Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 24 November 26 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Eglė Raznauskaitė

Eglė Raznauskaitė (  | 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. All I found were passing mentions like 1 and 2. JTtheOG ( talk) 23:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:CSD#G5. ✗ plicit 23:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Sandeep Sabharwal

Sandeep Sabharwal (  | 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 businessman. -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Lots of PR, interviews and several profiles. Looked at the first 10 references. A lot of is to do with the company, with lots taken from the company website. Puff piece article. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep Talk 19:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Olgica Arsova

Olgica Arsova (  | 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 Macedonian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions like 1, 2, and 3. JTtheOG ( talk) 23:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Supreet Bedi

Supreet Bedi (  | 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)

Doesn't meet GNG or BIO guidelines; some links are not about Supreet Lulakayd ( talk) 15:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Women, and India. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Hello Lulakayd. If you see closely, most of the references are 'direct references' about the subject. Only a few are indirect references but do talk about the subject. Also, the subject is not insignificant by any means but a well-known anchor and trainer. Besides this, she has also acted in movies and there are references to back all the content. Achujabal ( talk) 16:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was 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! 23:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Anastasija Čumika

Anastasija Čumika (  | 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 Latvian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions in match reports and squad lists like 1 and 2. JTtheOG ( talk) 23:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was 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! 23:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Yilianny Sablón

Yilianny Sablón (  | 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 Cuban women's footballer, made a single appearance for her respective national team five years ago as a teenager. All I found were passing mentions like this. JTtheOG ( talk) 23:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

DSLink

DSLink (  | 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)

Tagged as unsourced since October of 2007 with no attempts to add sourcing. WP:BEFORE only turned up Github repos, forum posts, and blog posts - No reliable secondary coverage of the device. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 17:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Computing. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 17:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails the GNG. Lots of this sort of junk was erroneously created back in the DS's lifespan. I've had to clean up a bunch of it. This article's shows there's still more to go. Sergecross73 msg me 19:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per nom. Even if there is significant coverage, there isn't enough for an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 22:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Homebrew_(video_games)#Nintendo_DS. I doubt new material will resurface after the page sat there for 16 years, but I like leaving the history in place, in case someone looks for this information for some other article. Owen× ☎ 22:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Do we have a reliable, third party source available to even warrant a mention somewhere like this? Sergecross73 msg me 23:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    A mention of what? I didn't suggest a merge, and any information taken from the page's history will have to come with a RS before it can be included anywhere. But for a simple, non-disruptive redir of the term "DSLink" to another page, we don't need a source. Owen× ☎ 23:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I assume you intend for it to at least have a mention at the redirect target, or it wouldn't really make any sense, or benefit the reader in any way. For it to be a valid redirect, it needs a mention in the article. To be mentioned in the article, it would need a reliable source. Sergecross73 msg me 23:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Half our redirects are from a misspelling or an alternate spelling. There is no requirement for a mention at the target, and I agree with you that any such mention would require proper sourcing. The purpose of such a redir is to take a reader who only knows the product name to the article about the platform; nothing more. Owen× ☎ 23:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    This is not a misspelling or alternate spelling though. What is the purpose of redirecting "DSLink" to the general homebrew article without any context or explanation? Thats too vague to be helpful. It wouldn't make any sense to the reader. Such a redirect is doomed to be deleted per a few of the points at WP:R#DELETE. Sergecross73 msg me 03:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    As far as I can tell, it's not mentioned or linked on any other wikiarticles other than in a navbox. HappyWith ( talk) 20:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom - I agree with User:Sergecross73 with regards to not doing a redirect, it may cause confusion if it's not mentioned, and it can't be written about without reliable sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewcm ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete. I didn't find any different sourcing than the nominator did, and I agree that absent of any reason to actually mention it, a redirect isn't an optimal choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. There don't seem to be any mentions or links to it on other wiki pages other than in a navbox, so a redirect isn't necessary. HappyWith ( talk) 20:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I'm not seeing anything else to add. Redirecting it will just end up at RfD if there's no mention at the target. And there's no reliable sourcing with which to build a mention from. -- ferret ( talk) 22:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Fritz Huser

Fritz Huser (  | 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 artist does not meet WP notability criteria per WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. No significant exhibitions, no notable museum collections, no reviews in art magazines or newpapers, nor book chapters/monographs on his work. Article sourcing is primary, and all I could find online is primary sourcing. Netherzone ( talk) 21:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, and Switzerland. Netherzone ( talk) 21:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I agree that it doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger ( talk) 11:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I can't find any coverage in reliable sources. Of the four sources currently in the article, one is just a directory listing, one is the person's website, and two others just link back to the same wikipedia article. Elspea756 ( talk) 16:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Despite his somewhat reclusive lifestyle, which has little to do with the world of fashionable galleries and corporate art criticism, Fritz Huser is a very popular artist in Switzerland, enjoying at least national, if not international, renown.
Here are some of his solo exhibitions, which take place quite regularly: 1, 2, 3.
Here’s a big article about him on the official website of the Swiss Radio and Television Company.
Here’s an ad for his Adventskalender in the Swiss cantonal press: Aargauer Zeitung, bz Basel, Luzerner Zeitung, St. Galler Tagblatt.
Here’s a popular fairy-tale book he co-authored, and here’s an example of a random book (not even about art!) with a reproduction of his work on the cover.
Last but not least, here’s his IMDb profile, according to which he has participated as a set designer in the filming of at least four Swiss and Swiss-German movies.
To summarize: albeit being somewhat outside the bounds of the strict Wikipedia conventions, Fritz Huser’s notability as an artist is still evident. There are no rules without exceptions, and if there is one article that fits the rule about ignoring all rules, this is it. — ɪ 19:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Popularity is not the same as notability. Just because an artist creates and exhibits work or makes a set design does not confer inherent notability. Those are simply things artists do. Run-of-the-mill WP:MILL. The first three links are simply announcement for shows by the gallery showing his work - primary sourcing that does not count towards notability. The "big article" looks OK at first, however there is no by-line which usually is an indication something is a press release or native advertising rather than an in-depth article with editorial oversight. The "ad" is exactly the same copy in each of these publications, and is advertorial sponsored content for an advent calendar he is selling...translated: In stores from Friday - The square calendar is appearing for the first time in two formats: in a smaller version of 40 x 40 centimeters for 30 francs and in the large version with an edge length of 68 centimeters for 50 francs. From October 26th, the calendar will be available in the following old town shops: Otz bookstore, Ryser office, Hömlilade, Augentreff Schneider and Vitrine. For everyone who doesn't want to tie the calendar to their bike, there is a home delivery service: Next Long Friday in the Old Town you can pre-order the calendars in the Old Office Building. Serious reviews of an artist's work don't include such advertorial content. Lastly, IMDb is not considered a reliable source by WP. Netherzone ( talk) 21:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete reference 2, 3 and 4 are user generated biographies. Not finding anything better on the internet. Unfortunately "Fritz Huser" is a common name, so a search brings up several living Fritz Husers. "Fritz Huser 1952" brings up standard promotional items for a person trying to make a living. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 01:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was ‎ delete. At present, the sources in the article are articles from makeusof.com and zdnet.com. At least zdnet.com is generally accepted as a reliable source, and in the review article, there is some coverage of the software in that article, along with several other competing softwares. The reliability of makeusof.com is disputed though. While Kvng's call for a keep is a relevant and good faith argument, and has received some support, the source analysis by CNMall41 and HighKing make a persuasive case for deletion when they point to the depth of the source, and the lack of multiple sources. Hence, the "delete" arguments are more in line with the notability guidelines. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

ZeroGPT

ZeroGPT (  | 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 sources cited here are not fact-checked nor reliable. For instance, multiple sources say this company was created by OpenAI, or "ChatGPT" creators, however this seems to be blatantly false.

The concern is that wikipedia is giving this organization credibility, and confusing people. While there are recent mentions of ZeroGPT, it seems they came after this false information was produced about them, claiming that OpenAI is behind it.

ALSO** It seems there are people confusing ZeroGPT with GPTZero. One CNN article says "Meanwhile, Princeton student Edward Tuan introduced a similar AI detection feature, called ZeroGPT." [Citation: https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/25/tech/openai-ai-detection-tool/index.html) These issues cleary demonstrate the confusion surrounding "ZeroGPT" a non notable 'counterfeit' version of GPTZero. This page seems to be hoax.

Hoax citations on ZeroGPT page:


Claims OpenAI is behind ZeroGPT (False Information)

[5] https://www.hindustantimes.com/technology/chatgpt-creator-openai-unveils-zerogpt-5-things-to-know-about-this-new-ai-tool-101676610582897.html


Claims OpenAI is behind ZeroGPT (False Information)

https://www.livemint.com/news/world/what-is-zerogpt-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-ai-plagiarism-detection-tool-11676631205023.html

Quotes OpenAI research director and attributes to ZeroGPT (False Information)

https://www.businessupturn.com/technology/zerogpt-ai-tool-to-detect-plagiarism-and-ai-generated-content-against-chatgpt/ (proposed by Comintell) Comintell ( talk) 22:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete
Comintell ( talk) 03:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  1. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes
  2. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
  3. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline ( WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)
Comintell ( talk) 03:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Significant coverage in reliable sources: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Problems in the current article can be addressed through editing WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I disagree that those sources comprises "Significant coverage in reliable sources".
    • Times Now News: India has a problem with undisclosed paid news. The vapid promotional prose and the lack of byline hints at possible paid news.
    • ZDNet - Single paragraph of prose
    • Makeuseof - Part of the Valnet content farm, unusable for anything else than the most basic of facts.
    • Livemint - Filled with mostly quotes, without critical analysis. A good example of a churnalism.
    There are some info scattered around, but nothing substantial that we can make an article out of. Ca talk to me! 15:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I just want to state for the record that I disagree with your assessment. A solid paragraph constitutes WP:SIGCOV. None of these sources are flagged as problematic at WP:RSP. ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    My concern is not of SIGCOV or any "notability" guidelines for that matter. It is that it is impossible to make a cohesive article out of the existing sources. There is zero room for improvement in the article. The article, in its current state, is all we can write about the software. It is impossible to add info on who made it, when it was released, its profits, etc. This is the best this article could get with the sources right not.
    I don't know what you mean by None of these sources are flagged as problematic at WP:RSP. since except ZDNet, none of the sources are in RSP (and besides RSP is not the holy grail). Only source I said had questionable reliability was Makeuseof, whihc is owned by Valnet, and publisher of various content farms. Ca talk to me! 07:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Valnet Ca talk to me! 14:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Considering all sourced mention ChatGPT in some way, a merge or redirect might be possible IgelRM ( talk) 20:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Kvng what are you doing? Did you read the live mint article? It is factually inaccurate. It says ChatGPT creators made ZeroGPT. From my research into timesnownews it seems like a paid blog site. You have 96,000 edits, do you really believe those are reliable sources? Comintell ( talk) 18:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Comintell, what I'm focused on here is determining whether this is a notable topic. I believe it is. Cleanup is a separate issue. The threshold for notability is multiple reliable sources. I provided 4 candidates and before the AfD there were a few others cited in the article. I trust you that there are issues with some of the sources but do your disqualifications take it down to a situation where there is one or fewer sources to work from? ~ Kvng ( talk) 23:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Im the newbie compared to you, so i don't want to come off as If I know more. But I created Jasper AI after having it drafted, and then nominated for deletion for not being notable enough. I wouldn't count make use of as a strong source by itself. As a supporting source sure. While ZDnet IS reliable, the article covers multiple similar tools indiscriminately. While notability doesn't mean the article has to be all about the subject, the fact that ZeroGPT has done nothing notable, and we don't know anything about them is literally scary.
    Take GPTZero for example. Press coverage showcases who's behind the tool, how it works, and core beliefs and mission behind them. They have gotten substantial coverage. It seems night and day compared to ZeroGPT. However, I respect your opinion and would be curious to know why or how you think ZeroGPT is notable. Comintell ( talk) 01:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Kvng. SouthParkFan2006 ( talk) 07:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I added the references that Kvng found. Not sure this now meets notability requirements, but will make it easier to review. Owen× ☎ 17:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Comintell ( talk) 18:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Sensible wikipedians, I ask you this: Why is it that this company is supposedly from Germany, yet has mostly NEWSORGINDIA sources?
Why is it that original sources are factually inaccurate?
More: Why is it that the world has to gain from ZeroGPT wikipedia page?
What were the intentions and experience of the original editor?
I tried cleaning this article up, my research led me to identifying that this page is a mistake. I made positive edits but on closer analysis found the references to be substantially unreliable. Please heed the red flags, and do thoroughly examine all of the evidence set forth. Comintell ( talk) 19:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Saw another deletion discussion of a page that had far more citations, and was being ridiculed. The same standards should apply here. Y'all, this fails even most basic GNG. Cgallagher2121 ( talk) 06:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per reasons above. Félix An ( talk) 07:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Although the page is about software (not a company), it still falls under WP:NCORP guidelines. The main references being claimed to show notability are Zdnet which is on the perennial source list, but this reference is a review along with four other software programs so I would not consider it to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. MakeUseOf is a questionable source so I would say in the least it cannot be used for notability. I have brought up a new discussion at RSN so we can wait to see how that turns out. Another is LiveMint which is commonly associated with WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The reference being cited here has a byline, but looking at the author's contributions, they are writing on a variety of different topics outside of technology (business, politics, local news, etc.). This would indicate it is a contributor. I am borderline on regarding it as reliable for notability in this case but even if it is, that would only be one source. The final is Times Now which clearly falls under NEWSORGINDIA and even if disputed as such, the information is only a single paragraph and does not meet CORPDEPTH. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 07:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a product therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the product*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the sources have the necessary content to meet the criteria for establishing notability. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 22:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. No new comments after 2 relistings so I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

National Club Football Association

National Club Football Association (  | 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 or WP:ORG. Let'srun ( talk) 23:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

Chester Aaron

Chester Aaron (  | 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:BASIC, lacks significant coverage other than the single Penn State biography DirtyHarry991 ( talk) 23:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

  • Keep. He meets the WP:Author Notability. Micheal Kaluba ( talk) 15:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Didn’t find much about him, yet he seems a notable WP:Author by seeing his work.I found some the third party sources, 1, 2, 3 that at least credits his career as a writer. Atighot ( talk) 00:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Steve Crabtree

Steve Crabtree (  | 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)

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

  • Comment: articles aren't deleted because they're inadequately sourced; they're deleted because their subjects aren't notable, or the statements in the article are unverifiable. WP:BEFORE expects a reasonable effort to locate sources before nominating articles for deletion; articles shouldn't be nominated merely because they don't contain enough sources. Being an unsuccessful candidate for a state office may not be enough to establish notability, but it might be combined with some of the other assertions to do so. Even unsuccessful candidates for office generally receive news coverage, but that hasn't been cited—so we know there are sources out there that haven't been included in the article. Once a reasonable attempt to find sources has been undertaken, then we'll be in a better position to tell whether the subject is notable. P Aculeius ( talk) 13:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

  • Delete: I read the article and discovered it fails GNG. It also fails WP: people and WP:JOURNALIST. Though the article is well written, there's no in-depth coverage of the subject by secondary sources, reliable and multiple sources. Google does not show relevant information about the subject except obituary... I, therefore, agree that this article should be deleted. You can read WP:NOT. Ezra Cricket ( talk) 01:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. No comments after 2 relistings so I'm closing this as No consensus. Feel free to return to AFD at a future date. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Ajum Goolam Hossen

Ajum Goolam Hossen (  | 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)

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

If you actually read the article, you would see that the information is displayed in these books. You can’t set it for deletion if you haven’t even read the articles properly. Ajum was the owner of a major trade company in Mauritius and was secretary and co-founder of the Surtee Soonnee Mussulman Society, which has made a great impact on the Muslims (not just Surtis) in Mauritius. If that’s not notability, I don’t know what is. Yolia21 ( talk) 15:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Please tell me which citations do not fit the requirements. I used the same sources as used in Amode Ibrahim Atchia as the person was also a Mauritian businessman. It has the same information. Yolia21 ( talk) 15:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes, I have read both the article and the references provided.
  • The first is a record of a civil court case. There is a name check but nothing that talks of notability
  • The second ref has a name check for "A J Hossen" and a short quote. Nothing about the subject.
  • The third is a blog believed to be the blog of the article creator - blogs have no value in asserting notability
  • The fourth does not appear to mention the subject
  • The fifth states "Goolam Hossen Piperdy who died in 1875 after successfully founding A G Hossen and Co. engaged in extensive import and export activities , had branches in Calcutta, Bombay, St Denis.....". The quote continues but adds nothing to indicate any significant notability. He was obviously a good businessman of his time but that isn't a claim to notability
  • The sixth is another civil court case decision about the value of goods - no notability here.
  • The seventh demonstrates that he shook hands with Mr K Gandhi in 1901 - again no evidence of notability.
In Summary, none of the sources discuss the subject, they are all mentions or name checks and thus the article fails WP:GNG as noted in the nomination,   Velella   Velella Talk   15:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I found several refs cited online that may mention them but they may be available on paper only. If someone here has access to them, please try to dig them up. They might solve the notability as well as enrich the article with useful content:
    • Rouillard, G. (1964) Histoire des Domaines, Sucriers De L’Ile Maurice. Les Pailes-Ile Maurice: The General Printing and Stationary Company, Limited
    • The Gujurati Merchants in Mauritius 10 THE GUJURATI MERCHANTS IN MAURITIUS: 1850-1900 AC Kalla - The Coolie Connection: From the Orient to the Occident, 1992 - Windsor Press
      • Also published as: The Gujarati merchants in Mauritius c. 1850–1900 AC Kalla - Journal of Mauritian Studies, 1987
In the meantime, these potential refs don't count in this discussion
Velella, I disagree with your assessment of ref #5, especially in combination with #7. #5 indicates he was a major player in the economy and #7 indicates he was the leader of the dominant group on the island, Indo-Mauritians, who welcomed Gandhi. I'll further note that our notability guideline does not discriminate against successful or unsuccessful businesspeople -- they're based on references.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 17:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Thank you A.B. Yolia21 ( talk) 18:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
They are called references for a reason.
  • The first reference is to show that Ajum died on the 14th of February in 1919.
  • The second shows that he was notable individual in the Surtee community in Mauritius
  • The third is written from knowledge of his descendants. (me) This is not the first time this has happened as shown in Amode Ibrahim Atchia’s reference of a blog by Michael Atchia, his grandson.
  • The 4th shows his sugar factory in Pamplemousses.
  • The 5th talks about his company and how we was a notable trader in Port Louis, which is why he’s mentioned in the book in the first place.
  • The 6th talks about how he had many branches across the Indian Ocean like Singapore, South Africa, Mauritius, and India.
  • The 7th is talking about how his company faced legal issues which lead to the collapse of it. This is one of many recorded cases of Ajum Goolam Hossen and Co.
  • The 8th talks about how Ajum hosted M K Gandhi and Ajum did a speech with his son and two others. A person doing a speech at Taher Bagh when M K Gandhi is there is most likely a notable person.
  • The 9th shows his contributions to the recovery of Mauritius after the cyclone and his contribution to Rander, his family’s origin town.
Yolia21 ( talk) 18:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Heritage Reclaimed by AC Kalla even mentions how notable he and his father was. Yolia21 ( talk) 12:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I think that there is a misunderstanding about the word "notability". Wikipedia defines notability in very specific ways that require multiple reliable sources that discuss the subject. "Discuss" does not equate to mention. Equally, a source that states that a person is notable does not equate to "Notability" in Wilkipedia. The two concepts are quite separate and different. Sources may state that the subject is notable but that doesn't support notability here. Regarding the comment about businessmen - I made no assertion about his role as a businessman and his potential notability. What would be very useful if someone with access to the references quoted here (but not in the article) could provide unedited trascripts of the relevant passages onto the talk page of the article. I have so far seen no text that conveys notability.   Velella   Velella Talk   13:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply
There are multiple sources that talk about him, but I do not have access to all of them like you said. I dont understand what makes a person notable. Is there a specific amount of references? Yolia21 ( talk) 14:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The requirements are set out at WP:BIO. To be able to meet those standards it is necessary for the supporting texts to be read and be capable of being quoted. The sources don't have to be universally available and, especially for a person in Mauritius in the 19th century that might be very difficult but extracts from named documents from the National Library in Port Louis would be acceptable if they do indeed confirm notability.   Velella   Velella Talk   14:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I am currently contacting Abdool Cader Kalla on information of Ajum. Kalla is an author located in Mauritius who has made lots of books about Mauritian Indians. Maybe we can get more references. Yolia21 ( talk) 12:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

I am sorry but the simple number of references does not add anything to notability. As noted above, what is required is reliable and independent sources discussing the subject. Thus court rulings, press reports of visiting dignitaries which simply mention the subject do not equate to notability. As previously suggested, copying some key paragraphs from these sources where the subject is discussed in a way that demonstrates notability would help enormously. At present, just from the sources quoted , I am still not seeing evidence of notability.   Velella   Velella Talk   22:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I added some of the references you mentioned which you said could show notability. Yolia21 ( talk) 23:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

The result was speedy keep (withdrawn)‎. (non-admin closure) lizthegrey ( talk) 22:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

DevTernity Conference

AfDs for this article:
DevTernity Conference (  | 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)

See WP:CORPDEPTH. Lacks in-depth sourcing to substantiate notability; a list of past conferences held does not meant that the event is notable. If this article does remain, it needs to be substantially balanced, as the article was almost entirely written by User:EduardSi, the person who organises the conference in a positive, promotional tone, and there have been some troubling (and frankly, concerning) revelations about misogyny at the conference that soon will become secondary sourced, it would not be DUE to have a page about the conf without discussing the fake speakers & organisers controversy. Worth nothing: this is not the first time DevTernity has been proposed for deletion; previously it was proposed without Conference after it. lizthegrey ( talk) 20:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • I withdraw this nomination. There's WP:SIGCOV now. [1] [2] And at least two other stories running I know of because I've spoken to journalists. lizthegrey ( talk) 22:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Cole ·, Samantha (27 November 2023). "Tech Conference Collapses After Organizer Admits to Making Fake 'Auto-Generated' Female Speaker". 404 Media. Retrieved 27 November 2023.
  2. ^ Straker, Adam (27 November 2023). "This online developer conference had been 'inviting' non-existent women for several years to guarantee its 'inclusivity' - Gearrice". GearRice. Retrieved 27 November 2023.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. RL0919 ( talk) 21:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Joji Nagashima

Joji Nagashima (  | 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)

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 20:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article and no support for Deletion aside from the nominator. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

List of U.S. DoD aircraft designations

AfDs for this article:
List of U.S. DoD aircraft designations (  | 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 article is largely an alternative format of List of United States Tri-Service aircraft designations, with some designations from List of United States Air Force aircraft designations (1919–1962). Having two list articles on the same topic makes it hard to consistently maintain both lists, with the table format being especially hard to maintain and offering little to no benefit to the reader. Since there is next to no information here that is not found on the Tri-Service list, I propose that this article be deleted or redirected to List of United States Tri-Service aircraft designations. ZLEA T\ C 20:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure I understand, as the 1962 Tri-Service system is the only aircraft designation system in use by the DoD. - ZLEA T\ C 02:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
If you're talking about Joint Regulation 4120.15E, that is the document that currently maintains both the 1962 aircraft and 1963 missile Tri-Service designation systems. The DoD and Tri-Service aircraft designation system are one in the same. Perhaps this list could be shifted in scope to also cover the missile system as well, but I still don't see any merit to keeping it if the scope is to remain solely on aircraft designations. - ZLEA T\ C 02:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
One of purposes is also to compare the older War department and Army Air Force designations in the historical section, especially the P-series which was partially removed. Its a case of forest and trees here, we already have many article that simply follow designations the idea is in part to take a step back and see the number series in context. A75 ( talk) 12:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Though I disagree with arbitrarily combining the 1924 "P/F" sequence with the Tri-Service designations (especially since the "P" prefix fell out of use at almost the exact same time as the DoD was formed, which probably is not a coincidence now that I think about it), I do get your point. If this list is kept (which it looks like it will be), I will probably make a move proposal to properly disambiguate it from the other list and attempt to establish a better standard for inclusion/exclusion and overall format. - ZLEA T\ C 03:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the reasons listed in the previous AfD for this page. Owen× ☎ 00:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Did you look at both articles? This one is far superior. Also this should've been a merge discussion, not waste everyone's time sending it to AFD. Dream Focus 00:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I understand that you may prefer the table format to the bullet list format, but I disagree that it is "far superior", and I have several reasons to believe the opposite. The main problem with the table format in this case is that the number of assigned designations in each role sequence varies greatly. The continued "C" sequence dwarfs all of the other sequences as it reaches up to 147 (so far), while the next highest sequence, save for the non-sequential or grandfathered pre-1962 designations, is the H-73, leaving a vast majority of the table cells empty. Speaking of non-sequential designations, it is also worth noting that the table format cannot viably accommodate for non-sequential designations above 147, such as the KC-767, which the DoD list specifically notes that it can't accommodate. In addition to these problems, the table format does not leave much room for variants of aircraft that have their own articles, such as the F/A-18E/F.
I also want to point out that I did consider starting a merge discussion, but I decided against it because I saw nothing of value in this list that is not already in List of United States Tri-Service aircraft designations. The latter even covers redesignations of pre-1962 aircraft to a greater extent than this list does. Therefore, given the inherent problems with the table format and nothing valuable to merge, I believe that deletion or redirection are the only logical choices. - ZLEA T\ C 03:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Better Together (programme)

Better Together (programme) (  | 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)

Completely non-notable campaign, only single source cited, most Google searches (understandably) come up with the political campaign with the same name, only one relevant third-party source I was able to find here.

Overall a low-quality article Elshad ( talk) 18:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Elshad ( talk) 18:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as non-notable. There does not appear to be any analysis or academic discussion about this programme, although the signal-to-noise ration on search results makes a definitive statement impractical. Since the article has been moribund for a decade and no new sources appear to exist (I can't even confirm whether the programme still exists, or when it might have ended), I think deletion is the only choice. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 13:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The lack of coverage of this seems to suggest limited notability at the time and no lasting notability. Dunarc ( talk) 22:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Nicole Berner

Nicole Berner (  | 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)

Delete and merge with existing draft per consensus reached on federal judicial nominee articles at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany M. Cartwright; fails WP:NPOL Snickers2686 ( talk) 18:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy deleted‎ by Bbb23 ( talk · contribs) as " A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Napoli Resturant

Napoli Resturant (  | 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)

I cannot see that this either satisfies WP:GNG or WP:CORP. No significant sources as far as I can tell. As of 13:21EST Nov 25 compltetly unsourced as well. AriTheHorse 18:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Per WP:Speedy keep#1. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no new delete rationale appears in the deletion discussion. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Arikomban

Arikomban (  | 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)

Removed PROD. Terribly written NPOV violation. Withdrawn. DrowssapSMM ( talk) ( contributions) 18:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Asia, India, and Kerala. DrowssapSMM ( talk) ( contributions) 18:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • AFD is for deciding whether administrators should exercise the administrator-only deletion tool. It is not for things that you can quite easily deal with yourselves with the tools that you have, such as by reverting to Special:Permalink/1159804585 and trying to develop the article from there again. Uncle G ( talk) 20:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Proquest has 254 hits for the name, seems likely to meet GNG. Espresso Addict ( talk) 23:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Nomination reason seems ridiculous. Is nominating for deletion is the procedure to deal with articles having NPOV issues. I don't think it is. Use appropriate tags instead or try to clean the mess up. The subject has received coverage from international medias such as BBC and CNBC [8]. Why should BBC cover about a rogue elephant from India if it is not that much important. This elephant is the subject of an upcoming Malayalam movie which is under pre-production. This itself implies the importance of this elephant. Besides there are plenty of coverage to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. 111.92.124.104 ( talk) 04:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - extensive media coverage is available; but by all means roll this back to a non-embarassing state. The version suggested above by Uncle G seems reasonable. There seems to be a year-long three-sided skirmish going on at the article about who can add the most cringeworthy POV material, that has to stop. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 08:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 19:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Marylyn D. Ritchie

Marylyn D. Ritchie (  | 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)

Delete. I cannot find any independent sources on the subject. – CopperyMarrow15 ( talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 18:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Professors/Academics generally have slightly different requirements about notability requirements than other biographies—see WP:NPROF.
AriTheHorse 18:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn per the reviews added by GeogSage. There are some issues left such as templates indicating "1985" or so as journal name or books being listed in the table and then as "source" for themselves in the references, but those issues can be addressed by normal editing. Why these reviews did not pop up in my "before" search I have no clue. Randykitty ( talk) 14:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Scientific Geography Series

Scientific Geography Series (  | 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 appears to be well-sourced with currently 14 references. However, 10 of those are to the different volumes in this series. Of the remaining 4, two (#1 and #4) are announcements from the publisher and #14 does not even mention "scientific geography", let alone the book series. That leaves #2, a 1.5 page review of the first three volumes in this series that ran from 1985 to 1988. A WP:BEFORE search renders booksellers, but no real coverage. In all, this does not appear to meet WP:GNG, hence: delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Oppose: The Scientific geography series is a historically interesting/relevant series within geography, and one of a few sets of shorter concept books that were put out at the time to reduce the overall cost of textbooks by focusing on discreet topics. Reliable sources providing in-depth discussions of any academic journal are rare, as are reliable sources providing in-depth discussions of textbook series. The series is also older, so much of the original content surrounding it likely did not make it onto the internet, and many of the citations are probably not indexed. The entries of the series are generally fairly well cited however, and foundational in the development of modern spatial statistics, for example, "Spatial Autocorrelation" by "John Odland" is an early book covering an incredibly important topic in modern spatial statistics. On Google Scholar,Spatial Autocorrelation is cited 690 times. It is also listed in a peer-reviewed review article titled "Teaching and learning spatial autocorrelation: a review." "Central Place Theory" by "LJ King" is cited 381. "Point Pattern Analysis" by Barry N. Boots and Arthur Getis is cited 627 times.
I have added two more citations, one a review focusing on the latter two books in the series that discusses their context in the overall series, and another focusing on one of the book themselves as an educational resources. As far as foundational literature and older textbook series that were in print before the internet was widely available, this seems like better notability and coverage then some modern peer-reviewed journals. It is important to note that the sources state that the series is meant to be taken as a whole, with each version building on the previous ones and not repeating content. As the series can be viewed as one work in this way, each one of the discreet publications notability contribute to the whole.
GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔) 19:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The following sources have been added to the article:
  • Tiedemann, C. E. "Review by Choice Review". The University of Chicago Library Catalog. Retrieved 25 November 2023.
  • Wrigley, N (1985). "Review: Central Place Theory, Gravity and Spatial Interaction Models, Industrial Location, Scientific Geography Series,". Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space. 17 (10): 1415–1428. doi: 10.1068/a171415.
  • Johnston, R J (1987). "Review: Regional Population Projection Models, Spatial Transportation Modeling, Regional Input—Output Analysis, Human Migration". Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space. 19 (3): 426–427. doi: 10.1068/a190419.
  • Cox, Nicholas J. (1989). "Teaching and learning spatial autocorrelation: a review". Journal of Geography in Higher Education. 13 (2): 185–190. doi: 10.1080/03098268908709084. GeogSage
  • Healey, Michael (1986). "Book reviews: Scientific geography series, Central Place Theory, Gravity and Interaction models, Industrial Location". Applied Geography. 6: 275–277. doi: 10.1016/0143-6228(86)90009-3.
  • Gatrell, A. C. (1989). "Book reviews: Scientific geography series, Point pattern analysis (Scientific Geography Series, Vol. 8), Spatial diffusion (Scientific Geography Series, Vol. 10)". Applied Geography. 9 (2): 140. doi: 10.1016/0143-6228(89)90059-3. GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔) 06:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep plenty of reviews on it. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 11:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. RL0919 ( talk) 21:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Papaya CMS

AfDs for this article:
Papaya CMS (  | 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)

No evidence of notability. Has only had a single source (its GitHub repo, which doesn't contribute to notability at all) since its creation in 2010. The previous deletion discussion was closed with no consensus, including a comment that the German article has sufficient sources to establish notability. That doesn't appear to be the case. Greenman ( talk) 17:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Couldn't find many sources that weren't first-party or simply "how many websites use...". I'd say it fails WP:GNG
Lewcm Talk to me! 23:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete – could not locate sources that would make this notable. -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 23:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
FWIW, concerning the "keep" votes in the first nomination, I don't think any of the German sources on Google Scholar gived significant coverage to Papaya CMS. -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 23:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Union Station (Ogden, Utah)#SP 7457. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Southern Pacific 7457

Southern Pacific 7457 (  | 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 train that is only sourced to coverage by the museum that possesses it and a trivial mention that it came into that museum's possession. Content is not suitable for a merge to the museum article due to a lack of encyclopedically relevant coverage but it may be a suitable redirect. IP creator is know to have produced a variety of similarly non-notable articles. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 16:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Speedy keep‎ per WP:SK#1, no rationale for deletion provided. (non-admin closure) -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 19:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Raquel Evita Saraswati

AfDs for this article:
Raquel Evita Saraswati (  | 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)

Some editors have expressed concerns that she requested in 2013 through ORTS that an article about her should not be created, a request that was honored. It's possible that this issue might arise again in 2023. This AfD might have occurred at some point anyway, given the nature of the topic. I think she has now achieved sufficient notability, and we can write based on what reliable sources say, regardless of the subject's wishes. In my research, I found numerous in-depth references in reliable sources such as The Intercept, Philadelphia Magazine, Philadelphia Inquirer, USA Today, and The Juggernaut. Skeus ( talk) 16:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I think Intercept and USA Today give clear GNG; subject is not a private figure and quite regularly participates in public events and speaks to the media. That said, we should be quite careful about the other sources, like the Metro, in the article with clearly biased headlines. I think there may be something to say about stubbifying the article. Fermiboson ( talk) 16:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Note that I asked you to submit this as a draft, not move it to mainspace and then nominate it for AFD yourself. 331dot ( talk) 16:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't think draftspace submission is obligatory. Skeus ( talk) 17:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
That's not the point. I said that you had the option of deletion review or running the draft through AFC to establish that things had sufficiently changed since the last AFD. I undeleted it on the condition that you use AFC. An AFD that you started yourself is improper because you don't want it deleted. 331dot ( talk) 17:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Eric Loiselet

Eric Loiselet (  | 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 about a political figure, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The article makes no claim that he ever held any NPOL-passing office, asserting only that he was a candidate for one -- but unelected candidates do not get articles just for being candidates, and get into Wikipedia only if they either (a) have some other claim of notability besides the candidacy, or (b) can show credible grounds to treat their candidacy as a special case of significantly greater notability than most other people's candidacies. Neither of those have been demonstrated here, however.
It should also be noted that an article about him previously also existed on the French Wikipedia, but was deleted on the same grounds -- but if even French editors can't find enough to salvage the notability of a French political candidate, then he surely can't somehow be more notable in the anglosphere than he is in France. Bearcat ( talk) 16:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

delete as long as the article is not extended or properly source then it should be deleted. Homerethegreat ( talk) 16:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Just a politician who was never elected to any office. Jmanlucas ( talk) 18:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No significant press coverage and non elected politician. Fails WP:NPOL. Atighot ( talk) 01:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Constitution State Rivalry

Constitution State Rivalry (  | 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 doesn't meat WP:NRIVALRY due to a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun ( talk) 15:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and Connecticut. Let'srun ( talk) 15:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: No evidence of notability (or even that this is a rivalry at all). Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 21:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The sources presented in the article do not constitute WP:SIGCOV discussing this series in depth as being a rivalry. There are some factors weighing on the plus side (geographic proximity, competitiveness, and apparently a named rivalry), but those factors come into play only if it's a close close case as to whether we have enough SIGCOV. If others come forward with such SIGCOV, I'll reconsider. Cbl62 ( talk) 02:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
A search of Connecticut newspapers didn't even turn up passing mentions of this as a rivalry. See here and here. Cbl62 ( talk) 02:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No evidence of notability and personal searches of the rivalry didn't bring up much of anything especially no SIGCOV. Grahaml35 ( talk) 19:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was ‎ no consensus. The most frequently cited reasons for deletion are (1) insufficiency of reliable sources and (2) that the article focuses only on the YouTube and gaming career, and not about the person as a whole. However, while they are in the minority, I believe the "keep" side have made an adequate rebuttal to these points. Skyshifter mentioned that several of the listed sources, including PC Gamer and Polygon are reliable for an article about a game content presenter, and I also find it reasonably persuasive that a biography of the nature will be focused on the creative content and career rather than personal details. There was a late suggestion to draftify the article, but having looked at the article, I see no violation of any core content policy and whatever shortcomings the article may have are not severe enough to justify that action. The provided sourcing may of course be used to expand the article further. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

DougDoug

DougDoug (  | 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)

Another of those Youtubers where it is impossible to write a cohesive biography about them. There are some lazy journalism/ churnalism highlighting some individual streams, but all fails to actually talks about his life in any meaningful way. Without all the non-independent sources removed, the article would be in a even sadder state, which is not we want since we want our articles to mainly depend on independent sources. Without all the tweets fluffing the article up, this page would consist of 1. Random info on two streams he did 2. Mention of a minor fundraiser 3. the fact that he won Streamer award

A WP:before search on google and gbooks only found unreliable Sportskeeda and other unusable sources. Ca talk to me! 15:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Entertainment, and Internet. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Kotaku is a RS, but it really only talks about a speedrun. Most of the rest of the sources are non-RS per source tool. Esports ones are fine, but they really only talk about speedruns, I'm not sure we can build an article using those articles alone. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Beyond confirmation of speedruns, there isn't enough to build an article. I can't find anything in RS we can use. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. While he is a good content creator, there just aren't enough RS out there to keep the article currently. DrowssapSMM ( talk) ( contributions) 16:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete: I'm a fan, but I'm just not seeing enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. Happy to be proven wrong. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 20:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Another fan of DougDoug here. Although some of the sources used are reliable, they're mostly about his streaming/internet career, and not about his life as a whole. The award does provide a fraction of notability, but that's about it. TarantulaTM ( speak with me) ( my legacy) 04:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: As a moderator of Doug's chat, I honestly do agree entirely with everything said thus far. There's not enough that we know about Doug At All™ to actually warrant a valid page period, let alone one meeting WP:ANYBIO. EarthToAccess ( talk) 21:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Sources 4 through 8 are significant coverage about Doug or at very least his main work (which is as a streamer and a speedrunner), plus the Streamer Awards is a notable award. I don't see why we would need sources talking about his life, that seems like an exaggeration; sources giving significant coverage to his work as a streamer and speedrunner (which is indeed the main thing he's known for) should be enough (which are sources 4 through 8). Plus there's a clearly notable award that not only was he nominated for but won. Skyshifter talk 01:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Agreeing with Skyshifter here. I think there's a misunderstanding with applying only WP:NBIO along with dismissing several of the sources because it focuses more on his work than him. While yes, he is a person, he's also a YouTuber who creates web content, so WP:WEB applies here too. An article about a YouTuber should be expected to cover the type of content he makes as that's the most crucial information readers would reasonably wish to learn about. In my opinion, the sources Skyshifter highlighted do contain commentary and review-esque material that provides WP:WEBCRIT evidence. Also, one could argue that WP:CREATIVE applies, considering that his content has received significant coverage as well. It seems people just interpret WP:BLP as "an article about a person must be a full biography of the person's life" rather than "a biography of a person's life must be protected from misinformation and vandalism," and don't consider any other possible notability criteria that also applies. Personally I don't see any BLP violations from using secondary sources about his videos, so I vote Keep. If this somehow gets closed as delete instead of relisted, I'm considering doing a deletion review anyways Striking per suggestion. PantheonRadiance ( talk) 18:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    My problem with the article is not of notability guidelines, that's why I didn't cite any acronyms.
    DougDoug's fundraiser is already mentioned in the Rosa (sea otter) article, and the Doug's Streamer Award is mentioned in The Streamer Awards.
    This means that the only non-redundant, and original information that could be said is that a streamer did three streams. That falls squarely under the WP:PAGEDECIDE territory. The related articles already cover much of the content in the article. The article only has an illusion of cohesiveness because of the numerous tweets cited. This kind of article is especially vulnerable to NPOV troubles if DougDoug happens to get into YouTuber drama.
    I like this content creator, I am a fan, but a Wikipedia article is more of a burden to its subject than it is a gift. Ca talk to me! 22:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    I do see where you're coming from a bit better, and some of the tweets should be trimmed. But I still believe he warrants an article. The Dot Esports and PC Gamer sources have background info about both him and his career, and even some of the sources about his streams delve a bit into him as well. I also found sources from Wargamer and Bloomberg that also provide usable info - the former about a DnD stream he did noting his other challenges, and another mentioning his AI-based content. Finally, even if parts of it are mentioned in other articles, I still don't see why that shouldn't contribute too. The Streamer Award should count per WEBCRIT, and we usually mention notable award wins in plenty of biographies even when mentioned in the award's article. If the fundraiser were the only event he received coverage for, I would say he doesn't merit an article. However, a notable fundraiser, plus an award win, plus reviews of his multitude of web content in various reliable outlets should equal a separate page for him. PantheonRadiance ( talk) 01:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Skyshifter and PantheonRadiance. QuicoleJR ( talk) 19:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep: I believe that deletion isn't the best policy unless there's undeniably not enough evidence to leave the article up. That, of course, does mean the article will need some work, but I'd rather opt for workshopping the article than straight up deleting it. HaapsaluYT ( talk) 04:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Incubate: For reasons mentioned by others, the article is not in a great state, which is common for the subject’s field. However, the subject is notable in their prolific use of spectator-infusion systems, as described in a recent PhD thesis on “speedrunning events, charity livestream events, and livestream interactivity”. I expect reliable sources to become more available over time as the field is better written about and studied. I think the subject would fall within WP:CREATIVE #2 (originator of using a combination of techniques, not an originator of any single one of them though), and arguably WP:CREATIVE #1 as well given his award. But since RSs are unfortunately lacking in the article to validate WP:CREATIVE, it needs some rework. Bert303 ( talk) 07:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply
I support draftication over deletion since this article has some potential. Ca talk to me! 12:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 ( talk) 21:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

James Yoku

James Yoku (  | 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)

Seems to fail the bare minimum of WP:SPORTBASIC #5 as well as WP:GNG. Searches of "James Yoku" and "Jemes Yoku" failed to yield anything close to significant coverage for me. He only played one professional game according to Football Database. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was 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 14:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Misriadi Didiet

Misriadi Didiet (  | 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)

I'm struggling to find any evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. The best sources found in an Indonesian search were Kutai Kartanegara, Viva and Liputan6, all of which only mention Misriadi in passing. I could not find any WP:RS that took Misriadi to one side and analysed him in detail. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Louise Camrass

AfDs for this article:
Louise Camrass (  | 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)

Neither source given is a WP:RS, cannot find non-self-published sources DirtyHarry991 ( talk) 11:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, without prejudice to restoration to draft if additional sources are found. Nothing here speaks to encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 15:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This article was relisted with the reason that it is ineligible for soft deletion. Please look at the nomination from September. The article was soft deleted then, but not processed properly. Could a closer take a second look at the first nomination? Thanks! -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 17:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Supreme Education Council (Qatar). Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Navigation Tower

AfDs for this article:
Navigation Tower (  | 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 seems to be no significant coverage in WP:GNG sources. Previous AfD resulted in a soft-delete, and the article has now been recreated. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 14:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Qatar. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 14:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, despite it being a distinctive design, it doesn't appear to have attracted much media attention. I can only find a brief description on Worldfinance.com. It looks like it was a commercial venture by a shipping company. Sionk ( talk) 14:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Does not have SIGCOV. DrowssapSMM ( talk) ( contributions) 16:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Supreme Education Council (Qatar), the building's main occupant which has its name upon it. Nate • ( chatter) 21:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    It might be good to mention the building on the redirect target with an RS; this seems like a good ATD. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 23:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect: This building is not notable. However, the main occupant of this building is Qatar's top education department, and there is an article dedicated to it. HarukaAmaranth 春 香 17:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per above. Not notable enough for a standalone article. The Kip 23:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 03:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Limosa (disambiguation)

Limosa (disambiguation) (  | 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 disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title while the other entries here aren't valid. The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 14:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 14:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There are only two WP:DABMENTION-satisfying entries. A hatnote on Godwit will suffice. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Pppery, the disambiguation page has been updated and Limosa (magazine) has been created as a redirect mentioned in its target. If you're fine with it now, please change your vote so that I can withdraw this nomination. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 15:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Go ahead and withdraw. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • NmWTfs85lXusaybq, have you ever seen WP:BEFORE? :) In this case, you can e.g. see that Special:WhatLinksHere/Limosa_(magazine) has numerous links so it qualifies for inclusion. Why should we hide this from readers? -- Joy ( talk) 21:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Joy, have you ever noticed that all links of Limosa (magazine) in the main namespace are actually from the transclusion of {{ European birding journals}}? That's not warranted per MOS:DABMENTION. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 01:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    OK, but that gives you a hint that at least one other editor thought there was potential. I know it's easier to just do a huge mechanic cleanup, but sometimes it makes sense to look into these because they're indicative of something else. I just skimmed your list of 200+ prod's and found several situations that could be handled differently. -- Joy ( talk) 10:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yes, that's what I meant. Unfortunately, it seems that nobody was willing to help check WP:ONEOTHER candidates in the last month after I tagged 200+ dab pages (of all 1,200+ candidates) with {{ One other topic}}, although I have excluded ones resulted from vandalism. Thus, I believe PROD has to be used to draw more attention from our community. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 11:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yeah, the cleanup tags aren't going to be very effective within just a month at rarely visited pages. Especially in cases where there weren't even hatnote links to some of these. -- Joy ( talk) 12:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • There is now a sourced mention of the magazine at Sovon, and a redirect there. Still no need for a dab page, a hatnote at the bird would do.. Pam D 08:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I found another item in the title search with an existing redirect, a minor planet, just by scrolling through. There's also mentions of moths, but I'm not familiar with WP:PTM rules on scientific names so someone else should look at it. Spamming all this into a hatnote at an article that actually has a different title seems like it would be excessive. -- Joy ( talk) 10:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Well spotted. Pam D 13:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: adequate little dab page, too much for a hatnote. Pam D 13:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep several valid entries, plus see also section. Boleyn ( talk) 15:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Stand up for us

Stand up for us (  | 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)

Completely non-notable campaign. Of the two references provided, first one makes no mention of "Stand up for us" and second one is dead. Google search for "Stand up for us" does not produce many relevant results. Only real evidence I have found for this campaign is this but one publication clearly does not warrant an article.

Completely non-notable and does not deserve an article. Elshad ( talk) 12:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to Czech Republic at the 2014 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Michal Vacek

Michal Vacek (  | 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)

I searched on Google and couldn't find any news coverage about this athlete. I'm not a native speaker of Czech language, but all I could find were brief/passing mentions and no activities of his own. Corresponding article on Czech Wikipedia is also a stub, which might help otherwise. No news has been released about him since his last appearance in 2015, either. CuteDolphin712 ( talk) 12:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

FromCzech ( talk) 07:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep‎. I'm withdrawing this nomination because I was unaware of other sources when I made it as I was searching for the MLW M-640. Oaktree b has clearly demonstrated other sources. TarnishedPath talk 04:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

MLW M-640

MLW M-640 (  | 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 appears to have been WP:REFBOMBed to make it appear more notable than it is. The first, second and fourth citations do not refer to the MLW M-640 at all as far as I can tell. They reference the Canadian Pacific 4744 and then only in passing. Not sure about the third citation. If the third citation does go into any any depth, one in depth citation by itself by itself is not enough to establish notability. Given the track record of this IP user I highly doubt the third citation does reference the subject in an depth, if at all. This does not pass WP:GNG as it has no independent notability outside of the Canadian Railway Museum. Suggest a redirect to Canadian Railway Museum. TarnishedPath talk 11:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Transportation. TarnishedPath talk 11:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Also coverage in the CP Corporate history magazine here [10] and [11], some discussion in an electrical engineering journal (paywalled) [12]. Here's a better link for the museum [13]. An "under the hood" look at the loco [14] Oaktree b ( talk) 17:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Anymore sources? Because I have added the current ones you mentioned into the further reading. Only for you to put them into their respective sentences that they are meant for. 118.210.56.198 ( talk) 20:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ 118.210.56.198, why are you submitting articles through AfC and then expecting others to come along later and provide sources to establish notability that you haven't been able to add yourself? TarnishedPath talk 04:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Probably could cobble together a decent article with the new sources I've found Oaktree b ( talk) 17:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    About three paragraphs here in Trains magazine [15] Oaktree b ( talk) 20:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Does that ever mention the MLW M-640? 118.210.56.198 ( talk) 20:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    They mention how it was redone using AC propulsion while keeping the original ALCO. "...Development Corporation, Canadian Pacific led the way in 1984, extensively rebuilding Montreal Locomotive Works M640 4744, a conventional D.C. locomotive, into an A.C.-traction testbed. In November 1984, 4744 emerged from CP Rail's Angus Shop, still with its unique 18cylinder, 4000 h.p. Alco 251 engine, but with its electrical and control systems radically altered. Converted from..." Oaktree b ( talk) 20:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'll add it to the further reading section 118.210.56.198 ( talk) 20:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep: I agree with @ Oaktree b we could add the new sources he has found to the article. 118.210.56.198 ( talk) 20:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 12:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Hanan Rubinstein

Hanan Rubinstein (  | 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:GNG; no sources in the article contain significant and independent coverage of the subject - the source that comes closest, a Bloomberg video, is no longer available and appears to have been an interview and thus would lack secondary coverage.

An online search for additional sources also reveals none. I suspect this article is an autobiography; the creator has almost no edits except to this article, and it has been heavily edited by IP's from the same location as Rubinstein. BilledMammal ( talk) 11:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was 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! 08:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Benito Juarez Marg

Benito Juarez Marg (  | 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 exists, but I couldn't find sources to confirm it meets WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for nearly 7 years. Boleyn ( talk) 09:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Delhi. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The road is notable as the South Campus of Delhi University is located along the road. This is a false statement. There are thousands of university campuses in the world, but the existence doesn't mean the roads they are near are notable. It's a generic four-lane road that's not even two km long. Reywas92 Talk 18:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Rossa (singer). Liz Read! Talk! 08:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Hati Yang Terpilih

Hati Yang Terpilih (  | 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 GNG and NALBUM. Sources in article are promo about the artist and do not meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject (the compilation album & soundtrack album) directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV. There is no sourced content that would improve a target, but no objection to a consensus REDIRECT.  //  Timothy ::  talk  10:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to Amy's Choice (Doctor Who). ( non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) Sohom ( talk) 12:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Amy's Choice

Amy's Choice (  | 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 2002 miniseries is nowhere near notable (hence it is a redlink). If you are looking for the doctor who episode, then you will waste your time on the disambiguation. If you are looking for the miniseries, it doesn't exist anyway so there is no point coming to this page. Even if the miniseries had an article, I would suggest it being a {{ for}} on the DW page anyway. I don't know much about disambiguation so please tell me if my logic is outright wrong. Kind regards, JacobTheRox ( talk) 08:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment, since the deletion of the miniseries article over 4 years ago happened, no other articles link to it, so I think WP:DABRED may apply. The article on the episode seems by and far a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, with 2700 views in the last month and 45 watchers. For me, this may have been better going to a WP:RM first, perhaps looking at moving the DAB to Amy's Choice (disambiguation) and then moving the episode to the primary title. Nevertheless, i'd probably be inclined to !vote weak delete on a DAB page which isn't serving a useful purpose and has a redlinked article not linked elsewhere. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 10:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per nom. Owen× ☎ 15:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, can not redirect to Amy's Choice (disambiguation) as this page is a Redirect to this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Do we really need to overthink this? Amy's Choice (Doctor Who) and Amy's Choice (Dr. Who) and Amy's Choice all got created in 2010 about a Doctor Who episode. After some history merger and splitting this one became the equal-weight disambiguation between the remaining Doctor Who article and an Amy's Choice (miniseries) that one of the Doctor Who article creators thought had equal weight to the Doctor Who episode and also created. That latter of the 2 ambiguous articles was deleted 9 years later. We don't need the disambiguation page any more. We lose one Doctor Who edit in this edit history by deleting it, and that only really resulted from the history split in the first place and is largely empty. This is housekeeping, at best. Uncle G ( talk) 12:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to the Doctor Who episode, I also think that It would be a good idea it to move the Doctor WHo episode to that page. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to the Doctor Who episode, I don't think a disambiguation page is needed. Was the miniseries' information included in any other pages? If so, a short note at the top could clarify things. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 03:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Phaitoon Phonbun

Phaitoon Phonbun (  | 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:GNG. My WP:BEFORE search found only routine coverage of results and ranking positions. There may be good sources in other languages that I've failed to uncover. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 12:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cue sports, and Thailand. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 12:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I'd be inclined toward keeping this, since a national champion is usually notable, and this person is an international regional champion (Asian Games). Maybe someone from WikiProject Thailand would have more luck finding sources using the subject's native-script name.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: A notice of this discussion has been delivered to WT:WikiProject Thailand.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Searching with his snooker nickname, ตัวเล็ก สำโรง (Tualek Samrong), turns up a lot of results, mostly match reports and videos. Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Cue Thong, Thailand's leading (and only) snooker magazine, has a profile page of him [16], as well as news coverage in several articles [17] [18]. There might be offline coverage from earlier in his career that is more in-depth, but that will require digging through some library archives. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 09:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 07:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • I'll throw in a weak keep if it'll make closing any easier. The above articles provide a fair amount of coverage, and hint that more in-depth coverage probably exists. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 04:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun ( talk) 19:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Australia–Peru relations

AfDs for this article:
Australia–Peru relations (  | 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)

Previously deleted via AfD back in 2010 and recently recreated. (I'm not an admin and can't see the original version, but I don't think the current version is close enough to qualify for WP:CSD G4.) Anyway, the arguments in the original AfD still apply. Cited sources are all either government websites and/or fall well short of constituting direct, in depth coverage of these countries' relations. Yilloslime ( talk) 02:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • It's not the same as the 2010 version. This is purportedly a translation of an article started on the Spanish Wikipedia in 2014. It covers the same ground, but it's not a strict translation. Uncle G ( talk) 02:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep - there are enough sources and diplomatic relations pages are a standard on the Wiki. Styx ( talk) 03:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak delete There are some relations like a free trade agreement. However, article is based mainly on primary sources hence my weak delete !vote. LibStar ( talk) 23:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep there are things which we can find about that in Google, article needs to be improved. Dawid2009 ( talk) 07:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. RL0919 ( talk) 21:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Lingam Suryanarayana

Lingam Suryanarayana (  | 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)

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 07:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

    • The discussion about notability appears to be used to delete some selected articles. What notability you require more than his position as Vice chancellor of an Indian Health university, Principal of a century old Andhra Medical College, WHO expert on some Health issues related to developing countries and good number of research publications. Would you like to consider only "Big" award winning persons only to have biographies in English Wikipedia.-- Rajasekhar1961 10:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

List of Japanese overseas military actions

List of Japanese overseas military actions (  | 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)

Overly broad. This would theoretically include every Japanese operation in World Wars I and II, in addition to countless previous actions. SilverStar54 ( talk) 05:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. This includes numerous unrelated states. Clarityfiend ( talk) 12:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or draftify. The subject is notable, the list is not unmanageably large, and mostly it just wants proper sourcing. Mccapra ( talk) 14:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE. What is the point of this 2005 un-sourced list? There is no indication of who created this, or why. Ultimately, just about every existing nation on earth has been involved in military actions beyond their borders. But, so what? — Maile ( talk) 16:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I searched for List of overseas military actions and seen no other nation has this. There is a Timeline of United States military operations and Category:Military timelines shows other nations that have these. But those are for nations, not locations that previously had a completely unrelated government. Dream Focus 05:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Mere POVFORK of wars list. Abhishek0831996 ( talk) 14:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Seems like a perfectly manageable list. I have no idea what "unrelated states" Clarityfiend is referring to. Lack of sources in an article from 2005 and especially in a list is no grounds for deletion. What POV does Abhishek0831996 have in mind? Srnec ( talk) 21:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Should there really be a list of "Overseas military actions by [given country]" in addition to a Category:Lists of wars by country? All of the former lists would just be an arbitrary subset of the latter. One can imagine an endless number of ways to subdivide lists of wars involving a country, but I don't think they all need separate pages. SilverStar54 ( talk) 00:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as a case of WP:TNT - There might be a list to be created within this area, but the current contents (effectively unsourced and containing vague statements like By some interpretations...) and the mismatch between it's title ("military actions" encompasses almost anything) and it's inclusion criteria (historical wars or other military conflicts outside the geographic boundaries of Japan in which Japanese soldiers participated) make this a difficult knot to untangle incrementally: removing unsourced contents would be equivalent to just removing the article, and a discussion on what the scope/inclusion criteria/title should be is exactly the kind of discussion that I've found rarely works out in practice. Easier for everyone involved to just start over. - Ljleppan ( talk) 08:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This article is just junk. We have [ [19]] which is also questionable, and we have Military_history_of_Japan. DCsansei ( talk) 22:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Beatnik Beatch. Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

George Cole (musician)

George Cole (musician) (  | 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--individual members of bands should redirect to the band page Blockhead14 ( talk) 21:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The nominator should suggest which band to redirect to, as this musician has been in several. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 12:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I count two: Beatnik Beatch and David Grisman Quintet. However, he does not appear on the list of 20 members of the latter on their page or in the credits for any of their albums. So, since he is listed as a founding member of Beatnik Beatch, I propose that this page redirects to that band's page. Blockhead14 ( talk) 01:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Beatnik Beatch. That's the band for which he seems to have gotten the most coverage as a musician in his own right. He is described in some publications associated with Green Day as their longtime instructor, but those are fan-based. Otherwise I can only find him listed in the credits for various albums by other people in which he was a session hand, and his solo albums received little notice. I suspect that this article started out as an attempted autobiography. It looks like he has made a living as a trusty associate for many notable people, but he just hasn't gotten enough reliable coverage in which he is the focus. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 15:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 04:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article or, at least, a No consensus here. Basically, there is no support for Deletion other than the nominator. Liz Read! Talk! 08:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Minrui Road station

Minrui Road station (  | 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)

I WP:BOLDLY redirected the above articles a few days ago on concerns of notability, however @ User:Garuda3 reverted them, with the edit summary quote: "beneficial to have all stations of the system. Multiple references". However, most of the sources talk about the line which they serve, Pujiang line. On a WP:BEFORE search on both Google and Baidu in both English and Chinese, I could not find any significant coverage on the stations themselves, but only minor mentions on articles on the Pujiang line. These stations thus fail WP:NSTATION and WP:GNG, and in my opinion should be redirected to Pujiang line#Stations.

I am also nominating the following pages as well:

Sanlu Highway station (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Puhang Road station (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dongchengyi Road station (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Huizhen Road station (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

S5A-0043 Talk 07:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect all per nom. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment User:S5A-0043, this nomination is not in the correct format for a bundled nomination so it will make a closure, whatever that is, very difficult. You can't just list a group of articles, there is code you must use. Please review WP:AFD and reformat your nomination so that it is done correctly according to the guidelines descripted there. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 07:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1979 Sligo Intermediate Football Championship as an example of a correctly formatted bundled nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 07:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Alright, I’ll get to it later. S5A-0043 Talk 07:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk) 14:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 04:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Source check based on WP:GNG:
In the article:
[20] : Can’t open so can’t comment.
[21]: Significant? ☒N (passing mention of Huizhen Road and not even a single mention of everything else) Reliable? checkY Secondary? ☒N (Primary, Shanghai Keolis is the operator of the line) Independent? ☒N (Same as secondary)
[22]: Not actually archived for some reason so no comment
[23] Significant? ☒N (Passing mentions for all stations). Independent? checkY Reliable? Question? (State media but since this isn’t political coverage I think it should still be OK). Secondary? checkY.
I grabbed a few extra random sources from Google and Baidu since someone mentioned WP:NEXIST:
[24]: Significant? Question? (A bunch of images of the stations but not much prose). Independent? Question? (Sounds promotional but not 100% sure) Reliable? checkY Secondary? checkY
[25] Significant? ☒N (Passing mentions for all). Independent? checkY Reliable? Question? (Via Baidu Baijiahao, a WP:UGC platform, but authored by state media. Like above no.4 since this isn’t political coverage I think it should still be OK). Secondary? checkY.
[26] Significant? ☒N (Passing mention of transfer info for each station. BTW this should also be routine coverage.) Independent? ☒N (Authored by Shanghai Metro, system operating organization). Reliable? checkY Secondary? ☒N.
Apologies for the mess, I tried using the source assessment table but mobile editing is a headache. But anyway, I honestly doubt these stations meet WP:GNG based on the above. S5A-0043 Talk 20:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Multiple reliable secondary sources. And also per WP:BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. 213.239.67.134 ( talk) 21:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    WP:BASIC also says trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. and that a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not (non-trivial coverage). Could you kindly explain why WP:BASIC is satisfied in this case? S5A-0043 Talk 21:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Those of us who care about equity tend to be a touch more lenient when it comes to Africa, much of Asia, most of the Caribbean, and other regions with serious deficiencies in quality sources. Out of equity considerations and not replacing the need for quality sources. Just relaxing it slightly. If we wouldn't, such regions would suffer even a larger coverage gap at Wikipedia. In general, there is no need for the nominator to respond to almost every diverging opinion in AfDs. In fact, there is a strong recommendation against that. Please assume that ALL opinionators have read the AfD-rationale and are taking it into full consideration! gidonb ( talk) 11:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Atragon. Liz Read! Talk! 08:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Manda (kaiju)

Manda (kaiju) (  | 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)

Minor fictional monester (kaiju) from the Godzillaverse. Pure plot summary + list of media it appears in. No reception, no analysis. Poor referencing (including fanpages, even fan wiki - wikizilla). Article on ja wiki is no better. Per ATD, the best non-hard-deletion outcome I can think of would be redirecting this to the movie it debuted in ( Atragon). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Japan. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Meh. It appears in so many different media, it would be nice if List of kaiju were actually that, or failing such a list, retaining it along a similar rationale as BAND#6. That is, while not individually notable, it's been a part of too many notable ensembles (movies, etc.) for a merge to just one to be appropriate. Jclemens ( talk) 04:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Atragon, the first movie to feature the creature and where it actually had a prominent role. The other movies and pieces of media listed in its "filmography" were largely just very quick cameos (with the appearances in All Monsters Attack and Terror of Mechagodzilla being nothing but reused stock footage, if I recall). Even its biggest appearance in a film since its debut ( Godzilla: Final Wars) is only a couple of minutes long. Atragon is the only piece of media where it actually had a central role to the plot, thus would be the proper place to redirect. Rorshacma ( talk) 20:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Meh per Jclemens. There ought to be a better way to handle this but in the absence of better sources I can't object to a redirect to Atragon. Eluchil404 ( talk) 00:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep because while the Japanese article isn't great, it does list Japanese-language sources that prove notability. I did a search and it's a bit difficult to filter through other uses in Japanese but I think there's more there as well. DCsansei ( talk) 14:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ DCsansei Which sources prove notability and how? I translated that article too and I did not notice them. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    The character has appeared in quite a number of notable media and has substantial coverage in various reliably sourced coverage of those in Japanese. I think it easily passes the threshold for notability.
    Again, I'd like to remind editors that WP:NOENG is, even if often ignored in these discussions, something to keep in mind. DCsansei ( talk) 21:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    As Piotrus asked, you are really going to have to point out which sources you are talking about in specific for this to be more than a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument. Because looking at the Japanese wiki article, the actual content is nothing but plot summaries and technical information on the production of the special effects with no kind of analysis or reception of the monster itself. And a lot of those sources being used look to be officially licensed Toho material, including a couple pieces of fiction. And saying "the character has appeared in quite a number of notable media" is never going to be enough to establish notability, particular since, as I already talked about above, nearly all of those appearances were brief cameos, sometimes just re-using existing footage. 03:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
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! 08:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Alfredo Larín

Alfredo Larín (  | 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 about a non-notable Youtuber. No WP:SIGCOV on the subject and I doubt if he meets WP:CREATIVE. Jamiebuba ( talk) 07:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. Can't find a single suitable source for the article. Crunchydillpickle🥒 ( talk) 00:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Hacktivist Vanguard

Hacktivist Vanguard (  | 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 per WP:ORG and WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search turned up the same self-promotion of the three sources currently cited, mostly reposts of a "Force for Cybersecurity" manifesto, which in the initial creation had a dozen copies cited on various blogs masquerading as newspapers. It's a recently created group, and may have only one member, as "Hacktivist Vanguard" is credited only as the cinematographer of several films on its IMDb entry. The article is a near copy of Draft:Hacktivist Vanguard, created by two other SPAs. An IP editor tried to credit the group as "hacker group" in the cast sections of the two film articles linked in the See also section, but I can find no evidence of any film roles for this "group" online. It all reads like a recruitment page for a new hacktivist group. Wikishovel ( talk) 07:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete all 3 of the sources on the page came up empty-handed on a reliable sources search. Chumpih t 19:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete MP1999 ❯❯❯ Talk 08:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Oracle Corporation. Liz Read! Talk! 08:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Oracle Academy

Oracle Academy (  | 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)

GNG fail, not clear what other criteria apply (NORG?). All sources are primary. Fermiboson ( talk) 07:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 10:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Russell Henderson (disambiguation)

Russell Henderson (disambiguation) (  | 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 disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title. The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 06:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Leaning oppose for now (I removed the PROD), but this may be a technicality that can be resolved. The problem is, that WP:ONEOTHER says: "If there is a primary topic located at the base name,..." and bases everything that follows on that condition. However, that condition is not satisfied, since the primary topic is currently not located at the base name, and so I presume that ONEOTHER does not apply here for the time being. The primary topic is clearly the convict (who has the PARENDIS, at Russell Henderson (convict)) and who gets all the search results up to #12, where the musician, Russell Henderson, first appears. However, we don't have an article at Russell Henderson (convict), just the redirect for the convict. So, I'm not sure what happens when PRIMARYTOPIC is a redirect, and whether that affects this. I judged that it probably does, because the convict appears to easily meet criterion 1 (usage), and although it wasn't clear some years ago, now it does seem clear with continuing coverage of the Shepherd case that it meets criterion 2 as well. So, I think what needs to happen here, is swap (convict) into undisambiguated position, add '(musician)' to the other one, and then revisit this to see where we are then. I think at that point, the initial ONEOTHER criterion would then be satisfied, and removal of the disambig page would be indicated. Mathglot ( talk) 08:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    It seems that you have misunderstood WP:2DABS. "If there is a primary topic located at the base name, ..." doesn't actually exclude the case of WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT at all. It's only a depiction about the case when there's a primary topic associated with the base name, comparing to the case of WP:NOPRIMARY in the section above WP:ONEOTHER. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 08:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm not assuming it's excluding PRIMARYTOPIC, I'm assuming it means what it says, namely, the PRIMARYTOPIC is at the basename, or translating that, that the PRIMARYTOPIC is at the pagename 'Russell Henderson'. What I am saying is, the PRIMARYTOPIC is not currently at the basename, therefore per the if-condition given, ONEOTHER does not currently apply to this case. (But it would apply, if the titles were swapped.) Mathglot ( talk) 09:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Mathglot, how is Russell Henderson (convict) a primary topic? It's only your opinion and had been contested by PC78 in the RM discussion which was closed without any consensus. Since you never start another one after that, the current topic at the base name remains primary. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 09:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Perhaps, but WP:CCC, and it isn't my opinion, well it is, but it is the PRIMARYTOPIC based on data, which you can reproduce yourself, by executing a search for 'Russell Henderson' and tallying up some of the top results. The musician first appears at #12. Look, I don't really care that much about this, and if the D-page gets deleted, then so be it. But I'd rather it be demonstrable by current guidelines and the best data we have available, and I don't see it. Mathglot ( talk) 09:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    OK, I can see Matthew Shepard is a clear primary topic with respect to usage from clickstream dataset and there's no problem to make it a primary redirect. I'm afraid that you have to start a separate RM for the potentially controversial move, since you have proposed one with no consensus. However, the disambiguation page should be deleted anyway and it might not be a proper way to exploit AfD for this move without any change to the outcome. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 14:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete regardless of one's opinions on which is the primary topic, a hatnote on that topic pointing to the other will suffice. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

*Delete. A disambiguation page is not required. If the musician is not the primary topic then that page should be moved to a disambiguated title. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 17:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Ceili (disambiguation)

Ceili (disambiguation) (  | 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 disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title while the other entries here aren't valid. The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 06:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to 700 (number)#790s. Liz Read! Talk! 08:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

790 (number)

790 (number) (  | 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)

Currently, there is only one source in the article that mentions one mathematical property of 790. The other properties are all calculated, so the article does not comply with Wikipedia:Notability (numbers). Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) mentioned that numbers must have three mathematical properties and at least these mathematical properties can be directly mentioned in the source of the article, so it is recommended that the article be redirected to 700 (number). 日期20220626 ( talk) 06:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. RL0919 ( talk) 21:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Lena Luthor

Lena Luthor (  | 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 comic character, most coverage is about the Arrowverse version of the character Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

That's...not a deletion argument. You don't get to decide what's trivial. Reliable source coverage is what determines notability. Otherwise you're arguing all fictional characters are trivial? Silver seren C 03:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
WP:ITEXISTS is not a valid argument. Some fictional characters are trivial, some aren't. I note that the vastly more important fictional character the Baron de Charlus does not get a page although he has an article in Britannica. Xxanthippe ( talk) 03:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC). reply
But isnt that arguement WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There appears to be quite a bit of significant coverage of Lena Luthor from an academic and published book perspective, particularly in relation to feminism and the LGBT community. Here's just one example of that, among many. And that attention has appeared to only expand due to the recent television shows due to the writers essentially using queerbaiting to generate interest. Silver seren C 03:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the sources given above and due to her notability not just in the comic book series but also regarding LGBTQ+ and feminism. Whilst some reception would be great for the article, deletion is not appropriate. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 03:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Changing vote to Strong keep per Siroxo's sources and analysis. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 07:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The academic sources found by Beccaynr are sufficient to demonstrate that the subject meets WP:GNG. — siro χ o 04:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Just to try to save editors some time in this discussion, here's some from two of Beccaynrs sources. Not an exhaustive representation of those sources.
    Hicks in Supersex, 2020 ( available via TWL) has multiple pages of SIGCOV including for example.

    ... season 2 saw Supergirl undergo several dramatic changes, including the introduction of Lena Luthor, the adopted sister of ... Lex Luthor. In her original Action Comics appearances, Lena is Supergirl’s best friend, and unaware that she is related to Lex Luthor. Because of Lena’s ESP powers, how-ever, Supergirl is constantly worried she will unwittingly “confess” her true identity to Lena. In addition, because she knows who Lena’s brother is, Supergirl continually doubts the veracity of Lena’s friendship. The television series imports these tensions while slightly rearranging their specifics. Because Lena is a Luthor, she is mistrusted by most people in National City. The key exception is Supergirl, who, for the most part, trusts Lena has good intentions, even as she continues to keep the identity of her alter ego a secret from her. Lena herself notes that her friend-ship with Supergirl exists “against all odds”: “Who would’ve believed it? A Luthor and a Super, working together.”36 The emotional drama of the friendship that develops between both Lena and Kara as well as Lena and Supergirl is bolstered by these tensions and by the onscreen chemistry between Benoist/Supergirl and McGrath/Lena. This in turn fuels fans’ championing of a romantic interpretation of the two’s relationship.
    ...
    In some ways, the Supercorp fandom is organized around the figure of Lena Luthor rather than Supergirl; Lena typically works as a self-insert character, and stories are frequently told from her perspective and/or con-structed to prioritize her point of view. Tumblr user katiemccgrath argues that “the Supercorp fandom is just a bunch of bottoms self-projecting onto lena luthor and that’s Valid.”53 One effect of this conventional pat-tern is that, instead of reifying a patriarchal framework that would seek to contain Supergirl’s supersexuality, the Supercorp fandom celebrates Supergirl’s abilities and her sexual dominance of Lena. Although some fans do openly identify with Supergirl and make Lena/McGrath the object of their sexual desires, they appear to be in the minority. In some fan conversations, lusting after Lena is even (jokingly) disapproved of; some Supercorp shippers react as if it places the fan in competition with the all-powerful Supergirl, who has already “claimed” Lena.

    Church, in Girl of Steel, 2020, has a 19 page essay dedicated in large part to the subject. Here are two snippets:

    Lena, conversely, constructs her "normal" public persona as a stereotypical CEO based on her own experiences: she is guarded with those around her and apprehensive towards trusting them. Both are responding to societal assumptions of how females and millennials would behave in contemporary society, and use these assumptions to create a false self for the public that are interpretations necessary for assimilation.
    ...
    For Lena, her public/ private masks work much differently. Rather than suppress her power draw from anger, Lena has to constantly suppress her vulnerability and insecurities from the public. As a CEO of a billion-dollar company, she cannot afford to be seen as weak or emotional. She also cannot express anger because National City's citizens are wary of her family's psychotic history. On an individual level, the series suggests that like these characters, we all have parts of ourselves that we repress to either protect others or ourselves. On a more symbolic level, it also highlights society's fear of strong, powerful women as demonstrated by National City's reaction to these characters as well as the characters' need to repress their true selves.

    — siro χ o 07:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    The second source is good but the first one seems to be more of a plot summary with some comments about Lena-Supergirl relationship, but next to nothing about Lena herself (that is not plot summary). That said, we are getting close to having enough content to warrant keeping this. Anything else? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    What I quoted here from the first source is sufficient to demonstrate SIGCOV, but I did include a link above that grants access via TWL, if you want to read the source in full. Fair warning, the source itself is uncensored. — siro χ o 11:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    • this is the partial quote available at p. 78 from Disability and the Superhero: Essays on Ableism and Representation in Comic Media (2023), critiquing her portrayal in Supergirl as a "missed opportunity to portray bodily diversity" and stating "There are various iterations of Luthor in other media, one of the most prominent versions being a wheelchair user..."
    • this is a link to 29 results with partial quotes for "Lena Luthor" in the Girl of Steel: Essays on Television's Supergirl and Fourth-Wave Feminism (2020) book
    • the Journal of Lesbian Studies article abstract includes, "The Supercorp fandom refers to the platonic friendship between Kara Danvers, aka Supergirl, and her friend Lena Luthor. [...] Supergirl’s screenwriters were notorious for placing Kara and Lena in heteronormative relationship scenarios, effectively queerbaiting (or covert courting) the audience by suggesting a romantic relationship never explored on-screen"; The New York Times briefly covers SuperCorp in 2017, and CBR has more coverage in 2020.
    Beccaynr ( talk) 15:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Also, while I have not found access to American Comic Book Chronicles: The 1960s, 1960-64, based on its description, this does not appear to be a plot summary - it is used in the article to cite Lena Luthor's first appearance in a comic; the book's description is focused on the history of comics, including "significant publications, notable creators, and impactful trends".
    At the Wikipedia Library, there is a review of Cosmic Adventures of the 8th Grade from the School Library Journal, Brickey, Morgan, Jul2016, Vol. 62, Issue 7, Literary Reference Center Plus (..."Thankfully, as Linda, she makes a friend in Lena Thorul, but Lena is not who she seems..."); there is another review in Teacher Librarian, "Women Who Fly.", Sanders, Joe Sutliff, Jun2010, Vol. 37, Issue 5, Master File Complete (..."Fortunately, Kara's gloomy roommate is very supportive--but who is that bald super-villain she keeps sending e-mails to?"...) Beccaynr ( talk) 16:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Also, Bleeding Cool ( 15 Oct 2014), reviews various iterations of the Lena Luthor character as part of presenting her latest appearance in a comic; this does not seem to be a plot summary, but instead secondary context that finds her past presentations noteworthy for understanding her character. And The Worst Things Lex Luthor Has Ever Done ( CBR, 2016) includes "...the absolute worst example involved Luthor's own sister, Lena Luthor. Lena is a paraplegic. In "Adventure Comics" #5,..." Beccaynr ( talk) 16:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    CBR also provides an overview in 2020 noting Lena Luthor's debut is Superman Girlfriend Lois Lane #23, her character development, and her role in DC Super Hero Girls (as Lutessa Lena Luthor) and her role in Smallville as Tess. CBR also mentions this in 15 Times the Arrowverse Copied Smallville (2016), e.g. "One of "Smallville's" biggest reveals came two seasons later, explaining that Tess was actually Lex's biological sister, Lena Luthor, who their father had given up for adoption." Screen Rant makes a connection in 2021 between Smallville and the comics, i.e. "Tess discovered her birth name in the final season was Lutessa Lena Luthor, confirming she was Lex's canonical sister from the comics." Tor.com, in a 2017 review of the Supergirl episode "Luthors", mentions: "knowing next to nothing about Lena’s history in comic book canon, [Kara and Lena's] interactions are lacking in any dramatic irony for me." CBR also includes Lena Luthor in Smallville: Every Main Character's Age, with biographical information and references to various appearances in the show; the source suggests age "can help a viewer understand character dynamics and relationships". Beccaynr ( talk) 21:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    But a repeeted theme with these seems to be the television versions, and what this article is about is the comic. Mabye the page could be reworked into primarly being about the television, but I'm not seeing very much on the original comic version Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    This article is not only about various comics; the lead and sections cover comics, television, and other media. And various sources refer to a comics canon, and the relevance of her past portrayals in various comics, including when discussing individual comics, as well as her role in television, indicating a connection between portrayals that does not seem to support a split (which as noted above, also does not seem supported by WP:SPLIT). I have also found two reviews that note her role in the graphic novel Cosmic Adventures of the 8th Grade, and two reviews of her role in Robot Chicken's DC Comics Special 2.
    I also think the secondary coverage for various portrayals as a group helps support the concern I expressed earlier about the 200+ articles that link to this article and my suggestion about discussing article reorganization and improvements on the article talk page. Perhaps this article would work better if it is edited into more of a list, because Lena Luthor characters across various media appear to be notable as a group or set, and it could benefit the encyclopedia to have one article written in summary style.
    I am concerned about the potential impact of a merge/redirect of Lena Luthor to the Arrowverse, when she is otherwise so widely linked for other roles. According to WP:LISTN, each individual role does not need to be established as independently notable; based on the available sources, it appears we can provide an encyclopedic resource by providing an overivew and directing readers to the particular Lena Luthor portrayal they may be seeking when they visit this article. Beccaynr ( talk) 22:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    CBR (2022) also provides an overview of various portrayals of Lena Luthor in 10 Greatest Golden Age DC Legacy Villains ("Lena Luthor is a character that has been changed a lot by the shifting tides of DC continuity"); The New York Times, in A ‘Crisis’ Brings Together Many DC Comics Heroes (2019) reports on the television series "inspired by 1985’s Crisis on Infinite Earths, a 12-issue comic book series", Lena Luthor is mentioned. Beccaynr ( talk) 23:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Screen Rant discusses a portrayal of Lena Luthor in a comic (Adventure Comics #6) in The Most Evil Thing Lex Luthor Ever Did is Still Outrageous (2022) - this appears to be commentary, not just a plot summary.
    Screen Rant ( 2020) also reviews Robot Chicken's DC Comics Special 2, which includes a story with "an impromptu trip to the beach where Lex’s daughter Lena has absconded with Superboy" [...] "Highlights include a Grease-style singalong with Lena Luthor and Superboy and Aquaman summoning an army of seahorses to defeat Starro." An IGN review includes, "there's also a running conflict involving Luthor's daughter Lena ditching her father to hang out with her boyfriend Superboy on the beach for spring break. That culminates in one of the longest and most intricately crafted segments I can remember from the series as the Legion of Doom frolic on the beach, battle the Justice League, and then unite to confront a common enemy." Beccaynr ( talk) 22:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    My problem with that is those seem to cover other things, that happen to include her more as passing mentions. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    In the WP:SIGCOV guideline, trivial mentions are discussed, including Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material; an example of a line of text is offered that is "plainly a trivial mention."
    By contrast, the first Screen Rant source in the comment above ( 2022) has two grafs of commentary and discussion related to Lena (beginning "And as one savage moment shows, even the lives of his own family aren't safe..." and ending "...giving his own sister hope before snatching it away is the perfect example of why Lex is above all, a monster.") This appears to be both significant coverage and secondary commentary, according to the guideline. In the second Screen Rant source ( 2020), Lena Luthor is discussed in the context of the sketch ranked the best and described as the longest, and as part of a "highlight." This is a review that helps show her appearance in a notable work, along with the IGN review (2014) describing her role as part of a "running conflict" and also offering secondary commentary supporting the notability of the work. Beccaynr ( talk) 00:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Leaving the issue of what should happen to this article aside, Screen Rant is a content farm that should never be used for assessing WP:Notability or WP:Due weight. TompaDompa ( talk) 19:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    There is a 2021 RfC about Screen Rant with the conclusion " Screen Rant is considered to be a marginally reliable source. It might not be appropriate for controversial statements in BLPs, but it is reliable enough for other uses." Beccaynr ( talk) 20:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Whether a source is WP:Reliable, i.e. usable for WP:Verification, is orthogonal to its usability as an indicator of WP:Notability and WP:Due weight. TompaDompa ( talk) 21:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    If we disregard the screen rant source, most of what your bringing up is plot summary Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Enough coverage has been found to convince me this meets the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 10:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

El Hadji Badiane Sidibé

El Hadji Badiane Sidibé (  | 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)

Player fails WP:GNG. Created at a time in which an appearance in any WP:FPL was enough to pass notability test. This player made two appearances for Újpest in 2014, and the rest are in semi-pro divisions. No in-depth, independent coverage to be found. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 05:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge‎ to List of DC Comics characters: D. Liz Read! Talk! 08:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Doctor Thirteen

Doctor Thirteen (  | 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 dc comic character. Fails WP:GNG, my before gave my nothing. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

ITKO

ITKO (  | 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)

Advert for defunct company; heavily sourced to press releases Orange Mike | Talk 03:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • MacVittie, Lori. Lisa: More Than a Pretty Face. Network Computing. 2006;17(22):36–38. (I don't have access to this but according to the abstract, it's a full-length review.)
  • Cithan, Rick. LISA Smiles on J2EE App Testers. InfoWorld. 2005;27(2):25–26. (This one is available via EBSCOhost.)
  • Pollice, Gary. LISA 2.5. Software Development. 2005;13(6):44. ISSN  1070-8588 (Couldn't find this online either, the journal's title is hardly helpful in that.)
Maybe this could be spun off into an article on that, but that would require someone who could get the sources. Failing that, my !vote is delete. --  Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 16:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 05:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Aromanticism (disambiguation)

Aromanticism (disambiguation) (  | 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 disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title. The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 01:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Delete - per my edit note for the prod, the HAT notes for the primary topic are already complex enough including the not to be confused with aromatic which is listed in the See also on the DAB page as a misspelling of Aromantic per MOS:DABMISSPELL, but is recommended to be listed in See also (or a Common misspelling section), but is thus more than one other topic for the DAB page. Raladic ( talk) 01:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    No, any entry in "see also" section doesn't warrant a topic for the title, including that of MOS:DABMISSPELL. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 02:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    retracting vote, changing to delete per your and other other people's explanation, apologies for the churn. Raladic ( talk) 02:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. The hatnote can not be made more complex by replacing the disambiguation link with the one other meaning. BD2412 T 02:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete clearly an unnecessary dab page. Only WP:ONEOTHER meaning for the exact term, hence a hatnote is preferable. estar8806 ( talk) ★ 02:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 05:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Ante Pavelić (disambiguation)

Ante Pavelić (disambiguation) (  | 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 disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title while the other entries here aren't valid. The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 01:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 05:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Hacqueville (disambiguation)

Hacqueville (disambiguation) (  | 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 disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title while the other entries here aren't valid. The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 01:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 04:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Petrozavodsk (disambiguation)

Petrozavodsk (disambiguation) (  | 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 disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title while the other entries here aren't valid. The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 01:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. The article for the third entry has been created. (non-admin closure) NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 01:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Olesha (disambiguation)

Olesha (disambiguation) (  | 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 disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title while the other entries here aren't valid. The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 01:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_November_25&oldid=1188472505"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 24 November 26 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Eglė Raznauskaitė

Eglė Raznauskaitė (  | 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. All I found were passing mentions like 1 and 2. JTtheOG ( talk) 23:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:CSD#G5. ✗ plicit 23:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Sandeep Sabharwal

Sandeep Sabharwal (  | 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 businessman. -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Lots of PR, interviews and several profiles. Looked at the first 10 references. A lot of is to do with the company, with lots taken from the company website. Puff piece article. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep Talk 19:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Olgica Arsova

Olgica Arsova (  | 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 Macedonian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions like 1, 2, and 3. JTtheOG ( talk) 23:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Supreet Bedi

Supreet Bedi (  | 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)

Doesn't meet GNG or BIO guidelines; some links are not about Supreet Lulakayd ( talk) 15:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Women, and India. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Hello Lulakayd. If you see closely, most of the references are 'direct references' about the subject. Only a few are indirect references but do talk about the subject. Also, the subject is not insignificant by any means but a well-known anchor and trainer. Besides this, she has also acted in movies and there are references to back all the content. Achujabal ( talk) 16:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was 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! 23:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Anastasija Čumika

Anastasija Čumika (  | 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 Latvian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions in match reports and squad lists like 1 and 2. JTtheOG ( talk) 23:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was 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! 23:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Yilianny Sablón

Yilianny Sablón (  | 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 Cuban women's footballer, made a single appearance for her respective national team five years ago as a teenager. All I found were passing mentions like this. JTtheOG ( talk) 23:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

DSLink

DSLink (  | 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)

Tagged as unsourced since October of 2007 with no attempts to add sourcing. WP:BEFORE only turned up Github repos, forum posts, and blog posts - No reliable secondary coverage of the device. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 17:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Computing. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 17:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails the GNG. Lots of this sort of junk was erroneously created back in the DS's lifespan. I've had to clean up a bunch of it. This article's shows there's still more to go. Sergecross73 msg me 19:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per nom. Even if there is significant coverage, there isn't enough for an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 22:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Homebrew_(video_games)#Nintendo_DS. I doubt new material will resurface after the page sat there for 16 years, but I like leaving the history in place, in case someone looks for this information for some other article. Owen× ☎ 22:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Do we have a reliable, third party source available to even warrant a mention somewhere like this? Sergecross73 msg me 23:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    A mention of what? I didn't suggest a merge, and any information taken from the page's history will have to come with a RS before it can be included anywhere. But for a simple, non-disruptive redir of the term "DSLink" to another page, we don't need a source. Owen× ☎ 23:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I assume you intend for it to at least have a mention at the redirect target, or it wouldn't really make any sense, or benefit the reader in any way. For it to be a valid redirect, it needs a mention in the article. To be mentioned in the article, it would need a reliable source. Sergecross73 msg me 23:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Half our redirects are from a misspelling or an alternate spelling. There is no requirement for a mention at the target, and I agree with you that any such mention would require proper sourcing. The purpose of such a redir is to take a reader who only knows the product name to the article about the platform; nothing more. Owen× ☎ 23:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    This is not a misspelling or alternate spelling though. What is the purpose of redirecting "DSLink" to the general homebrew article without any context or explanation? Thats too vague to be helpful. It wouldn't make any sense to the reader. Such a redirect is doomed to be deleted per a few of the points at WP:R#DELETE. Sergecross73 msg me 03:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    As far as I can tell, it's not mentioned or linked on any other wikiarticles other than in a navbox. HappyWith ( talk) 20:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom - I agree with User:Sergecross73 with regards to not doing a redirect, it may cause confusion if it's not mentioned, and it can't be written about without reliable sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewcm ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete. I didn't find any different sourcing than the nominator did, and I agree that absent of any reason to actually mention it, a redirect isn't an optimal choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. There don't seem to be any mentions or links to it on other wiki pages other than in a navbox, so a redirect isn't necessary. HappyWith ( talk) 20:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I'm not seeing anything else to add. Redirecting it will just end up at RfD if there's no mention at the target. And there's no reliable sourcing with which to build a mention from. -- ferret ( talk) 22:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Fritz Huser

Fritz Huser (  | 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 artist does not meet WP notability criteria per WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. No significant exhibitions, no notable museum collections, no reviews in art magazines or newpapers, nor book chapters/monographs on his work. Article sourcing is primary, and all I could find online is primary sourcing. Netherzone ( talk) 21:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, and Switzerland. Netherzone ( talk) 21:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I agree that it doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger ( talk) 11:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I can't find any coverage in reliable sources. Of the four sources currently in the article, one is just a directory listing, one is the person's website, and two others just link back to the same wikipedia article. Elspea756 ( talk) 16:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Despite his somewhat reclusive lifestyle, which has little to do with the world of fashionable galleries and corporate art criticism, Fritz Huser is a very popular artist in Switzerland, enjoying at least national, if not international, renown.
Here are some of his solo exhibitions, which take place quite regularly: 1, 2, 3.
Here’s a big article about him on the official website of the Swiss Radio and Television Company.
Here’s an ad for his Adventskalender in the Swiss cantonal press: Aargauer Zeitung, bz Basel, Luzerner Zeitung, St. Galler Tagblatt.
Here’s a popular fairy-tale book he co-authored, and here’s an example of a random book (not even about art!) with a reproduction of his work on the cover.
Last but not least, here’s his IMDb profile, according to which he has participated as a set designer in the filming of at least four Swiss and Swiss-German movies.
To summarize: albeit being somewhat outside the bounds of the strict Wikipedia conventions, Fritz Huser’s notability as an artist is still evident. There are no rules without exceptions, and if there is one article that fits the rule about ignoring all rules, this is it. — ɪ 19:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Popularity is not the same as notability. Just because an artist creates and exhibits work or makes a set design does not confer inherent notability. Those are simply things artists do. Run-of-the-mill WP:MILL. The first three links are simply announcement for shows by the gallery showing his work - primary sourcing that does not count towards notability. The "big article" looks OK at first, however there is no by-line which usually is an indication something is a press release or native advertising rather than an in-depth article with editorial oversight. The "ad" is exactly the same copy in each of these publications, and is advertorial sponsored content for an advent calendar he is selling...translated: In stores from Friday - The square calendar is appearing for the first time in two formats: in a smaller version of 40 x 40 centimeters for 30 francs and in the large version with an edge length of 68 centimeters for 50 francs. From October 26th, the calendar will be available in the following old town shops: Otz bookstore, Ryser office, Hömlilade, Augentreff Schneider and Vitrine. For everyone who doesn't want to tie the calendar to their bike, there is a home delivery service: Next Long Friday in the Old Town you can pre-order the calendars in the Old Office Building. Serious reviews of an artist's work don't include such advertorial content. Lastly, IMDb is not considered a reliable source by WP. Netherzone ( talk) 21:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete reference 2, 3 and 4 are user generated biographies. Not finding anything better on the internet. Unfortunately "Fritz Huser" is a common name, so a search brings up several living Fritz Husers. "Fritz Huser 1952" brings up standard promotional items for a person trying to make a living. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 01:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was ‎ delete. At present, the sources in the article are articles from makeusof.com and zdnet.com. At least zdnet.com is generally accepted as a reliable source, and in the review article, there is some coverage of the software in that article, along with several other competing softwares. The reliability of makeusof.com is disputed though. While Kvng's call for a keep is a relevant and good faith argument, and has received some support, the source analysis by CNMall41 and HighKing make a persuasive case for deletion when they point to the depth of the source, and the lack of multiple sources. Hence, the "delete" arguments are more in line with the notability guidelines. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

ZeroGPT

ZeroGPT (  | 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 sources cited here are not fact-checked nor reliable. For instance, multiple sources say this company was created by OpenAI, or "ChatGPT" creators, however this seems to be blatantly false.

The concern is that wikipedia is giving this organization credibility, and confusing people. While there are recent mentions of ZeroGPT, it seems they came after this false information was produced about them, claiming that OpenAI is behind it.

ALSO** It seems there are people confusing ZeroGPT with GPTZero. One CNN article says "Meanwhile, Princeton student Edward Tuan introduced a similar AI detection feature, called ZeroGPT." [Citation: https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/25/tech/openai-ai-detection-tool/index.html) These issues cleary demonstrate the confusion surrounding "ZeroGPT" a non notable 'counterfeit' version of GPTZero. This page seems to be hoax.

Hoax citations on ZeroGPT page:


Claims OpenAI is behind ZeroGPT (False Information)

[5] https://www.hindustantimes.com/technology/chatgpt-creator-openai-unveils-zerogpt-5-things-to-know-about-this-new-ai-tool-101676610582897.html


Claims OpenAI is behind ZeroGPT (False Information)

https://www.livemint.com/news/world/what-is-zerogpt-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-ai-plagiarism-detection-tool-11676631205023.html

Quotes OpenAI research director and attributes to ZeroGPT (False Information)

https://www.businessupturn.com/technology/zerogpt-ai-tool-to-detect-plagiarism-and-ai-generated-content-against-chatgpt/ (proposed by Comintell) Comintell ( talk) 22:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete
Comintell ( talk) 03:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  1. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes
  2. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
  3. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline ( WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)
Comintell ( talk) 03:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Significant coverage in reliable sources: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Problems in the current article can be addressed through editing WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I disagree that those sources comprises "Significant coverage in reliable sources".
    • Times Now News: India has a problem with undisclosed paid news. The vapid promotional prose and the lack of byline hints at possible paid news.
    • ZDNet - Single paragraph of prose
    • Makeuseof - Part of the Valnet content farm, unusable for anything else than the most basic of facts.
    • Livemint - Filled with mostly quotes, without critical analysis. A good example of a churnalism.
    There are some info scattered around, but nothing substantial that we can make an article out of. Ca talk to me! 15:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I just want to state for the record that I disagree with your assessment. A solid paragraph constitutes WP:SIGCOV. None of these sources are flagged as problematic at WP:RSP. ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    My concern is not of SIGCOV or any "notability" guidelines for that matter. It is that it is impossible to make a cohesive article out of the existing sources. There is zero room for improvement in the article. The article, in its current state, is all we can write about the software. It is impossible to add info on who made it, when it was released, its profits, etc. This is the best this article could get with the sources right not.
    I don't know what you mean by None of these sources are flagged as problematic at WP:RSP. since except ZDNet, none of the sources are in RSP (and besides RSP is not the holy grail). Only source I said had questionable reliability was Makeuseof, whihc is owned by Valnet, and publisher of various content farms. Ca talk to me! 07:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Valnet Ca talk to me! 14:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Considering all sourced mention ChatGPT in some way, a merge or redirect might be possible IgelRM ( talk) 20:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Kvng what are you doing? Did you read the live mint article? It is factually inaccurate. It says ChatGPT creators made ZeroGPT. From my research into timesnownews it seems like a paid blog site. You have 96,000 edits, do you really believe those are reliable sources? Comintell ( talk) 18:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Comintell, what I'm focused on here is determining whether this is a notable topic. I believe it is. Cleanup is a separate issue. The threshold for notability is multiple reliable sources. I provided 4 candidates and before the AfD there were a few others cited in the article. I trust you that there are issues with some of the sources but do your disqualifications take it down to a situation where there is one or fewer sources to work from? ~ Kvng ( talk) 23:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Im the newbie compared to you, so i don't want to come off as If I know more. But I created Jasper AI after having it drafted, and then nominated for deletion for not being notable enough. I wouldn't count make use of as a strong source by itself. As a supporting source sure. While ZDnet IS reliable, the article covers multiple similar tools indiscriminately. While notability doesn't mean the article has to be all about the subject, the fact that ZeroGPT has done nothing notable, and we don't know anything about them is literally scary.
    Take GPTZero for example. Press coverage showcases who's behind the tool, how it works, and core beliefs and mission behind them. They have gotten substantial coverage. It seems night and day compared to ZeroGPT. However, I respect your opinion and would be curious to know why or how you think ZeroGPT is notable. Comintell ( talk) 01:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Kvng. SouthParkFan2006 ( talk) 07:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I added the references that Kvng found. Not sure this now meets notability requirements, but will make it easier to review. Owen× ☎ 17:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Comintell ( talk) 18:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Sensible wikipedians, I ask you this: Why is it that this company is supposedly from Germany, yet has mostly NEWSORGINDIA sources?
Why is it that original sources are factually inaccurate?
More: Why is it that the world has to gain from ZeroGPT wikipedia page?
What were the intentions and experience of the original editor?
I tried cleaning this article up, my research led me to identifying that this page is a mistake. I made positive edits but on closer analysis found the references to be substantially unreliable. Please heed the red flags, and do thoroughly examine all of the evidence set forth. Comintell ( talk) 19:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Saw another deletion discussion of a page that had far more citations, and was being ridiculed. The same standards should apply here. Y'all, this fails even most basic GNG. Cgallagher2121 ( talk) 06:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per reasons above. Félix An ( talk) 07:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Although the page is about software (not a company), it still falls under WP:NCORP guidelines. The main references being claimed to show notability are Zdnet which is on the perennial source list, but this reference is a review along with four other software programs so I would not consider it to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. MakeUseOf is a questionable source so I would say in the least it cannot be used for notability. I have brought up a new discussion at RSN so we can wait to see how that turns out. Another is LiveMint which is commonly associated with WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The reference being cited here has a byline, but looking at the author's contributions, they are writing on a variety of different topics outside of technology (business, politics, local news, etc.). This would indicate it is a contributor. I am borderline on regarding it as reliable for notability in this case but even if it is, that would only be one source. The final is Times Now which clearly falls under NEWSORGINDIA and even if disputed as such, the information is only a single paragraph and does not meet CORPDEPTH. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 07:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a product therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the product*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the sources have the necessary content to meet the criteria for establishing notability. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 22:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. No new comments after 2 relistings so I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

National Club Football Association

National Club Football Association (  | 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 or WP:ORG. Let'srun ( talk) 23:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

Chester Aaron

Chester Aaron (  | 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:BASIC, lacks significant coverage other than the single Penn State biography DirtyHarry991 ( talk) 23:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

  • Keep. He meets the WP:Author Notability. Micheal Kaluba ( talk) 15:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Didn’t find much about him, yet he seems a notable WP:Author by seeing his work.I found some the third party sources, 1, 2, 3 that at least credits his career as a writer. Atighot ( talk) 00:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Steve Crabtree

Steve Crabtree (  | 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)

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

  • Comment: articles aren't deleted because they're inadequately sourced; they're deleted because their subjects aren't notable, or the statements in the article are unverifiable. WP:BEFORE expects a reasonable effort to locate sources before nominating articles for deletion; articles shouldn't be nominated merely because they don't contain enough sources. Being an unsuccessful candidate for a state office may not be enough to establish notability, but it might be combined with some of the other assertions to do so. Even unsuccessful candidates for office generally receive news coverage, but that hasn't been cited—so we know there are sources out there that haven't been included in the article. Once a reasonable attempt to find sources has been undertaken, then we'll be in a better position to tell whether the subject is notable. P Aculeius ( talk) 13:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

  • Delete: I read the article and discovered it fails GNG. It also fails WP: people and WP:JOURNALIST. Though the article is well written, there's no in-depth coverage of the subject by secondary sources, reliable and multiple sources. Google does not show relevant information about the subject except obituary... I, therefore, agree that this article should be deleted. You can read WP:NOT. Ezra Cricket ( talk) 01:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. No comments after 2 relistings so I'm closing this as No consensus. Feel free to return to AFD at a future date. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Ajum Goolam Hossen

Ajum Goolam Hossen (  | 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)

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

If you actually read the article, you would see that the information is displayed in these books. You can’t set it for deletion if you haven’t even read the articles properly. Ajum was the owner of a major trade company in Mauritius and was secretary and co-founder of the Surtee Soonnee Mussulman Society, which has made a great impact on the Muslims (not just Surtis) in Mauritius. If that’s not notability, I don’t know what is. Yolia21 ( talk) 15:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Please tell me which citations do not fit the requirements. I used the same sources as used in Amode Ibrahim Atchia as the person was also a Mauritian businessman. It has the same information. Yolia21 ( talk) 15:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes, I have read both the article and the references provided.
  • The first is a record of a civil court case. There is a name check but nothing that talks of notability
  • The second ref has a name check for "A J Hossen" and a short quote. Nothing about the subject.
  • The third is a blog believed to be the blog of the article creator - blogs have no value in asserting notability
  • The fourth does not appear to mention the subject
  • The fifth states "Goolam Hossen Piperdy who died in 1875 after successfully founding A G Hossen and Co. engaged in extensive import and export activities , had branches in Calcutta, Bombay, St Denis.....". The quote continues but adds nothing to indicate any significant notability. He was obviously a good businessman of his time but that isn't a claim to notability
  • The sixth is another civil court case decision about the value of goods - no notability here.
  • The seventh demonstrates that he shook hands with Mr K Gandhi in 1901 - again no evidence of notability.
In Summary, none of the sources discuss the subject, they are all mentions or name checks and thus the article fails WP:GNG as noted in the nomination,   Velella   Velella Talk   15:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I found several refs cited online that may mention them but they may be available on paper only. If someone here has access to them, please try to dig them up. They might solve the notability as well as enrich the article with useful content:
    • Rouillard, G. (1964) Histoire des Domaines, Sucriers De L’Ile Maurice. Les Pailes-Ile Maurice: The General Printing and Stationary Company, Limited
    • The Gujurati Merchants in Mauritius 10 THE GUJURATI MERCHANTS IN MAURITIUS: 1850-1900 AC Kalla - The Coolie Connection: From the Orient to the Occident, 1992 - Windsor Press
      • Also published as: The Gujarati merchants in Mauritius c. 1850–1900 AC Kalla - Journal of Mauritian Studies, 1987
In the meantime, these potential refs don't count in this discussion
Velella, I disagree with your assessment of ref #5, especially in combination with #7. #5 indicates he was a major player in the economy and #7 indicates he was the leader of the dominant group on the island, Indo-Mauritians, who welcomed Gandhi. I'll further note that our notability guideline does not discriminate against successful or unsuccessful businesspeople -- they're based on references.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 17:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Thank you A.B. Yolia21 ( talk) 18:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
They are called references for a reason.
  • The first reference is to show that Ajum died on the 14th of February in 1919.
  • The second shows that he was notable individual in the Surtee community in Mauritius
  • The third is written from knowledge of his descendants. (me) This is not the first time this has happened as shown in Amode Ibrahim Atchia’s reference of a blog by Michael Atchia, his grandson.
  • The 4th shows his sugar factory in Pamplemousses.
  • The 5th talks about his company and how we was a notable trader in Port Louis, which is why he’s mentioned in the book in the first place.
  • The 6th talks about how he had many branches across the Indian Ocean like Singapore, South Africa, Mauritius, and India.
  • The 7th is talking about how his company faced legal issues which lead to the collapse of it. This is one of many recorded cases of Ajum Goolam Hossen and Co.
  • The 8th talks about how Ajum hosted M K Gandhi and Ajum did a speech with his son and two others. A person doing a speech at Taher Bagh when M K Gandhi is there is most likely a notable person.
  • The 9th shows his contributions to the recovery of Mauritius after the cyclone and his contribution to Rander, his family’s origin town.
Yolia21 ( talk) 18:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Heritage Reclaimed by AC Kalla even mentions how notable he and his father was. Yolia21 ( talk) 12:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I think that there is a misunderstanding about the word "notability". Wikipedia defines notability in very specific ways that require multiple reliable sources that discuss the subject. "Discuss" does not equate to mention. Equally, a source that states that a person is notable does not equate to "Notability" in Wilkipedia. The two concepts are quite separate and different. Sources may state that the subject is notable but that doesn't support notability here. Regarding the comment about businessmen - I made no assertion about his role as a businessman and his potential notability. What would be very useful if someone with access to the references quoted here (but not in the article) could provide unedited trascripts of the relevant passages onto the talk page of the article. I have so far seen no text that conveys notability.   Velella   Velella Talk   13:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply
There are multiple sources that talk about him, but I do not have access to all of them like you said. I dont understand what makes a person notable. Is there a specific amount of references? Yolia21 ( talk) 14:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The requirements are set out at WP:BIO. To be able to meet those standards it is necessary for the supporting texts to be read and be capable of being quoted. The sources don't have to be universally available and, especially for a person in Mauritius in the 19th century that might be very difficult but extracts from named documents from the National Library in Port Louis would be acceptable if they do indeed confirm notability.   Velella   Velella Talk   14:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I am currently contacting Abdool Cader Kalla on information of Ajum. Kalla is an author located in Mauritius who has made lots of books about Mauritian Indians. Maybe we can get more references. Yolia21 ( talk) 12:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

I am sorry but the simple number of references does not add anything to notability. As noted above, what is required is reliable and independent sources discussing the subject. Thus court rulings, press reports of visiting dignitaries which simply mention the subject do not equate to notability. As previously suggested, copying some key paragraphs from these sources where the subject is discussed in a way that demonstrates notability would help enormously. At present, just from the sources quoted , I am still not seeing evidence of notability.   Velella   Velella Talk   22:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I added some of the references you mentioned which you said could show notability. Yolia21 ( talk) 23:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

The result was speedy keep (withdrawn)‎. (non-admin closure) lizthegrey ( talk) 22:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

DevTernity Conference

AfDs for this article:
DevTernity Conference (  | 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)

See WP:CORPDEPTH. Lacks in-depth sourcing to substantiate notability; a list of past conferences held does not meant that the event is notable. If this article does remain, it needs to be substantially balanced, as the article was almost entirely written by User:EduardSi, the person who organises the conference in a positive, promotional tone, and there have been some troubling (and frankly, concerning) revelations about misogyny at the conference that soon will become secondary sourced, it would not be DUE to have a page about the conf without discussing the fake speakers & organisers controversy. Worth nothing: this is not the first time DevTernity has been proposed for deletion; previously it was proposed without Conference after it. lizthegrey ( talk) 20:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • I withdraw this nomination. There's WP:SIGCOV now. [1] [2] And at least two other stories running I know of because I've spoken to journalists. lizthegrey ( talk) 22:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Cole ·, Samantha (27 November 2023). "Tech Conference Collapses After Organizer Admits to Making Fake 'Auto-Generated' Female Speaker". 404 Media. Retrieved 27 November 2023.
  2. ^ Straker, Adam (27 November 2023). "This online developer conference had been 'inviting' non-existent women for several years to guarantee its 'inclusivity' - Gearrice". GearRice. Retrieved 27 November 2023.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. RL0919 ( talk) 21:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Joji Nagashima

Joji Nagashima (  | 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)

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 20:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article and no support for Deletion aside from the nominator. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

List of U.S. DoD aircraft designations

AfDs for this article:
List of U.S. DoD aircraft designations (  | 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 article is largely an alternative format of List of United States Tri-Service aircraft designations, with some designations from List of United States Air Force aircraft designations (1919–1962). Having two list articles on the same topic makes it hard to consistently maintain both lists, with the table format being especially hard to maintain and offering little to no benefit to the reader. Since there is next to no information here that is not found on the Tri-Service list, I propose that this article be deleted or redirected to List of United States Tri-Service aircraft designations. ZLEA T\ C 20:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure I understand, as the 1962 Tri-Service system is the only aircraft designation system in use by the DoD. - ZLEA T\ C 02:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
If you're talking about Joint Regulation 4120.15E, that is the document that currently maintains both the 1962 aircraft and 1963 missile Tri-Service designation systems. The DoD and Tri-Service aircraft designation system are one in the same. Perhaps this list could be shifted in scope to also cover the missile system as well, but I still don't see any merit to keeping it if the scope is to remain solely on aircraft designations. - ZLEA T\ C 02:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
One of purposes is also to compare the older War department and Army Air Force designations in the historical section, especially the P-series which was partially removed. Its a case of forest and trees here, we already have many article that simply follow designations the idea is in part to take a step back and see the number series in context. A75 ( talk) 12:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Though I disagree with arbitrarily combining the 1924 "P/F" sequence with the Tri-Service designations (especially since the "P" prefix fell out of use at almost the exact same time as the DoD was formed, which probably is not a coincidence now that I think about it), I do get your point. If this list is kept (which it looks like it will be), I will probably make a move proposal to properly disambiguate it from the other list and attempt to establish a better standard for inclusion/exclusion and overall format. - ZLEA T\ C 03:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the reasons listed in the previous AfD for this page. Owen× ☎ 00:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Did you look at both articles? This one is far superior. Also this should've been a merge discussion, not waste everyone's time sending it to AFD. Dream Focus 00:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I understand that you may prefer the table format to the bullet list format, but I disagree that it is "far superior", and I have several reasons to believe the opposite. The main problem with the table format in this case is that the number of assigned designations in each role sequence varies greatly. The continued "C" sequence dwarfs all of the other sequences as it reaches up to 147 (so far), while the next highest sequence, save for the non-sequential or grandfathered pre-1962 designations, is the H-73, leaving a vast majority of the table cells empty. Speaking of non-sequential designations, it is also worth noting that the table format cannot viably accommodate for non-sequential designations above 147, such as the KC-767, which the DoD list specifically notes that it can't accommodate. In addition to these problems, the table format does not leave much room for variants of aircraft that have their own articles, such as the F/A-18E/F.
I also want to point out that I did consider starting a merge discussion, but I decided against it because I saw nothing of value in this list that is not already in List of United States Tri-Service aircraft designations. The latter even covers redesignations of pre-1962 aircraft to a greater extent than this list does. Therefore, given the inherent problems with the table format and nothing valuable to merge, I believe that deletion or redirection are the only logical choices. - ZLEA T\ C 03:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Better Together (programme)

Better Together (programme) (  | 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)

Completely non-notable campaign, only single source cited, most Google searches (understandably) come up with the political campaign with the same name, only one relevant third-party source I was able to find here.

Overall a low-quality article Elshad ( talk) 18:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Elshad ( talk) 18:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as non-notable. There does not appear to be any analysis or academic discussion about this programme, although the signal-to-noise ration on search results makes a definitive statement impractical. Since the article has been moribund for a decade and no new sources appear to exist (I can't even confirm whether the programme still exists, or when it might have ended), I think deletion is the only choice. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 13:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The lack of coverage of this seems to suggest limited notability at the time and no lasting notability. Dunarc ( talk) 22:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Nicole Berner

Nicole Berner (  | 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)

Delete and merge with existing draft per consensus reached on federal judicial nominee articles at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany M. Cartwright; fails WP:NPOL Snickers2686 ( talk) 18:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy deleted‎ by Bbb23 ( talk · contribs) as " A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Napoli Resturant

Napoli Resturant (  | 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)

I cannot see that this either satisfies WP:GNG or WP:CORP. No significant sources as far as I can tell. As of 13:21EST Nov 25 compltetly unsourced as well. AriTheHorse 18:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Per WP:Speedy keep#1. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no new delete rationale appears in the deletion discussion. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Arikomban

Arikomban (  | 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)

Removed PROD. Terribly written NPOV violation. Withdrawn. DrowssapSMM ( talk) ( contributions) 18:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Asia, India, and Kerala. DrowssapSMM ( talk) ( contributions) 18:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • AFD is for deciding whether administrators should exercise the administrator-only deletion tool. It is not for things that you can quite easily deal with yourselves with the tools that you have, such as by reverting to Special:Permalink/1159804585 and trying to develop the article from there again. Uncle G ( talk) 20:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Proquest has 254 hits for the name, seems likely to meet GNG. Espresso Addict ( talk) 23:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Nomination reason seems ridiculous. Is nominating for deletion is the procedure to deal with articles having NPOV issues. I don't think it is. Use appropriate tags instead or try to clean the mess up. The subject has received coverage from international medias such as BBC and CNBC [8]. Why should BBC cover about a rogue elephant from India if it is not that much important. This elephant is the subject of an upcoming Malayalam movie which is under pre-production. This itself implies the importance of this elephant. Besides there are plenty of coverage to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. 111.92.124.104 ( talk) 04:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - extensive media coverage is available; but by all means roll this back to a non-embarassing state. The version suggested above by Uncle G seems reasonable. There seems to be a year-long three-sided skirmish going on at the article about who can add the most cringeworthy POV material, that has to stop. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 08:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 19:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Marylyn D. Ritchie

Marylyn D. Ritchie (  | 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)

Delete. I cannot find any independent sources on the subject. – CopperyMarrow15 ( talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 18:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Professors/Academics generally have slightly different requirements about notability requirements than other biographies—see WP:NPROF.
AriTheHorse 18:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn per the reviews added by GeogSage. There are some issues left such as templates indicating "1985" or so as journal name or books being listed in the table and then as "source" for themselves in the references, but those issues can be addressed by normal editing. Why these reviews did not pop up in my "before" search I have no clue. Randykitty ( talk) 14:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Scientific Geography Series

Scientific Geography Series (  | 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 appears to be well-sourced with currently 14 references. However, 10 of those are to the different volumes in this series. Of the remaining 4, two (#1 and #4) are announcements from the publisher and #14 does not even mention "scientific geography", let alone the book series. That leaves #2, a 1.5 page review of the first three volumes in this series that ran from 1985 to 1988. A WP:BEFORE search renders booksellers, but no real coverage. In all, this does not appear to meet WP:GNG, hence: delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Oppose: The Scientific geography series is a historically interesting/relevant series within geography, and one of a few sets of shorter concept books that were put out at the time to reduce the overall cost of textbooks by focusing on discreet topics. Reliable sources providing in-depth discussions of any academic journal are rare, as are reliable sources providing in-depth discussions of textbook series. The series is also older, so much of the original content surrounding it likely did not make it onto the internet, and many of the citations are probably not indexed. The entries of the series are generally fairly well cited however, and foundational in the development of modern spatial statistics, for example, "Spatial Autocorrelation" by "John Odland" is an early book covering an incredibly important topic in modern spatial statistics. On Google Scholar,Spatial Autocorrelation is cited 690 times. It is also listed in a peer-reviewed review article titled "Teaching and learning spatial autocorrelation: a review." "Central Place Theory" by "LJ King" is cited 381. "Point Pattern Analysis" by Barry N. Boots and Arthur Getis is cited 627 times.
I have added two more citations, one a review focusing on the latter two books in the series that discusses their context in the overall series, and another focusing on one of the book themselves as an educational resources. As far as foundational literature and older textbook series that were in print before the internet was widely available, this seems like better notability and coverage then some modern peer-reviewed journals. It is important to note that the sources state that the series is meant to be taken as a whole, with each version building on the previous ones and not repeating content. As the series can be viewed as one work in this way, each one of the discreet publications notability contribute to the whole.
GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔) 19:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The following sources have been added to the article:
  • Tiedemann, C. E. "Review by Choice Review". The University of Chicago Library Catalog. Retrieved 25 November 2023.
  • Wrigley, N (1985). "Review: Central Place Theory, Gravity and Spatial Interaction Models, Industrial Location, Scientific Geography Series,". Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space. 17 (10): 1415–1428. doi: 10.1068/a171415.
  • Johnston, R J (1987). "Review: Regional Population Projection Models, Spatial Transportation Modeling, Regional Input—Output Analysis, Human Migration". Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space. 19 (3): 426–427. doi: 10.1068/a190419.
  • Cox, Nicholas J. (1989). "Teaching and learning spatial autocorrelation: a review". Journal of Geography in Higher Education. 13 (2): 185–190. doi: 10.1080/03098268908709084. GeogSage
  • Healey, Michael (1986). "Book reviews: Scientific geography series, Central Place Theory, Gravity and Interaction models, Industrial Location". Applied Geography. 6: 275–277. doi: 10.1016/0143-6228(86)90009-3.
  • Gatrell, A. C. (1989). "Book reviews: Scientific geography series, Point pattern analysis (Scientific Geography Series, Vol. 8), Spatial diffusion (Scientific Geography Series, Vol. 10)". Applied Geography. 9 (2): 140. doi: 10.1016/0143-6228(89)90059-3. GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔) 06:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep plenty of reviews on it. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 11:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. RL0919 ( talk) 21:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Papaya CMS

AfDs for this article:
Papaya CMS (  | 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)

No evidence of notability. Has only had a single source (its GitHub repo, which doesn't contribute to notability at all) since its creation in 2010. The previous deletion discussion was closed with no consensus, including a comment that the German article has sufficient sources to establish notability. That doesn't appear to be the case. Greenman ( talk) 17:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Couldn't find many sources that weren't first-party or simply "how many websites use...". I'd say it fails WP:GNG
Lewcm Talk to me! 23:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete – could not locate sources that would make this notable. -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 23:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
FWIW, concerning the "keep" votes in the first nomination, I don't think any of the German sources on Google Scholar gived significant coverage to Papaya CMS. -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 23:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Union Station (Ogden, Utah)#SP 7457. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Southern Pacific 7457

Southern Pacific 7457 (  | 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 train that is only sourced to coverage by the museum that possesses it and a trivial mention that it came into that museum's possession. Content is not suitable for a merge to the museum article due to a lack of encyclopedically relevant coverage but it may be a suitable redirect. IP creator is know to have produced a variety of similarly non-notable articles. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 16:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Speedy keep‎ per WP:SK#1, no rationale for deletion provided. (non-admin closure) -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 19:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Raquel Evita Saraswati

AfDs for this article:
Raquel Evita Saraswati (  | 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)

Some editors have expressed concerns that she requested in 2013 through ORTS that an article about her should not be created, a request that was honored. It's possible that this issue might arise again in 2023. This AfD might have occurred at some point anyway, given the nature of the topic. I think she has now achieved sufficient notability, and we can write based on what reliable sources say, regardless of the subject's wishes. In my research, I found numerous in-depth references in reliable sources such as The Intercept, Philadelphia Magazine, Philadelphia Inquirer, USA Today, and The Juggernaut. Skeus ( talk) 16:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I think Intercept and USA Today give clear GNG; subject is not a private figure and quite regularly participates in public events and speaks to the media. That said, we should be quite careful about the other sources, like the Metro, in the article with clearly biased headlines. I think there may be something to say about stubbifying the article. Fermiboson ( talk) 16:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Note that I asked you to submit this as a draft, not move it to mainspace and then nominate it for AFD yourself. 331dot ( talk) 16:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't think draftspace submission is obligatory. Skeus ( talk) 17:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
That's not the point. I said that you had the option of deletion review or running the draft through AFC to establish that things had sufficiently changed since the last AFD. I undeleted it on the condition that you use AFC. An AFD that you started yourself is improper because you don't want it deleted. 331dot ( talk) 17:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Eric Loiselet

Eric Loiselet (  | 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 about a political figure, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The article makes no claim that he ever held any NPOL-passing office, asserting only that he was a candidate for one -- but unelected candidates do not get articles just for being candidates, and get into Wikipedia only if they either (a) have some other claim of notability besides the candidacy, or (b) can show credible grounds to treat their candidacy as a special case of significantly greater notability than most other people's candidacies. Neither of those have been demonstrated here, however.
It should also be noted that an article about him previously also existed on the French Wikipedia, but was deleted on the same grounds -- but if even French editors can't find enough to salvage the notability of a French political candidate, then he surely can't somehow be more notable in the anglosphere than he is in France. Bearcat ( talk) 16:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

delete as long as the article is not extended or properly source then it should be deleted. Homerethegreat ( talk) 16:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Just a politician who was never elected to any office. Jmanlucas ( talk) 18:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No significant press coverage and non elected politician. Fails WP:NPOL. Atighot ( talk) 01:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Constitution State Rivalry

Constitution State Rivalry (  | 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 doesn't meat WP:NRIVALRY due to a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun ( talk) 15:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and Connecticut. Let'srun ( talk) 15:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: No evidence of notability (or even that this is a rivalry at all). Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 21:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The sources presented in the article do not constitute WP:SIGCOV discussing this series in depth as being a rivalry. There are some factors weighing on the plus side (geographic proximity, competitiveness, and apparently a named rivalry), but those factors come into play only if it's a close close case as to whether we have enough SIGCOV. If others come forward with such SIGCOV, I'll reconsider. Cbl62 ( talk) 02:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
A search of Connecticut newspapers didn't even turn up passing mentions of this as a rivalry. See here and here. Cbl62 ( talk) 02:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No evidence of notability and personal searches of the rivalry didn't bring up much of anything especially no SIGCOV. Grahaml35 ( talk) 19:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was ‎ no consensus. The most frequently cited reasons for deletion are (1) insufficiency of reliable sources and (2) that the article focuses only on the YouTube and gaming career, and not about the person as a whole. However, while they are in the minority, I believe the "keep" side have made an adequate rebuttal to these points. Skyshifter mentioned that several of the listed sources, including PC Gamer and Polygon are reliable for an article about a game content presenter, and I also find it reasonably persuasive that a biography of the nature will be focused on the creative content and career rather than personal details. There was a late suggestion to draftify the article, but having looked at the article, I see no violation of any core content policy and whatever shortcomings the article may have are not severe enough to justify that action. The provided sourcing may of course be used to expand the article further. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

DougDoug

DougDoug (  | 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)

Another of those Youtubers where it is impossible to write a cohesive biography about them. There are some lazy journalism/ churnalism highlighting some individual streams, but all fails to actually talks about his life in any meaningful way. Without all the non-independent sources removed, the article would be in a even sadder state, which is not we want since we want our articles to mainly depend on independent sources. Without all the tweets fluffing the article up, this page would consist of 1. Random info on two streams he did 2. Mention of a minor fundraiser 3. the fact that he won Streamer award

A WP:before search on google and gbooks only found unreliable Sportskeeda and other unusable sources. Ca talk to me! 15:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Entertainment, and Internet. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Kotaku is a RS, but it really only talks about a speedrun. Most of the rest of the sources are non-RS per source tool. Esports ones are fine, but they really only talk about speedruns, I'm not sure we can build an article using those articles alone. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Beyond confirmation of speedruns, there isn't enough to build an article. I can't find anything in RS we can use. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. While he is a good content creator, there just aren't enough RS out there to keep the article currently. DrowssapSMM ( talk) ( contributions) 16:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete: I'm a fan, but I'm just not seeing enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. Happy to be proven wrong. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 20:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Another fan of DougDoug here. Although some of the sources used are reliable, they're mostly about his streaming/internet career, and not about his life as a whole. The award does provide a fraction of notability, but that's about it. TarantulaTM ( speak with me) ( my legacy) 04:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: As a moderator of Doug's chat, I honestly do agree entirely with everything said thus far. There's not enough that we know about Doug At All™ to actually warrant a valid page period, let alone one meeting WP:ANYBIO. EarthToAccess ( talk) 21:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Sources 4 through 8 are significant coverage about Doug or at very least his main work (which is as a streamer and a speedrunner), plus the Streamer Awards is a notable award. I don't see why we would need sources talking about his life, that seems like an exaggeration; sources giving significant coverage to his work as a streamer and speedrunner (which is indeed the main thing he's known for) should be enough (which are sources 4 through 8). Plus there's a clearly notable award that not only was he nominated for but won. Skyshifter talk 01:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Agreeing with Skyshifter here. I think there's a misunderstanding with applying only WP:NBIO along with dismissing several of the sources because it focuses more on his work than him. While yes, he is a person, he's also a YouTuber who creates web content, so WP:WEB applies here too. An article about a YouTuber should be expected to cover the type of content he makes as that's the most crucial information readers would reasonably wish to learn about. In my opinion, the sources Skyshifter highlighted do contain commentary and review-esque material that provides WP:WEBCRIT evidence. Also, one could argue that WP:CREATIVE applies, considering that his content has received significant coverage as well. It seems people just interpret WP:BLP as "an article about a person must be a full biography of the person's life" rather than "a biography of a person's life must be protected from misinformation and vandalism," and don't consider any other possible notability criteria that also applies. Personally I don't see any BLP violations from using secondary sources about his videos, so I vote Keep. If this somehow gets closed as delete instead of relisted, I'm considering doing a deletion review anyways Striking per suggestion. PantheonRadiance ( talk) 18:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    My problem with the article is not of notability guidelines, that's why I didn't cite any acronyms.
    DougDoug's fundraiser is already mentioned in the Rosa (sea otter) article, and the Doug's Streamer Award is mentioned in The Streamer Awards.
    This means that the only non-redundant, and original information that could be said is that a streamer did three streams. That falls squarely under the WP:PAGEDECIDE territory. The related articles already cover much of the content in the article. The article only has an illusion of cohesiveness because of the numerous tweets cited. This kind of article is especially vulnerable to NPOV troubles if DougDoug happens to get into YouTuber drama.
    I like this content creator, I am a fan, but a Wikipedia article is more of a burden to its subject than it is a gift. Ca talk to me! 22:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    I do see where you're coming from a bit better, and some of the tweets should be trimmed. But I still believe he warrants an article. The Dot Esports and PC Gamer sources have background info about both him and his career, and even some of the sources about his streams delve a bit into him as well. I also found sources from Wargamer and Bloomberg that also provide usable info - the former about a DnD stream he did noting his other challenges, and another mentioning his AI-based content. Finally, even if parts of it are mentioned in other articles, I still don't see why that shouldn't contribute too. The Streamer Award should count per WEBCRIT, and we usually mention notable award wins in plenty of biographies even when mentioned in the award's article. If the fundraiser were the only event he received coverage for, I would say he doesn't merit an article. However, a notable fundraiser, plus an award win, plus reviews of his multitude of web content in various reliable outlets should equal a separate page for him. PantheonRadiance ( talk) 01:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Skyshifter and PantheonRadiance. QuicoleJR ( talk) 19:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep: I believe that deletion isn't the best policy unless there's undeniably not enough evidence to leave the article up. That, of course, does mean the article will need some work, but I'd rather opt for workshopping the article than straight up deleting it. HaapsaluYT ( talk) 04:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Incubate: For reasons mentioned by others, the article is not in a great state, which is common for the subject’s field. However, the subject is notable in their prolific use of spectator-infusion systems, as described in a recent PhD thesis on “speedrunning events, charity livestream events, and livestream interactivity”. I expect reliable sources to become more available over time as the field is better written about and studied. I think the subject would fall within WP:CREATIVE #2 (originator of using a combination of techniques, not an originator of any single one of them though), and arguably WP:CREATIVE #1 as well given his award. But since RSs are unfortunately lacking in the article to validate WP:CREATIVE, it needs some rework. Bert303 ( talk) 07:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply
I support draftication over deletion since this article has some potential. Ca talk to me! 12:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 ( talk) 21:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

James Yoku

James Yoku (  | 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)

Seems to fail the bare minimum of WP:SPORTBASIC #5 as well as WP:GNG. Searches of "James Yoku" and "Jemes Yoku" failed to yield anything close to significant coverage for me. He only played one professional game according to Football Database. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was 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 14:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Misriadi Didiet

Misriadi Didiet (  | 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)

I'm struggling to find any evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. The best sources found in an Indonesian search were Kutai Kartanegara, Viva and Liputan6, all of which only mention Misriadi in passing. I could not find any WP:RS that took Misriadi to one side and analysed him in detail. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Louise Camrass

AfDs for this article:
Louise Camrass (  | 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)

Neither source given is a WP:RS, cannot find non-self-published sources DirtyHarry991 ( talk) 11:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, without prejudice to restoration to draft if additional sources are found. Nothing here speaks to encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 15:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This article was relisted with the reason that it is ineligible for soft deletion. Please look at the nomination from September. The article was soft deleted then, but not processed properly. Could a closer take a second look at the first nomination? Thanks! -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 17:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Supreme Education Council (Qatar). Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Navigation Tower

AfDs for this article:
Navigation Tower (  | 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 seems to be no significant coverage in WP:GNG sources. Previous AfD resulted in a soft-delete, and the article has now been recreated. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 14:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Qatar. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 14:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, despite it being a distinctive design, it doesn't appear to have attracted much media attention. I can only find a brief description on Worldfinance.com. It looks like it was a commercial venture by a shipping company. Sionk ( talk) 14:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Does not have SIGCOV. DrowssapSMM ( talk) ( contributions) 16:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Supreme Education Council (Qatar), the building's main occupant which has its name upon it. Nate • ( chatter) 21:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    It might be good to mention the building on the redirect target with an RS; this seems like a good ATD. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 23:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect: This building is not notable. However, the main occupant of this building is Qatar's top education department, and there is an article dedicated to it. HarukaAmaranth 春 香 17:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per above. Not notable enough for a standalone article. The Kip 23:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 03:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Limosa (disambiguation)

Limosa (disambiguation) (  | 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 disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title while the other entries here aren't valid. The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 14:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 14:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There are only two WP:DABMENTION-satisfying entries. A hatnote on Godwit will suffice. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Pppery, the disambiguation page has been updated and Limosa (magazine) has been created as a redirect mentioned in its target. If you're fine with it now, please change your vote so that I can withdraw this nomination. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 15:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Go ahead and withdraw. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • NmWTfs85lXusaybq, have you ever seen WP:BEFORE? :) In this case, you can e.g. see that Special:WhatLinksHere/Limosa_(magazine) has numerous links so it qualifies for inclusion. Why should we hide this from readers? -- Joy ( talk) 21:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Joy, have you ever noticed that all links of Limosa (magazine) in the main namespace are actually from the transclusion of {{ European birding journals}}? That's not warranted per MOS:DABMENTION. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 01:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    OK, but that gives you a hint that at least one other editor thought there was potential. I know it's easier to just do a huge mechanic cleanup, but sometimes it makes sense to look into these because they're indicative of something else. I just skimmed your list of 200+ prod's and found several situations that could be handled differently. -- Joy ( talk) 10:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yes, that's what I meant. Unfortunately, it seems that nobody was willing to help check WP:ONEOTHER candidates in the last month after I tagged 200+ dab pages (of all 1,200+ candidates) with {{ One other topic}}, although I have excluded ones resulted from vandalism. Thus, I believe PROD has to be used to draw more attention from our community. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 11:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yeah, the cleanup tags aren't going to be very effective within just a month at rarely visited pages. Especially in cases where there weren't even hatnote links to some of these. -- Joy ( talk) 12:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • There is now a sourced mention of the magazine at Sovon, and a redirect there. Still no need for a dab page, a hatnote at the bird would do.. Pam D 08:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I found another item in the title search with an existing redirect, a minor planet, just by scrolling through. There's also mentions of moths, but I'm not familiar with WP:PTM rules on scientific names so someone else should look at it. Spamming all this into a hatnote at an article that actually has a different title seems like it would be excessive. -- Joy ( talk) 10:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Well spotted. Pam D 13:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: adequate little dab page, too much for a hatnote. Pam D 13:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep several valid entries, plus see also section. Boleyn ( talk) 15:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Stand up for us

Stand up for us (  | 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)

Completely non-notable campaign. Of the two references provided, first one makes no mention of "Stand up for us" and second one is dead. Google search for "Stand up for us" does not produce many relevant results. Only real evidence I have found for this campaign is this but one publication clearly does not warrant an article.

Completely non-notable and does not deserve an article. Elshad ( talk) 12:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to Czech Republic at the 2014 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Michal Vacek

Michal Vacek (  | 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)

I searched on Google and couldn't find any news coverage about this athlete. I'm not a native speaker of Czech language, but all I could find were brief/passing mentions and no activities of his own. Corresponding article on Czech Wikipedia is also a stub, which might help otherwise. No news has been released about him since his last appearance in 2015, either. CuteDolphin712 ( talk) 12:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

FromCzech ( talk) 07:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep‎. I'm withdrawing this nomination because I was unaware of other sources when I made it as I was searching for the MLW M-640. Oaktree b has clearly demonstrated other sources. TarnishedPath talk 04:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

MLW M-640

MLW M-640 (  | 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 appears to have been WP:REFBOMBed to make it appear more notable than it is. The first, second and fourth citations do not refer to the MLW M-640 at all as far as I can tell. They reference the Canadian Pacific 4744 and then only in passing. Not sure about the third citation. If the third citation does go into any any depth, one in depth citation by itself by itself is not enough to establish notability. Given the track record of this IP user I highly doubt the third citation does reference the subject in an depth, if at all. This does not pass WP:GNG as it has no independent notability outside of the Canadian Railway Museum. Suggest a redirect to Canadian Railway Museum. TarnishedPath talk 11:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Transportation. TarnishedPath talk 11:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Also coverage in the CP Corporate history magazine here [10] and [11], some discussion in an electrical engineering journal (paywalled) [12]. Here's a better link for the museum [13]. An "under the hood" look at the loco [14] Oaktree b ( talk) 17:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Anymore sources? Because I have added the current ones you mentioned into the further reading. Only for you to put them into their respective sentences that they are meant for. 118.210.56.198 ( talk) 20:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ 118.210.56.198, why are you submitting articles through AfC and then expecting others to come along later and provide sources to establish notability that you haven't been able to add yourself? TarnishedPath talk 04:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Probably could cobble together a decent article with the new sources I've found Oaktree b ( talk) 17:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    About three paragraphs here in Trains magazine [15] Oaktree b ( talk) 20:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Does that ever mention the MLW M-640? 118.210.56.198 ( talk) 20:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    They mention how it was redone using AC propulsion while keeping the original ALCO. "...Development Corporation, Canadian Pacific led the way in 1984, extensively rebuilding Montreal Locomotive Works M640 4744, a conventional D.C. locomotive, into an A.C.-traction testbed. In November 1984, 4744 emerged from CP Rail's Angus Shop, still with its unique 18cylinder, 4000 h.p. Alco 251 engine, but with its electrical and control systems radically altered. Converted from..." Oaktree b ( talk) 20:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'll add it to the further reading section 118.210.56.198 ( talk) 20:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep: I agree with @ Oaktree b we could add the new sources he has found to the article. 118.210.56.198 ( talk) 20:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 12:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Hanan Rubinstein

Hanan Rubinstein (  | 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:GNG; no sources in the article contain significant and independent coverage of the subject - the source that comes closest, a Bloomberg video, is no longer available and appears to have been an interview and thus would lack secondary coverage.

An online search for additional sources also reveals none. I suspect this article is an autobiography; the creator has almost no edits except to this article, and it has been heavily edited by IP's from the same location as Rubinstein. BilledMammal ( talk) 11:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was 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! 08:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Benito Juarez Marg

Benito Juarez Marg (  | 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 exists, but I couldn't find sources to confirm it meets WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for nearly 7 years. Boleyn ( talk) 09:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Delhi. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The road is notable as the South Campus of Delhi University is located along the road. This is a false statement. There are thousands of university campuses in the world, but the existence doesn't mean the roads they are near are notable. It's a generic four-lane road that's not even two km long. Reywas92 Talk 18:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Rossa (singer). Liz Read! Talk! 08:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Hati Yang Terpilih

Hati Yang Terpilih (  | 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 GNG and NALBUM. Sources in article are promo about the artist and do not meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject (the compilation album & soundtrack album) directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV. There is no sourced content that would improve a target, but no objection to a consensus REDIRECT.  //  Timothy ::  talk  10:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to Amy's Choice (Doctor Who). ( non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) Sohom ( talk) 12:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Amy's Choice

Amy's Choice (  | 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 2002 miniseries is nowhere near notable (hence it is a redlink). If you are looking for the doctor who episode, then you will waste your time on the disambiguation. If you are looking for the miniseries, it doesn't exist anyway so there is no point coming to this page. Even if the miniseries had an article, I would suggest it being a {{ for}} on the DW page anyway. I don't know much about disambiguation so please tell me if my logic is outright wrong. Kind regards, JacobTheRox ( talk) 08:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment, since the deletion of the miniseries article over 4 years ago happened, no other articles link to it, so I think WP:DABRED may apply. The article on the episode seems by and far a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, with 2700 views in the last month and 45 watchers. For me, this may have been better going to a WP:RM first, perhaps looking at moving the DAB to Amy's Choice (disambiguation) and then moving the episode to the primary title. Nevertheless, i'd probably be inclined to !vote weak delete on a DAB page which isn't serving a useful purpose and has a redlinked article not linked elsewhere. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 10:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per nom. Owen× ☎ 15:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, can not redirect to Amy's Choice (disambiguation) as this page is a Redirect to this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Do we really need to overthink this? Amy's Choice (Doctor Who) and Amy's Choice (Dr. Who) and Amy's Choice all got created in 2010 about a Doctor Who episode. After some history merger and splitting this one became the equal-weight disambiguation between the remaining Doctor Who article and an Amy's Choice (miniseries) that one of the Doctor Who article creators thought had equal weight to the Doctor Who episode and also created. That latter of the 2 ambiguous articles was deleted 9 years later. We don't need the disambiguation page any more. We lose one Doctor Who edit in this edit history by deleting it, and that only really resulted from the history split in the first place and is largely empty. This is housekeeping, at best. Uncle G ( talk) 12:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to the Doctor Who episode, I also think that It would be a good idea it to move the Doctor WHo episode to that page. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to the Doctor Who episode, I don't think a disambiguation page is needed. Was the miniseries' information included in any other pages? If so, a short note at the top could clarify things. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 03:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Phaitoon Phonbun

Phaitoon Phonbun (  | 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:GNG. My WP:BEFORE search found only routine coverage of results and ranking positions. There may be good sources in other languages that I've failed to uncover. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 12:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cue sports, and Thailand. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 12:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I'd be inclined toward keeping this, since a national champion is usually notable, and this person is an international regional champion (Asian Games). Maybe someone from WikiProject Thailand would have more luck finding sources using the subject's native-script name.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: A notice of this discussion has been delivered to WT:WikiProject Thailand.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Searching with his snooker nickname, ตัวเล็ก สำโรง (Tualek Samrong), turns up a lot of results, mostly match reports and videos. Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Cue Thong, Thailand's leading (and only) snooker magazine, has a profile page of him [16], as well as news coverage in several articles [17] [18]. There might be offline coverage from earlier in his career that is more in-depth, but that will require digging through some library archives. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 09:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 07:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • I'll throw in a weak keep if it'll make closing any easier. The above articles provide a fair amount of coverage, and hint that more in-depth coverage probably exists. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 04:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun ( talk) 19:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Australia–Peru relations

AfDs for this article:
Australia–Peru relations (  | 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)

Previously deleted via AfD back in 2010 and recently recreated. (I'm not an admin and can't see the original version, but I don't think the current version is close enough to qualify for WP:CSD G4.) Anyway, the arguments in the original AfD still apply. Cited sources are all either government websites and/or fall well short of constituting direct, in depth coverage of these countries' relations. Yilloslime ( talk) 02:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • It's not the same as the 2010 version. This is purportedly a translation of an article started on the Spanish Wikipedia in 2014. It covers the same ground, but it's not a strict translation. Uncle G ( talk) 02:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep - there are enough sources and diplomatic relations pages are a standard on the Wiki. Styx ( talk) 03:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak delete There are some relations like a free trade agreement. However, article is based mainly on primary sources hence my weak delete !vote. LibStar ( talk) 23:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep there are things which we can find about that in Google, article needs to be improved. Dawid2009 ( talk) 07:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. RL0919 ( talk) 21:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Lingam Suryanarayana

Lingam Suryanarayana (  | 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)

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 07:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

    • The discussion about notability appears to be used to delete some selected articles. What notability you require more than his position as Vice chancellor of an Indian Health university, Principal of a century old Andhra Medical College, WHO expert on some Health issues related to developing countries and good number of research publications. Would you like to consider only "Big" award winning persons only to have biographies in English Wikipedia.-- Rajasekhar1961 10:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

List of Japanese overseas military actions

List of Japanese overseas military actions (  | 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)

Overly broad. This would theoretically include every Japanese operation in World Wars I and II, in addition to countless previous actions. SilverStar54 ( talk) 05:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. This includes numerous unrelated states. Clarityfiend ( talk) 12:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or draftify. The subject is notable, the list is not unmanageably large, and mostly it just wants proper sourcing. Mccapra ( talk) 14:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE. What is the point of this 2005 un-sourced list? There is no indication of who created this, or why. Ultimately, just about every existing nation on earth has been involved in military actions beyond their borders. But, so what? — Maile ( talk) 16:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I searched for List of overseas military actions and seen no other nation has this. There is a Timeline of United States military operations and Category:Military timelines shows other nations that have these. But those are for nations, not locations that previously had a completely unrelated government. Dream Focus 05:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Mere POVFORK of wars list. Abhishek0831996 ( talk) 14:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Seems like a perfectly manageable list. I have no idea what "unrelated states" Clarityfiend is referring to. Lack of sources in an article from 2005 and especially in a list is no grounds for deletion. What POV does Abhishek0831996 have in mind? Srnec ( talk) 21:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Should there really be a list of "Overseas military actions by [given country]" in addition to a Category:Lists of wars by country? All of the former lists would just be an arbitrary subset of the latter. One can imagine an endless number of ways to subdivide lists of wars involving a country, but I don't think they all need separate pages. SilverStar54 ( talk) 00:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as a case of WP:TNT - There might be a list to be created within this area, but the current contents (effectively unsourced and containing vague statements like By some interpretations...) and the mismatch between it's title ("military actions" encompasses almost anything) and it's inclusion criteria (historical wars or other military conflicts outside the geographic boundaries of Japan in which Japanese soldiers participated) make this a difficult knot to untangle incrementally: removing unsourced contents would be equivalent to just removing the article, and a discussion on what the scope/inclusion criteria/title should be is exactly the kind of discussion that I've found rarely works out in practice. Easier for everyone involved to just start over. - Ljleppan ( talk) 08:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This article is just junk. We have [ [19]] which is also questionable, and we have Military_history_of_Japan. DCsansei ( talk) 22:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Beatnik Beatch. Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

George Cole (musician)

George Cole (musician) (  | 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--individual members of bands should redirect to the band page Blockhead14 ( talk) 21:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The nominator should suggest which band to redirect to, as this musician has been in several. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 12:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I count two: Beatnik Beatch and David Grisman Quintet. However, he does not appear on the list of 20 members of the latter on their page or in the credits for any of their albums. So, since he is listed as a founding member of Beatnik Beatch, I propose that this page redirects to that band's page. Blockhead14 ( talk) 01:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Beatnik Beatch. That's the band for which he seems to have gotten the most coverage as a musician in his own right. He is described in some publications associated with Green Day as their longtime instructor, but those are fan-based. Otherwise I can only find him listed in the credits for various albums by other people in which he was a session hand, and his solo albums received little notice. I suspect that this article started out as an attempted autobiography. It looks like he has made a living as a trusty associate for many notable people, but he just hasn't gotten enough reliable coverage in which he is the focus. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 15:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 04:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article or, at least, a No consensus here. Basically, there is no support for Deletion other than the nominator. Liz Read! Talk! 08:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Minrui Road station

Minrui Road station (  | 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)

I WP:BOLDLY redirected the above articles a few days ago on concerns of notability, however @ User:Garuda3 reverted them, with the edit summary quote: "beneficial to have all stations of the system. Multiple references". However, most of the sources talk about the line which they serve, Pujiang line. On a WP:BEFORE search on both Google and Baidu in both English and Chinese, I could not find any significant coverage on the stations themselves, but only minor mentions on articles on the Pujiang line. These stations thus fail WP:NSTATION and WP:GNG, and in my opinion should be redirected to Pujiang line#Stations.

I am also nominating the following pages as well:

Sanlu Highway station (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Puhang Road station (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dongchengyi Road station (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Huizhen Road station (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

S5A-0043 Talk 07:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect all per nom. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment User:S5A-0043, this nomination is not in the correct format for a bundled nomination so it will make a closure, whatever that is, very difficult. You can't just list a group of articles, there is code you must use. Please review WP:AFD and reformat your nomination so that it is done correctly according to the guidelines descripted there. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 07:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1979 Sligo Intermediate Football Championship as an example of a correctly formatted bundled nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 07:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Alright, I’ll get to it later. S5A-0043 Talk 07:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk) 14:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 04:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Source check based on WP:GNG:
In the article:
[20] : Can’t open so can’t comment.
[21]: Significant? ☒N (passing mention of Huizhen Road and not even a single mention of everything else) Reliable? checkY Secondary? ☒N (Primary, Shanghai Keolis is the operator of the line) Independent? ☒N (Same as secondary)
[22]: Not actually archived for some reason so no comment
[23] Significant? ☒N (Passing mentions for all stations). Independent? checkY Reliable? Question? (State media but since this isn’t political coverage I think it should still be OK). Secondary? checkY.
I grabbed a few extra random sources from Google and Baidu since someone mentioned WP:NEXIST:
[24]: Significant? Question? (A bunch of images of the stations but not much prose). Independent? Question? (Sounds promotional but not 100% sure) Reliable? checkY Secondary? checkY
[25] Significant? ☒N (Passing mentions for all). Independent? checkY Reliable? Question? (Via Baidu Baijiahao, a WP:UGC platform, but authored by state media. Like above no.4 since this isn’t political coverage I think it should still be OK). Secondary? checkY.
[26] Significant? ☒N (Passing mention of transfer info for each station. BTW this should also be routine coverage.) Independent? ☒N (Authored by Shanghai Metro, system operating organization). Reliable? checkY Secondary? ☒N.
Apologies for the mess, I tried using the source assessment table but mobile editing is a headache. But anyway, I honestly doubt these stations meet WP:GNG based on the above. S5A-0043 Talk 20:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Multiple reliable secondary sources. And also per WP:BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. 213.239.67.134 ( talk) 21:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    WP:BASIC also says trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. and that a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not (non-trivial coverage). Could you kindly explain why WP:BASIC is satisfied in this case? S5A-0043 Talk 21:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Those of us who care about equity tend to be a touch more lenient when it comes to Africa, much of Asia, most of the Caribbean, and other regions with serious deficiencies in quality sources. Out of equity considerations and not replacing the need for quality sources. Just relaxing it slightly. If we wouldn't, such regions would suffer even a larger coverage gap at Wikipedia. In general, there is no need for the nominator to respond to almost every diverging opinion in AfDs. In fact, there is a strong recommendation against that. Please assume that ALL opinionators have read the AfD-rationale and are taking it into full consideration! gidonb ( talk) 11:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Atragon. Liz Read! Talk! 08:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Manda (kaiju)

Manda (kaiju) (  | 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)

Minor fictional monester (kaiju) from the Godzillaverse. Pure plot summary + list of media it appears in. No reception, no analysis. Poor referencing (including fanpages, even fan wiki - wikizilla). Article on ja wiki is no better. Per ATD, the best non-hard-deletion outcome I can think of would be redirecting this to the movie it debuted in ( Atragon). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Japan. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Meh. It appears in so many different media, it would be nice if List of kaiju were actually that, or failing such a list, retaining it along a similar rationale as BAND#6. That is, while not individually notable, it's been a part of too many notable ensembles (movies, etc.) for a merge to just one to be appropriate. Jclemens ( talk) 04:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Atragon, the first movie to feature the creature and where it actually had a prominent role. The other movies and pieces of media listed in its "filmography" were largely just very quick cameos (with the appearances in All Monsters Attack and Terror of Mechagodzilla being nothing but reused stock footage, if I recall). Even its biggest appearance in a film since its debut ( Godzilla: Final Wars) is only a couple of minutes long. Atragon is the only piece of media where it actually had a central role to the plot, thus would be the proper place to redirect. Rorshacma ( talk) 20:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Meh per Jclemens. There ought to be a better way to handle this but in the absence of better sources I can't object to a redirect to Atragon. Eluchil404 ( talk) 00:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep because while the Japanese article isn't great, it does list Japanese-language sources that prove notability. I did a search and it's a bit difficult to filter through other uses in Japanese but I think there's more there as well. DCsansei ( talk) 14:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ DCsansei Which sources prove notability and how? I translated that article too and I did not notice them. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    The character has appeared in quite a number of notable media and has substantial coverage in various reliably sourced coverage of those in Japanese. I think it easily passes the threshold for notability.
    Again, I'd like to remind editors that WP:NOENG is, even if often ignored in these discussions, something to keep in mind. DCsansei ( talk) 21:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    As Piotrus asked, you are really going to have to point out which sources you are talking about in specific for this to be more than a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument. Because looking at the Japanese wiki article, the actual content is nothing but plot summaries and technical information on the production of the special effects with no kind of analysis or reception of the monster itself. And a lot of those sources being used look to be officially licensed Toho material, including a couple pieces of fiction. And saying "the character has appeared in quite a number of notable media" is never going to be enough to establish notability, particular since, as I already talked about above, nearly all of those appearances were brief cameos, sometimes just re-using existing footage. 03:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
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! 08:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Alfredo Larín

Alfredo Larín (  | 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 about a non-notable Youtuber. No WP:SIGCOV on the subject and I doubt if he meets WP:CREATIVE. Jamiebuba ( talk) 07:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. Can't find a single suitable source for the article. Crunchydillpickle🥒 ( talk) 00:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Hacktivist Vanguard

Hacktivist Vanguard (  | 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 per WP:ORG and WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search turned up the same self-promotion of the three sources currently cited, mostly reposts of a "Force for Cybersecurity" manifesto, which in the initial creation had a dozen copies cited on various blogs masquerading as newspapers. It's a recently created group, and may have only one member, as "Hacktivist Vanguard" is credited only as the cinematographer of several films on its IMDb entry. The article is a near copy of Draft:Hacktivist Vanguard, created by two other SPAs. An IP editor tried to credit the group as "hacker group" in the cast sections of the two film articles linked in the See also section, but I can find no evidence of any film roles for this "group" online. It all reads like a recruitment page for a new hacktivist group. Wikishovel ( talk) 07:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete all 3 of the sources on the page came up empty-handed on a reliable sources search. Chumpih t 19:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete MP1999 ❯❯❯ Talk 08:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Oracle Corporation. Liz Read! Talk! 08:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Oracle Academy

Oracle Academy (  | 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)

GNG fail, not clear what other criteria apply (NORG?). All sources are primary. Fermiboson ( talk) 07:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 10:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Russell Henderson (disambiguation)

Russell Henderson (disambiguation) (  | 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 disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title. The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 06:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Leaning oppose for now (I removed the PROD), but this may be a technicality that can be resolved. The problem is, that WP:ONEOTHER says: "If there is a primary topic located at the base name,..." and bases everything that follows on that condition. However, that condition is not satisfied, since the primary topic is currently not located at the base name, and so I presume that ONEOTHER does not apply here for the time being. The primary topic is clearly the convict (who has the PARENDIS, at Russell Henderson (convict)) and who gets all the search results up to #12, where the musician, Russell Henderson, first appears. However, we don't have an article at Russell Henderson (convict), just the redirect for the convict. So, I'm not sure what happens when PRIMARYTOPIC is a redirect, and whether that affects this. I judged that it probably does, because the convict appears to easily meet criterion 1 (usage), and although it wasn't clear some years ago, now it does seem clear with continuing coverage of the Shepherd case that it meets criterion 2 as well. So, I think what needs to happen here, is swap (convict) into undisambiguated position, add '(musician)' to the other one, and then revisit this to see where we are then. I think at that point, the initial ONEOTHER criterion would then be satisfied, and removal of the disambig page would be indicated. Mathglot ( talk) 08:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    It seems that you have misunderstood WP:2DABS. "If there is a primary topic located at the base name, ..." doesn't actually exclude the case of WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT at all. It's only a depiction about the case when there's a primary topic associated with the base name, comparing to the case of WP:NOPRIMARY in the section above WP:ONEOTHER. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 08:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm not assuming it's excluding PRIMARYTOPIC, I'm assuming it means what it says, namely, the PRIMARYTOPIC is at the basename, or translating that, that the PRIMARYTOPIC is at the pagename 'Russell Henderson'. What I am saying is, the PRIMARYTOPIC is not currently at the basename, therefore per the if-condition given, ONEOTHER does not currently apply to this case. (But it would apply, if the titles were swapped.) Mathglot ( talk) 09:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Mathglot, how is Russell Henderson (convict) a primary topic? It's only your opinion and had been contested by PC78 in the RM discussion which was closed without any consensus. Since you never start another one after that, the current topic at the base name remains primary. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 09:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Perhaps, but WP:CCC, and it isn't my opinion, well it is, but it is the PRIMARYTOPIC based on data, which you can reproduce yourself, by executing a search for 'Russell Henderson' and tallying up some of the top results. The musician first appears at #12. Look, I don't really care that much about this, and if the D-page gets deleted, then so be it. But I'd rather it be demonstrable by current guidelines and the best data we have available, and I don't see it. Mathglot ( talk) 09:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    OK, I can see Matthew Shepard is a clear primary topic with respect to usage from clickstream dataset and there's no problem to make it a primary redirect. I'm afraid that you have to start a separate RM for the potentially controversial move, since you have proposed one with no consensus. However, the disambiguation page should be deleted anyway and it might not be a proper way to exploit AfD for this move without any change to the outcome. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 14:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete regardless of one's opinions on which is the primary topic, a hatnote on that topic pointing to the other will suffice. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

*Delete. A disambiguation page is not required. If the musician is not the primary topic then that page should be moved to a disambiguated title. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 17:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Ceili (disambiguation)

Ceili (disambiguation) (  | 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 disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title while the other entries here aren't valid. The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 06:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to 700 (number)#790s. Liz Read! Talk! 08:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

790 (number)

790 (number) (  | 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)

Currently, there is only one source in the article that mentions one mathematical property of 790. The other properties are all calculated, so the article does not comply with Wikipedia:Notability (numbers). Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) mentioned that numbers must have three mathematical properties and at least these mathematical properties can be directly mentioned in the source of the article, so it is recommended that the article be redirected to 700 (number). 日期20220626 ( talk) 06:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. RL0919 ( talk) 21:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Lena Luthor

Lena Luthor (  | 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 comic character, most coverage is about the Arrowverse version of the character Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

That's...not a deletion argument. You don't get to decide what's trivial. Reliable source coverage is what determines notability. Otherwise you're arguing all fictional characters are trivial? Silver seren C 03:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
WP:ITEXISTS is not a valid argument. Some fictional characters are trivial, some aren't. I note that the vastly more important fictional character the Baron de Charlus does not get a page although he has an article in Britannica. Xxanthippe ( talk) 03:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC). reply
But isnt that arguement WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There appears to be quite a bit of significant coverage of Lena Luthor from an academic and published book perspective, particularly in relation to feminism and the LGBT community. Here's just one example of that, among many. And that attention has appeared to only expand due to the recent television shows due to the writers essentially using queerbaiting to generate interest. Silver seren C 03:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the sources given above and due to her notability not just in the comic book series but also regarding LGBTQ+ and feminism. Whilst some reception would be great for the article, deletion is not appropriate. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 03:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Changing vote to Strong keep per Siroxo's sources and analysis. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 07:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The academic sources found by Beccaynr are sufficient to demonstrate that the subject meets WP:GNG. — siro χ o 04:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Just to try to save editors some time in this discussion, here's some from two of Beccaynrs sources. Not an exhaustive representation of those sources.
    Hicks in Supersex, 2020 ( available via TWL) has multiple pages of SIGCOV including for example.

    ... season 2 saw Supergirl undergo several dramatic changes, including the introduction of Lena Luthor, the adopted sister of ... Lex Luthor. In her original Action Comics appearances, Lena is Supergirl’s best friend, and unaware that she is related to Lex Luthor. Because of Lena’s ESP powers, how-ever, Supergirl is constantly worried she will unwittingly “confess” her true identity to Lena. In addition, because she knows who Lena’s brother is, Supergirl continually doubts the veracity of Lena’s friendship. The television series imports these tensions while slightly rearranging their specifics. Because Lena is a Luthor, she is mistrusted by most people in National City. The key exception is Supergirl, who, for the most part, trusts Lena has good intentions, even as she continues to keep the identity of her alter ego a secret from her. Lena herself notes that her friend-ship with Supergirl exists “against all odds”: “Who would’ve believed it? A Luthor and a Super, working together.”36 The emotional drama of the friendship that develops between both Lena and Kara as well as Lena and Supergirl is bolstered by these tensions and by the onscreen chemistry between Benoist/Supergirl and McGrath/Lena. This in turn fuels fans’ championing of a romantic interpretation of the two’s relationship.
    ...
    In some ways, the Supercorp fandom is organized around the figure of Lena Luthor rather than Supergirl; Lena typically works as a self-insert character, and stories are frequently told from her perspective and/or con-structed to prioritize her point of view. Tumblr user katiemccgrath argues that “the Supercorp fandom is just a bunch of bottoms self-projecting onto lena luthor and that’s Valid.”53 One effect of this conventional pat-tern is that, instead of reifying a patriarchal framework that would seek to contain Supergirl’s supersexuality, the Supercorp fandom celebrates Supergirl’s abilities and her sexual dominance of Lena. Although some fans do openly identify with Supergirl and make Lena/McGrath the object of their sexual desires, they appear to be in the minority. In some fan conversations, lusting after Lena is even (jokingly) disapproved of; some Supercorp shippers react as if it places the fan in competition with the all-powerful Supergirl, who has already “claimed” Lena.

    Church, in Girl of Steel, 2020, has a 19 page essay dedicated in large part to the subject. Here are two snippets:

    Lena, conversely, constructs her "normal" public persona as a stereotypical CEO based on her own experiences: she is guarded with those around her and apprehensive towards trusting them. Both are responding to societal assumptions of how females and millennials would behave in contemporary society, and use these assumptions to create a false self for the public that are interpretations necessary for assimilation.
    ...
    For Lena, her public/ private masks work much differently. Rather than suppress her power draw from anger, Lena has to constantly suppress her vulnerability and insecurities from the public. As a CEO of a billion-dollar company, she cannot afford to be seen as weak or emotional. She also cannot express anger because National City's citizens are wary of her family's psychotic history. On an individual level, the series suggests that like these characters, we all have parts of ourselves that we repress to either protect others or ourselves. On a more symbolic level, it also highlights society's fear of strong, powerful women as demonstrated by National City's reaction to these characters as well as the characters' need to repress their true selves.

    — siro χ o 07:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    The second source is good but the first one seems to be more of a plot summary with some comments about Lena-Supergirl relationship, but next to nothing about Lena herself (that is not plot summary). That said, we are getting close to having enough content to warrant keeping this. Anything else? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    What I quoted here from the first source is sufficient to demonstrate SIGCOV, but I did include a link above that grants access via TWL, if you want to read the source in full. Fair warning, the source itself is uncensored. — siro χ o 11:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    • this is the partial quote available at p. 78 from Disability and the Superhero: Essays on Ableism and Representation in Comic Media (2023), critiquing her portrayal in Supergirl as a "missed opportunity to portray bodily diversity" and stating "There are various iterations of Luthor in other media, one of the most prominent versions being a wheelchair user..."
    • this is a link to 29 results with partial quotes for "Lena Luthor" in the Girl of Steel: Essays on Television's Supergirl and Fourth-Wave Feminism (2020) book
    • the Journal of Lesbian Studies article abstract includes, "The Supercorp fandom refers to the platonic friendship between Kara Danvers, aka Supergirl, and her friend Lena Luthor. [...] Supergirl’s screenwriters were notorious for placing Kara and Lena in heteronormative relationship scenarios, effectively queerbaiting (or covert courting) the audience by suggesting a romantic relationship never explored on-screen"; The New York Times briefly covers SuperCorp in 2017, and CBR has more coverage in 2020.
    Beccaynr ( talk) 15:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Also, while I have not found access to American Comic Book Chronicles: The 1960s, 1960-64, based on its description, this does not appear to be a plot summary - it is used in the article to cite Lena Luthor's first appearance in a comic; the book's description is focused on the history of comics, including "significant publications, notable creators, and impactful trends".
    At the Wikipedia Library, there is a review of Cosmic Adventures of the 8th Grade from the School Library Journal, Brickey, Morgan, Jul2016, Vol. 62, Issue 7, Literary Reference Center Plus (..."Thankfully, as Linda, she makes a friend in Lena Thorul, but Lena is not who she seems..."); there is another review in Teacher Librarian, "Women Who Fly.", Sanders, Joe Sutliff, Jun2010, Vol. 37, Issue 5, Master File Complete (..."Fortunately, Kara's gloomy roommate is very supportive--but who is that bald super-villain she keeps sending e-mails to?"...) Beccaynr ( talk) 16:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Also, Bleeding Cool ( 15 Oct 2014), reviews various iterations of the Lena Luthor character as part of presenting her latest appearance in a comic; this does not seem to be a plot summary, but instead secondary context that finds her past presentations noteworthy for understanding her character. And The Worst Things Lex Luthor Has Ever Done ( CBR, 2016) includes "...the absolute worst example involved Luthor's own sister, Lena Luthor. Lena is a paraplegic. In "Adventure Comics" #5,..." Beccaynr ( talk) 16:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    CBR also provides an overview in 2020 noting Lena Luthor's debut is Superman Girlfriend Lois Lane #23, her character development, and her role in DC Super Hero Girls (as Lutessa Lena Luthor) and her role in Smallville as Tess. CBR also mentions this in 15 Times the Arrowverse Copied Smallville (2016), e.g. "One of "Smallville's" biggest reveals came two seasons later, explaining that Tess was actually Lex's biological sister, Lena Luthor, who their father had given up for adoption." Screen Rant makes a connection in 2021 between Smallville and the comics, i.e. "Tess discovered her birth name in the final season was Lutessa Lena Luthor, confirming she was Lex's canonical sister from the comics." Tor.com, in a 2017 review of the Supergirl episode "Luthors", mentions: "knowing next to nothing about Lena’s history in comic book canon, [Kara and Lena's] interactions are lacking in any dramatic irony for me." CBR also includes Lena Luthor in Smallville: Every Main Character's Age, with biographical information and references to various appearances in the show; the source suggests age "can help a viewer understand character dynamics and relationships". Beccaynr ( talk) 21:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    But a repeeted theme with these seems to be the television versions, and what this article is about is the comic. Mabye the page could be reworked into primarly being about the television, but I'm not seeing very much on the original comic version Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    This article is not only about various comics; the lead and sections cover comics, television, and other media. And various sources refer to a comics canon, and the relevance of her past portrayals in various comics, including when discussing individual comics, as well as her role in television, indicating a connection between portrayals that does not seem to support a split (which as noted above, also does not seem supported by WP:SPLIT). I have also found two reviews that note her role in the graphic novel Cosmic Adventures of the 8th Grade, and two reviews of her role in Robot Chicken's DC Comics Special 2.
    I also think the secondary coverage for various portrayals as a group helps support the concern I expressed earlier about the 200+ articles that link to this article and my suggestion about discussing article reorganization and improvements on the article talk page. Perhaps this article would work better if it is edited into more of a list, because Lena Luthor characters across various media appear to be notable as a group or set, and it could benefit the encyclopedia to have one article written in summary style.
    I am concerned about the potential impact of a merge/redirect of Lena Luthor to the Arrowverse, when she is otherwise so widely linked for other roles. According to WP:LISTN, each individual role does not need to be established as independently notable; based on the available sources, it appears we can provide an encyclopedic resource by providing an overivew and directing readers to the particular Lena Luthor portrayal they may be seeking when they visit this article. Beccaynr ( talk) 22:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    CBR (2022) also provides an overview of various portrayals of Lena Luthor in 10 Greatest Golden Age DC Legacy Villains ("Lena Luthor is a character that has been changed a lot by the shifting tides of DC continuity"); The New York Times, in A ‘Crisis’ Brings Together Many DC Comics Heroes (2019) reports on the television series "inspired by 1985’s Crisis on Infinite Earths, a 12-issue comic book series", Lena Luthor is mentioned. Beccaynr ( talk) 23:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Screen Rant discusses a portrayal of Lena Luthor in a comic (Adventure Comics #6) in The Most Evil Thing Lex Luthor Ever Did is Still Outrageous (2022) - this appears to be commentary, not just a plot summary.
    Screen Rant ( 2020) also reviews Robot Chicken's DC Comics Special 2, which includes a story with "an impromptu trip to the beach where Lex’s daughter Lena has absconded with Superboy" [...] "Highlights include a Grease-style singalong with Lena Luthor and Superboy and Aquaman summoning an army of seahorses to defeat Starro." An IGN review includes, "there's also a running conflict involving Luthor's daughter Lena ditching her father to hang out with her boyfriend Superboy on the beach for spring break. That culminates in one of the longest and most intricately crafted segments I can remember from the series as the Legion of Doom frolic on the beach, battle the Justice League, and then unite to confront a common enemy." Beccaynr ( talk) 22:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    My problem with that is those seem to cover other things, that happen to include her more as passing mentions. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    In the WP:SIGCOV guideline, trivial mentions are discussed, including Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material; an example of a line of text is offered that is "plainly a trivial mention."
    By contrast, the first Screen Rant source in the comment above ( 2022) has two grafs of commentary and discussion related to Lena (beginning "And as one savage moment shows, even the lives of his own family aren't safe..." and ending "...giving his own sister hope before snatching it away is the perfect example of why Lex is above all, a monster.") This appears to be both significant coverage and secondary commentary, according to the guideline. In the second Screen Rant source ( 2020), Lena Luthor is discussed in the context of the sketch ranked the best and described as the longest, and as part of a "highlight." This is a review that helps show her appearance in a notable work, along with the IGN review (2014) describing her role as part of a "running conflict" and also offering secondary commentary supporting the notability of the work. Beccaynr ( talk) 00:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Leaving the issue of what should happen to this article aside, Screen Rant is a content farm that should never be used for assessing WP:Notability or WP:Due weight. TompaDompa ( talk) 19:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    There is a 2021 RfC about Screen Rant with the conclusion " Screen Rant is considered to be a marginally reliable source. It might not be appropriate for controversial statements in BLPs, but it is reliable enough for other uses." Beccaynr ( talk) 20:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Whether a source is WP:Reliable, i.e. usable for WP:Verification, is orthogonal to its usability as an indicator of WP:Notability and WP:Due weight. TompaDompa ( talk) 21:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    If we disregard the screen rant source, most of what your bringing up is plot summary Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Enough coverage has been found to convince me this meets the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 10:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

El Hadji Badiane Sidibé

El Hadji Badiane Sidibé (  | 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)

Player fails WP:GNG. Created at a time in which an appearance in any WP:FPL was enough to pass notability test. This player made two appearances for Újpest in 2014, and the rest are in semi-pro divisions. No in-depth, independent coverage to be found. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 05:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge‎ to List of DC Comics characters: D. Liz Read! Talk! 08:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Doctor Thirteen

Doctor Thirteen (  | 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 dc comic character. Fails WP:GNG, my before gave my nothing. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

ITKO

ITKO (  | 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)

Advert for defunct company; heavily sourced to press releases Orange Mike | Talk 03:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • MacVittie, Lori. Lisa: More Than a Pretty Face. Network Computing. 2006;17(22):36–38. (I don't have access to this but according to the abstract, it's a full-length review.)
  • Cithan, Rick. LISA Smiles on J2EE App Testers. InfoWorld. 2005;27(2):25–26. (This one is available via EBSCOhost.)
  • Pollice, Gary. LISA 2.5. Software Development. 2005;13(6):44. ISSN  1070-8588 (Couldn't find this online either, the journal's title is hardly helpful in that.)
Maybe this could be spun off into an article on that, but that would require someone who could get the sources. Failing that, my !vote is delete. --  Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 16:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 05:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Aromanticism (disambiguation)

Aromanticism (disambiguation) (  | 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 disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title. The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 01:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Delete - per my edit note for the prod, the HAT notes for the primary topic are already complex enough including the not to be confused with aromatic which is listed in the See also on the DAB page as a misspelling of Aromantic per MOS:DABMISSPELL, but is recommended to be listed in See also (or a Common misspelling section), but is thus more than one other topic for the DAB page. Raladic ( talk) 01:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    No, any entry in "see also" section doesn't warrant a topic for the title, including that of MOS:DABMISSPELL. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 02:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    retracting vote, changing to delete per your and other other people's explanation, apologies for the churn. Raladic ( talk) 02:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. The hatnote can not be made more complex by replacing the disambiguation link with the one other meaning. BD2412 T 02:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete clearly an unnecessary dab page. Only WP:ONEOTHER meaning for the exact term, hence a hatnote is preferable. estar8806 ( talk) ★ 02:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 05:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Ante Pavelić (disambiguation)

Ante Pavelić (disambiguation) (  | 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 disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title while the other entries here aren't valid. The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 01:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 05:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Hacqueville (disambiguation)

Hacqueville (disambiguation) (  | 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 disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title while the other entries here aren't valid. The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 01:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 04:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Petrozavodsk (disambiguation)

Petrozavodsk (disambiguation) (  | 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 disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title while the other entries here aren't valid. The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 01:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. The article for the third entry has been created. (non-admin closure) NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 01:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Olesha (disambiguation)

Olesha (disambiguation) (  | 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 disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title while the other entries here aren't valid. The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 01:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_November_25&oldid=1188472505"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE