ^{( talk • contribs)} 10:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete per above JM ( talk) 16:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete‎. Even putting notability aside, WP:V is a core content policy, and "delete" is the only possible closure when that threshold is not met (see WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS). I will undelete the article on request if reliable sources verifying Beck's existence as a town can be located. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 07:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Beck, Oklahoma

Beck, Oklahoma (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notability not established with substantive sources – neither source provided is a WP:RS, not even in GNIS Reywas92 ^Talk 20:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Map with Beck on it

  http://www.mygenealogyhound.com/maps/oklahoma-maps/ok-mcintosh-county-oklahoma-1922-map.html#

  Keep until further evidence is provided that it wasn’t a town at all. DannonCool ( talk) 22:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • You have just provided that evidence. There's not even a dot for Beck on that rubbish small scale map. It's labelling a quadrangle, like the other all-uppercase names are. Your only other sources are a GNIS regurgitator that explicitly says that it doesn't know anything and has unreliable sources on that very page and a WWW site where random people can sumbit (using the handy link provided) made up ghost towns, for all that the world knows. This isn't in either of the Ghost Towns or Place Names books, moreover. How can you read a WWW page that says that it is unreliable and doesn't know anything and then use it as a source? Uncle G ( talk) 11:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

    The upper-case names are not labelling quadrangles, several of them are in fact overlapping on several quadrangles. ChaotıċEnby( t · c) 02:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete - We don't keep until somebody proves a place doesn't exist. We don't create articles until substantial, reliable sources prove that it does. Fails GNG for lack of sources. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 18:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Please see Lists of ghost towns in the United States. Also, please note Wikipedia:WikiProject Ghost towns. Wikipedia does indeed have articles about towns that don't exist, but once upon a time did. Lists that show hundreds of ghost towns in a state, and also stand-alone articles for ghost towns on the lists. It is not a requirement for a stand-alone article on a ghost town to also be on a list, but it helps. Beck is on the List of ghost towns in Oklahoma - and it is appropriate to have a stand-alone article on ghost towns like Beck. I have added the project banner for WikiProject Ghost towns to the talk page. — Maile ( talk) 03:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • So your argument is that since the same editor who wrote this article also added it to a list article, sourced to that very same WWW site where random people can sumbit (using the handy link provided) made up ghost towns, we should keep it. That's not really putting reliable sourcing into practice. If you'd actually checked some sources, you'd have found that there's no Beck ghost town in them. That's because there never has been any such town. As I said above: it's a survey rectangle. Uncle G ( talk) 15:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    • I did not add the ghost town to the List of ghost towns in Oklahoma article. DannonCool ( talk) 18:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
      • I apoplogize. That was a mis-reading of the edit history on my part. Uncle G ( talk) 20:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

        Thank you. It’s completely fine it was just a simple misunderstanding. DannonCool ( talk) 21:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

    • Let's clear that part up. Beck was added in 2007 by IvoShandor ( talk · contribs). Uncle G Have you been there? That would be the ultimate proof of your assertion that this does not exist. I've been editing on Wikipedia over 15 years, and have learned that any editor who accuses others of fabricating content, needs to verify their own accusations. You keep saying nothing is there. How do you know this? In reply to your comment, "If you'd actually checked some sources, you'd have found that there's no Beck ghost town in them. That's because there never has been any such town." NEVER been there? Never, ever? What is YOUR source? Quite frankly, I'd find it rather odd that sources would claim something doesn't exist. How would they happen to be commenting on something that doesn't exist? — Maile ( talk) 18:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
      • I have already said twice now that the sources do not comment on this. Because, to spell it out yet again, there are no sources claiming that this exists. There's a self-submission WWW site that is not a reliable source for that very reason, and nothing else. You have the burden of proof exactly backwards. I don't have to perform personal investigation in violation of our no original research policy. You have to provide a source demonstrating your claim. And since I know that this is a township survey rectangle and not a town, from the very map presented even, I can confidently state that you won't be able to do so. I mentioned that you'll have no joy with the Ghost Towns or Place Names books, above, but feel free to actually put the legwork in and look at them yourself. You've evidently made zero attempt to check out sources, otherwise you wouldn't be making such addled arguments as "please see the list articles" or "what is YOUR source?" for a statement that something is not in sources. The rest of the world doesn't have to prove this negative. You, Maile66 have the burden of actually putting the effort in and proving a positive. Show us the page number in the Ghost Towns book. It will be a non-existent ghost page number between Avery and Beer City. Uncle G ( talk) 20:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

        I don’t think the Morris book has all of the ghost towns that exist in Oklahoma in them. The book even has Talala in it. Talala is definitely very alive. The town has 200 people. I’m just saying the book may not have captured all of the towns or be accurate in some parts. Nothing can be fully accurate or precise. I have the physical copy of the book and although Beck is not in there, he may have not meant to not add towns. He might’ve never heard of Beck. Bethel, Grant County is a different story. If I did a little more research, I would’ve came to the conclusion the town was a post office. Not a ghost town. That’s wrong on my behalf. Also, “ghosttowns.com” seemed reliable at first due the fact that everyone was using it in the List of ghost towns in Oklahoma page. If anything, we need to double down on our research and find other sources besides that very unreliable, user-submitted website. DannonCool ( talk) 21:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

      Maile66, you're asking us to prove a negative. That's impossible and it isn't how Wikipedia works. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 16:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Nooooo. The editor above has declared that no such ghost town exists in the area stated. I'm asking him what he bases his comment on. He's been very firm that there is absolutely nothing there. The comment indicates he has information to backup his assertion. I'm just asking what that is. Let's say, for instance, that someone lists a town name Jerico in some state. You tell me no such town exists in that state. Wouldn't you need to have knowledge of that state to tell me Jerico does not exist there? — Maile ( talk) 18:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment -- WeirdNAnnoyed is absolutely correct. Until substantial, secondary sources exist, and article can not exist in mainspace. There is no requirement for anyone to "prove" that something does not exist, even if it were logically possible (which, again as WnA points out, it's NOT). Anyone supporting the article's continued existence needs to provide good RS (see WP:THREE for a good essay on that). Until that happens, the only possible policy-based decision is deletion. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 19:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Last1in, GNG requires sourcing (to the standard, level of coverage, and numerousness outlined in our P&G's) to be able to retain the article. It is not up to people advocating delete to prove that something doesn't exist, as a) proving a negative is difficult if not impossible, but more importantly b) that isn't the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia. Daniel ( talk) 00:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep‎. Consensus exists to expand the article instead of deleting or draftifying. (non-admin closure) Schminnte ^{[ talk to me} 16:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Disownment

Disownment (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Basically an extended DICDEF, topped off with a small detail sourced from a dead link. Could possibly be merged into a broader article. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 21:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 21:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Satisfies GNG. This topic has received significant coverage in books and periodical/encyclopedia articles. A search for "disownment"+parental in Google Books brings up many sources such as this book. According to this encyclopedia article on (parental) "Disownment", there are legally recognised forms of (parental) disownment. From there one can find, for example, this book chapter on the public process of disownment among the Tanala of Ikongo. There are articles in Google Scholar that are entirely about parental or family disownment. [The concept of "disownment" in Quakerism satisfies GNG in of itself. I am not sure whether this form of disownment, and parental disownment, are parts of a single topic, or whether they should be treated separately.] The article can be expanded with material that goes far beyond a dictionary definition. James500 ( talk) 00:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  There's nothing here that's usable; why not WP:TNT? Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 04:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  WP:ATD says "If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page". That is clearly the case here. James500 ( talk) 23:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  How do you feel about WP:DRAFTIFY? Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 23:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  This article should stay in the mainspace. The article does not satisfy criteria 2 or 3b of WP:DRAFTIFY. The article is not a mere definition. Much of the content is now referenced, and much of the rest appears to be WP:BLUE that should be straightforward to reference. James500 ( talk) 23:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep - This is a strong, encyclopaedic subject with extensive RS to back it up, none of which show in the article. I found extensive coverage for both LGBT+ and Quakers on gScholar, as well as plenty of WP:DEPTH and case study analysis. I will try to pull my WP:THREE together within the next day or so, but this looks like a WP:DINC problem. I would accept TNT as an AtD, but I'd rather see someone adopt the article into draftspace. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 15:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I see two viable AtD's here: either WP:DRAFTIFY the article or WP:TNT it and add sections on disownment to the existing articles on Quakerism and LGBT issues. Any thoughts? Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 21:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm not an authority on the field, and came here for information. This is a useful topic, so I think it should be kept. Yugan Talovich ( talk) 13:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Same here. I believe this is an important topic that people should know about. 2607:9880:1628:20:65A4:8604:2232:262C ( talk) 15:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply

This is listed as one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions at WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 17:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion, it would be helpful if the changes to the article since nomination were assessed. It seems like this article has gone beyond a dictionary definition. Right now, I don't see support for Deletion but let's keep this discussion open another few days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep: and expand. The concept dates back to the earliest legal systems, and is covered by many inheritance law textbooks. The French language wiki has more about the relevant laws in France, Switzerland and Quebec, and the Japanese language wiki has useful information about the history and legal aspects in Japan. Also pinging @ BD2412: for his expertise here. Owen× ☎ 01:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I am no expert on disownment, but the concept exists legally, and goes beyond disinheritance (which basically means cutting someone out of a will) towards complete severance of familial legal obligations. Legally, disownment can also run both ways — a child can disown their parents through an effort to obtain legal emancipation. There has to be a mechanism, however. Standing up at Thanksgiving dinner and yelling "I disown you" may perform the function socially, but any legal sort of disownment would have to be accomplished through some kind of court proceeding. I'm sure that more can be found on that. BD2412 T 02:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Since the article hasn't yet covered Quintillian's abdicatio or the laws trying to prevent disownment in Edo period Japan, I'm going to say that that this is a stub with scope for expansion. Uncle G ( talk) 16:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep per above JM ( talk) 16:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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