Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 04	December 06 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge‎ to Algeria–Palestine relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Palestine, Algiers

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

This article merely confirms it exists with google maps as 1 ref and a primary source as the other. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Algeria, and Palestine. LibStar (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the stub to Algeria–Palestine relations as WP:NOPAGE —siro χ o 02:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per ALL above. LibStar, thanks for nominating! siro, thanks for proposing a good ATD! gidonb (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, the embassy itself is not notable enough for its own article. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 19:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Algeria–Palestine relations per Siroxo. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Algeria–Palestine relations.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniela Veleska

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

The subject, a Montenegrin women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found in my searches were passing mentions such as 1 and 2. JTtheOG (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Montenegro. JTtheOG (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found some trivial mentions in FFM and Radio Pela. Nothing better than what JT already found. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – nothing more than trivial coverage, article does not establish notability. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a WP:SPORTCRIT fail. I cannot fid sigcov for the person. Lightburst (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Choe Won

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete toobigtokale (talk) 12:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NSPORT microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:14, 12 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 merge‎ to Mozambique–United States relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Maputo

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

Article is a content fork of bilateral relations article. Only 1 line in the History section of article is actually about the embassy. LibStar (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see anything worth merging into Mozambique–United States relations. Owen× ☎ 23:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Merge per Siroxo. Owen× ☎ 13:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete content fork. Only 1 line from the article is actually about the embassy "The U.S. Embassy in Maputo was established on November 8, 1975,". Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mozambique–United States relations as WP:ATD. Sources from the article can indeed help improve WP:Verifiability of the target. There's also some history that can be merged. —siro χ o 02:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Siroxo. ~Judy _{(call it in!)} 15:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mozambique–United States relations .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Vujičić

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

The subject, a Montenegrin women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The closest thing I found to WP:SIGCOV was this transactional announcement. Everything else that came up was passing mentions like 1 and 2. JTtheOG (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Montenegro. JTtheOG (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maiko Bebia

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

The subject, a Georgian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that came up in my searches were this and this. JTtheOG (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Georgia (country). JTtheOG (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:02, 6 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 merge‎ to Benin–United States relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Cotonou

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

The article is a content fork of the bilateral relations article, and says nothing about its purported topic, i.e. the US embassy. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Benin–United States relations as WP:NOPAGE. —siro χ o 02:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Benin–United States relations.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:23, 12 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 merge‎ to Burkina Faso–United States relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Ouagadougou

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

The article is a content fork of the bilateral relations article, and says nothing about its purported topic, i.e. the US embassy. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Burkina Faso–United States relations as WP:NOPAGE. —siro χ o 02:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Yaoundé

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

The article is a content fork of the bilateral relations article, and says nothing about its purported topic, i.e. the US embassy. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Cameroon, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary content fork. LibStar (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Suva

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

The article is a content fork of the bilateral relations article, and says nothing about its purported topic, i.e. the US embassy. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Oceania, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary content fork. LibStar (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Port Moresby

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

The article is a content fork of the bilateral relations article, and says nothing about its purported topic, i.e. the US embassy. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Oceania, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content fork. Actual information on the embassy is sourced from a primary source. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Dili

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

The article is a content fork of the bilateral relations article, and says nothing about its purported topic, i.e. the US embassy. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Asia, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary content fork. LibStar (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Banjul

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

The article is a content fork of the bilateral relations article, and says nothing about its purported topic, i.e. the US embassy. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary content fork. LibStar (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Maseru

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

The article is a content fork of the bilateral relations article, and says nothing about its purported topic, i.e. the US embassy. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unnecessary content fork. Owen× ☎ 00:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary content fork. LibStar (talk) 07:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Paramaribo

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

The article is a content fork of the bilateral relations article, and says nothing about its purported topic, i.e. the US embassy. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is more about the bilateral relations than the embassy itself. LibStar (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, South America, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: yet another content fork created by Kjerish and then reverted by them when someone--correctly--changed it to a redirect. Owen× ☎ 00:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Bujumbura

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

The article is a content fork of the bilateral relations article, and says nothing about its purported topic, i.e. the US embassy. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: yet another content fork created by Kjerish and then reverted by them when someone--correctly--changed it to a redirect. Owen× ☎ 00:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary content fork. LibStar (talk) 07:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Mbabane

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

The article is a content fork of the bilateral relations article, and says nothing about its purported topic, i.e. the US embassy. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Unnecessary content fork. Owen× ☎ 00:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary content fork. LibStar (talk) 03:08, 10 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 merge‎ to Barbados–United States relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Bridgetown

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

The article is a content fork of the bilateral relations article, and says nothing about its purported topic, i.e. the US embassy. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Barbados, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Barbados–United States relations: Not much here beyond the building description that isn't already in the target. Owen× ☎ 00:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Georgetown

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

The article is a content fork of the bilateral relations article, and says nothing about its purported topic, i.e. the US embassy. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, South America, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is about bilateral relations rather than the embassy itself. LibStar (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Unnecessary content fork. Owen× ☎ 00:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Bishkek

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

The article is a content fork of the bilateral relations article, and says nothing about its purported topic, i.e. the US embassy. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC) â[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Kyrgyzstan, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Unnecessary content fork. Owen× ☎ 00:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary content fork. LibStar (talk) 03:03, 10 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 merge‎ to Mauritania–United States relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Nouakchott

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

The article is a content fork of the bilateral relations article, and says nothing about its purported topic, i.e. the US embassy. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Unnecessary content fork. Owen× ☎ 00:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Merge to Mauritania–United States relations per Siroxo. Owen× ☎ 13:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary content fork including irrelevant information like "In 2008, the Israeli embassy in Nouakchott was attacked". LibStar (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another one of these where the nomination statement is incorrect. There is information about the embassy here. Merge to Mauritania–United States relations as WP:NOPAGE —siro χ o 03:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, Siroxo; changed to Merge. Owen× ☎ 13:07, 6 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 merge‎ to Rwanda–United States relations. Yes, please do not take any closure action like Merging or Redirecting before the discussion is closed. A week is not a long time to wait. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Kigali

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

The article is a content fork of the bilateral relations article, and says nothing about its purported topic, i.e. the US embassy. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Rwanda, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Unnecessary content fork. Owen× ☎ 00:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content fork, any relevant info can be in the bilateral relations article. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More than 20 of these embassy articles were nominated in a single day. This mass nomination seems to have led to a state where, likely accidentally, some of the articles haven't been read or remembers by the nominator or editors recommending deletion. It is not correct that this article says nothing about its purported topic, and it's also incorrect that any relevant info can be found in the bilateral relations article. A merge to Rwanda–United States relations is better here. —siro χ o 03:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the two sentences about the actual embassy to the Rwanda–United States relations page. If we feel we must retain the attribution for Kjerish's original text, I'm fine with keeping the history via a redirect. Owen× ☎ 13:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not merge or copy during the AfD per WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion, point 5 (how-to guide, shortcut WP:EDITATAFD). Flatscan (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe those two sentences should be in Rwanda–United States relations regardless of the outcome of this AfD. But if you believe the addition might cause contention per WP:EDITATAFD #5, please feel free to revert it. Owen× ☎ 12:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made a dummy edit to attribute Kjerish with its edit summary, as described by WP:Copying within Wikipedia#List of authors (guideline). WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material (shortcut WP:RUD) is relevant. Reverting would have been insufficient, as anyone could restore the text. Flatscan (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Owen× ☎ 12:03, 8 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 merge‎ to Bahamas–United States relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Nassau

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

The article is a content fork of the bilateral relations article, and says nothing about its purported topic, i.e. the US embassy. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep This one is about actual ambassadors at the embassy.LibStar (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

change to Delete Unnecessary content fork. LibStar (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Bahamas–United States relations and List of ambassadors of the United States to the Bahamas are the obvious places for discussing that. Articles on embassies are primarily about buildings, and this one isn’t. — Biruitorul ^Talk 23:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sor. ting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Bahamas, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bahamas–United States relations: mostly a content fork. Owen× ☎ 00:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Port Louis

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

The article is a content fork of the bilateral relations article, and says nothing about its purported topic, i.e. the US embassy. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Mauritius, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Unnecessary content fork. Owen× ☎ 00:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary content fork. LibStar (talk) 01:18, 8 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 merge‎ to Malawi–United States relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Lilongwe

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

The article is a content fork of the bilateral relations article, and says nothing about its purported topic, i.e. the US embassy. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Malawi–United States relations: mostly a content fork. Owen× ☎ 00:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is incorrect, this article does indeed have coverage of the purported topic. But a relatively full merge to Malawi–United States relations as WP:NOPAGE is probably fine here. —siro χ o 02:56, 6 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 Namibia–United States relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Windhoek

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

The article is a content fork of the bilateral relations article, and says nothing about its purported topic, i.e. the US embassy. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see the solar panels as noteworthy, and the rest is already covered by Namibia–United States relations. Owen× ☎ 00:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article appears to be about Roger A. McGuire. The solar panels is unencyclopaedic. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Namibia–United States relations as WP:ATD. There doesn't appear to be a need to merge any to Roger A. McGuire —siro χ o 02:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary content fork. LibStar (talk) 03:08, 10 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 merge‎ to Angola–United States relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Brazzaville

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

The article is a content fork of the bilateral relations article, and says nothing about its purported topic, i.e. the US embassy. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Republic of the Congo–United States relations: mostly a content fork. Owen× ☎ 00:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary content fork. LibStar (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Apia

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

The article is a content fork of the bilateral relations article, and says nothing about its purported topic, i.e. the US embassy. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Oceania, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Unnecessary content fork. Owen× ☎ 00:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary content fork. LibStar (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Bandar Seri Begawan

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

The article is a content fork of the bilateral relations article, and says nothing about its purported topic, i.e. the US embassy. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article and sources are more about the bilateral relations than the embassy itself. LibStar (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Brunei, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Unnecessary content fork. Owen× ☎ 00:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as content fork, no prejudice to the creation of an article on the purported topic if it is found through sourcing to be notable. CMD (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Algiers

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

The article is a content fork of the bilateral relations article, and says nothing about its purported topic, i.e. the US embassy. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Algeria, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Unnecessary content fork. Owen× ☎ 00:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteUnnecessary content fork. LibStar (talk) 03:06, 10 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 merge‎ to Angola–United States relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Luanda

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

The article is a content fork of the bilateral relations article, and says nothing about its purported topic, i.e. the US embassy. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Angola, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Angola–United States relations: mostly a content fork. Owen× ☎ 00:17, 6 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 merge‎ to Palau–United States relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Koror

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

The article is a content fork of the bilateral relations article, and says nothing about its purported topic, i.e. the US embassy. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Oceania, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Palau–United States relations: mostly a content fork. Owen× ☎ 00:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lezignan 9s

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

Rugby league tournament of unclear notability. No references. Natg 19 (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Rugby league, and France. Natg 19 (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this page has been here since the tournament, 16 years ago. If sources couldn't be found then, I doubt we'd have much luck now. Owen× ☎ 00:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced, doesn't appear notable. Mn1548 (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1oT

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Present sources are mostly press releases and/or unreliable websites. The only one that appears reliable is Postimees, which may or may not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, but is in any case not enough on its own. WP:BEFORE did not locate sources that would ameliorate this. Pinging User:Kvng as remover of PROD. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Computing. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Estonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no mainstream news coverage. Owen× ☎ 00:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Thanks for reviewing the existing sources. I have also reviewed them now and agree that they don't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. ~Kvng (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Editors have removed promotional wording and improved sourcing, any further discussions can take place on talk pages. (non-admin closure) Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 16:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FRET (Software)

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

Subject may be notable (appears in the NASA software catalog) but the article is so promotional in tone it would be better to blow it up and start over. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 18:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 18:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, this needs attention of someone familiar with the verification domain. If all available coverage is non-independent, and there's no evidence of secondary coverage, there's ultimately a question of whether sources that allow writing an article about the project exist, regardless of the project's importance. PaulT2022 (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we 'blow up' the article and re create it when we can just rewrite it, promotional tone can be fixed and is not too serious of a problem. Sangsangaplaz (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: agree with Sangsangaplaz. The cure for poor writing is a rewrite, not a deletion. Owen× ☎ 23:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. "blowing up" is not a valid response to promotional tone and not an appropriate use of AfD. @Pear1020: did you conduct any WP:BEFORE analysis? I understand the concerns about the state of the article but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 14:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MicrobiologyMarcus: I did, but from my perspective it seemed to need a fundamental rewrite, then I tagged it for speedy deletion, which was declined by an admin who recommended sending the article to AfD for community input on whether or not to keep it . Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 14:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A fundamental rewrite doesn't necessarily mean that it should be deleted. AFD is only for discussing whether an article's subject is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, with the intention of removing the article from public view indefinitely if the conclusion is delete. If you wan't to rewrite it, you can just type the new version up in a user subpage or text editor, then replace the article's contents with the new version. Liu1126 (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to piggyback on this and say that the effort for a re-write isn't even required. You can challenge and remove content yourself, and start a discussion on the talk page and flag ({{ping}}) the page writer with your concerns. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 15:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what will happen with page next? مکرم (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted all content that I felt was promotional. And added more sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukarram0126 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as a lot of editing has occurred on this article since its nomination thus a second look would be advisable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should we delete "Nomination for deletion" template from top of the article? Mukarram (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the discussion is still in progress. The closing admin will remove the template when closing if needed. Liu1126 (talk) 09:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks! Mukarram (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The nomination was flawed in the first place. As my colleagues above have noted nom failed to state a criterion for deletion. The sources in the article, which include two scholarly papers, are sufficient to satisfy the GNG. Perhaps they weren't in there at nomination time? No matter, this is a failure of BEFORE. Central and Adams (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It means that the article should remain available on Wikipedia for everyone. Mukarram (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mill Milk

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

I think it is an organization that fails WP:NCORP microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 19:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, Internet, and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 28 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!} 20:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to be a continuation of the Apple Daily, but I don't see many mentions of this Youtube channel in RS. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
or merge a small portion to the Apple Daily article? Oaktree b (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:07, 6 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 Nomination Withdrawn‎. This was a procedural nomination. Many new sources have been added, and nemine contradict. (non-admin closure) 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Satan's Harvest

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

Procedural nomination. If I express an opinion I will do it in the body of the discussion. This nomination is Neutral and made on the simple basis that a 13+ year old article deserves a discussion rather than summary deletion on the expiry of a PROD. The PROD reason was "Non-notable. See Wikipedia:Notability (films). Only independent source is about George Montgomery, not the film. I can't access it so I don't know whether it goes into the film in more detail, but I assume it doesn't. Google didn't turn up any more notable sources, just IMDB and stuff. (proposed by User:Publicly Visible)" 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. So, this is embarrassing, and my first time using WP:PROD. The more I looked into it, the more I've become convinced Satan's Harvest is in fact notable due to Roar (film), being inspired during the filming of Satan's Harvest. If nothing else, a section or mention of Roar in Satan's Harvest would help. The rest of the article needs a rewrite as well, IMO. Publicly Visible (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has 12 incoming links. George Montgomery (actor) was director and played the lead. Tippi Hedren played a major role. Per WP:NFIC "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career." Also, it seems to be Matt Monro's only film as an actor. --Bensin (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the two!votes above. Added some sources for verifiability/reception. The production/legacy/context seems to have attracted more attention than the film itself but all in all, notability is in my view clear. See for yourself.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- As my colleagues have noted above this satisfies WP:NFILM. There are already two RS discussing the film published more than 5 years after it was made. Central and Adams (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Nomination: I believe I can do this without rule breaking since I nominated it neutrally. I will close the discussion in a moment. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:30, 6 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 merge‎ to Union Pacific Challenger. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Union Pacific 3967

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Union Pacific 3967

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

Locomotive is not notable, there is nothing notable about this specific locomotive. It should not have an article BigSneeze444 (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, Colorado, and Wyoming. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Union Pacific Challenger: if the article ever matures to the level that Union Pacific 3985 is, let's spin it off again as a standalone. Owen× ☎ 00:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence of independent notability. Could be redirected to Union Pacific Challenger, but it's not individually mentioned there (and shouldn't be). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per @Pi.1415926535's rational. TarnishedPath^talk 03:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Union Pacific Challenger would be the best choice, given how, while the engine itself lacks standalone notability, it is notable enough for inclusion the article on UP's Challengers. TH1980 (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Union Pacific Challenger per above. Locomotive isn't notable enough for a standalone article, but can be mentioned in the main article. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Kumar Nain

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR. Macbeejack ☎ 18:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. Macbeejack ☎ 18:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough to meet WP:NACTOR Ravensfire (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable person Md Joni Hossain (talk)
Delete need more reliable nd indie sources . thank you Worldiswide (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ashutosh Valani

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Smells like COI. Macbeejack ☎ 18:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Macbeejack ☎ 18:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Previous AfD was soft delete due to lack of participation. Reviewing the sources, subject does not have the significant coverage required to establish notability.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notablity Worldiswide (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found this title notable as it has enough references on trusted websites. The personality is the founder of two ventures and also in Fortune India's Top 40 personalities and is also awarded by Economic Times as the most influential personalities. Roberttoymaker1 (talk) 05:38, 12 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 Deaths and ransoming of Oron Shaul and Hadar Goldin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutenant Hadar Goldin

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NMIL and anything relevant can be covered in Deaths and ransoming of Oron Shaul and Hadar Goldin. There is no independent notability here. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadar Goldin - nothing has changed. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 18:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Deaths and ransoming of Oron Shaul and Hadar Goldin per WP:BLP1E. – bradv 19:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to Deaths and ransoming of Oron Shaul and Hadar Goldin per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Hadar Goldin, merge from there, then delete Lieutenant Hadar Goldin (the current Hadar Goldin). Merge into Deaths and ransoming of Oron Shaul and Hadar Goldin and delete right after.

The Deaths and ransoming of Oron Shaul and Hadar Goldin is a notable event and justifiably has an article. It contains substantially more detail on Oron Shaul than on Hadar Goldin, hence the information frpm the Lieutenant Hadar Goldin article is needed for Deaths and ransoming of Oron Shaul and Hadar Goldin. The info in the new article is not WP:UNDUE (would be reason not to merge) as the deaths article is on Goldin. Because of the imbalance and the shortage in background on Goldin, it is BADLY DUE!!! Hence merge.

This merge is REGARDLESS of seperate notability. Probably nom stands correct on notability, however, it doesn't matter. The merge is needed anyway. The article would be an unjustified spinoff it the person was notable and still would need to be merged.

Now to the delete. The article was created TODAY under the WRONG NAME (with military rank) so has virtually ZERO historic or likely search value. Hence it should only be deleted or renamed (including into draft). Not kept as is or redirected! Since a merge was established above as needed, it is clear that, of these options, a delete after merge is warranted. gidonb (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor quibble: we cannot merge content from deleted articles, as then we would lose copyright attribution. If we merge any of the content at all we will need to redirect this page so the history stays intact. – bradv 03:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Bradv. Can we perhaps move to Hadar Goldin, then merge from there? That is a legitimate redirect. The current Hadar Goldin never contained more than a redirect. gidonb (talk) 03:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion was tweaked a bit with Brad's welcome input, the reasoning stands. gidonb (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article in ARABPIA was created by a non-EC user — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dovidroth (talk • contribs) 09:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to existing article Deaths and ransoming of Oron Shaul and Hadar Goldin. Marokwitz (talk) 10:18, 9 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 12:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soulframe

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the meet the general band-spcific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. UtherSRG (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added content and references. They released two studio albums, toured Australia and were described in various independent reliable sources, hence notable according to WP:NBAND.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:13, 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!} 21:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NORG/CORP. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Contributor database entry	1. McPhee, Stu. "Soulframe - Escaping Entropy Review". Ear Medicine. Archived from the original on 29 August 2007. Retrieved 24 November 2023 – via National Library of Australia.
Contributor review on Brisbane Christian Chat	2. ^ Jump up to:a b c d "Music >> Soulframe". Brisbane Christian Chat (Queensland, Australia). Archived from the original on 12 October 2003. Retrieved 24 November 2023 – via National Library of Australia.
Database entry on broadcaster	Queensland \| Soulframe". Triple J (Australian Broadcasting Corporation ABC)). Archived from the original on 1 September 2004. Retrieved 24 November 2023 – via National Library of Australia.
Two sentence mill news	4. ^ Eliezer, Christie (14 May 2002). "Music & Media Business News". themusic.com.au. Archived from the original on 16 September 2004. Retrieved 24 November 2023 – via National Library of Australia.
Name listed, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	5. ^ "The 4th Annual MusicOz Award Finalists". MusicOz. Archived from the original on 17 December 2005.
Name listed, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	6. ^ "Official Results". Australian Songwriters Association. Archived from the original on 19 August 2006. Retrieved 24 November 2023.
Two sentence mill news, fails WP:IS	7. ^ "APRA Members Win Big at 2005 Pacific Songwriting Competition". APRA AMCOS. Archived from the original on 17 June 2005. Retrieved 24 November 2023 – via National Library of Australia.
Database entry, "Source:courtesy of Soulframe"	8. ^ "Releases :: Escaping Entropy". Australian Music Online. Archived from the original on 26 November 2007. Retrieved 24 November 2023 – via National Library of Australia.
Interview, fails WP:IS	9. ^ "Interviews". Time Off. Archived from the original on 20 November 2004. Retrieved 24 November 2023 – via National Library of Australia.
Promo, fails WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV	10. ^ "Artists – Soulframe". AC Music. 15 January 2001. Archived from the original on 6 March 2001. Retrieved 25 November 2023 – via National Library of Australia.
Nothing about subject, fails WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	11. ^ "Irishman Takes Australian Idol". PerthNow. 26 November 2006. Archived from the original on 26 October 2022. Retrieved 24 November 2023 – via National Library of Australia.
Soulframe Official Website, fails WP:IS	12. ^ Whitworth, Hayden; Mutton, Guy "Mutto"; Smith, Scott; Carey, Zane (1 February 2008). "Important Notice from the Band". Soulframe Official Website. Archived from the original on 9 January 2008. Retrieved 24 November 2023.
Promo band bio, fails WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV	13. ^ "Toupee Records : Artist Info". Archived from the original on 28 August 2005. Retrieved 19 December 2006.
Name mentioned in list, nothing meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV	14. ^ "Resources Home : Engineers and Producers". brispop.com. Archived from the original on 22 August 2006. Retrieved 24 November 2023 – via National Library of Australia.
404	15. ^ "MGM Distribution". Thegroovemerchants.com. Retrieved 26 July 2013.

No sourcing from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 17:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Timothy's excellent analysis shows WP:NBAND not met. LibStar (talk) 02:41, 9 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 merge‎ to MIDI beat clock. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pulses per quarter note

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

WP:NOTE and could be reasonably covered under an appropriate article of broader topic Pdubs.94 (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "Pulses per quarter note" article in Wikipedia needs to be expanded a little bit, in my opinion this page should not be deleted as it tells information about time division in midi files. 192.68.163.180 (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Müller, Meinard (2007-09-09). Information Retrieval for Music and Motion. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-3-540-74048-3.
  The article notes: "The number of pulses per quarter note (PPQN) is to be specified at the beginning in the so-called header of a MIDI file and refers to all subsequent MIDI messages."
2. Sweetwater (1997-12-09). "PPQN (Pulses Per Quarter Note, sometimes Parts Per Quarter Note)". Retrieved 2023-11-28.
  The article notes: "The timing resolution of a MIDI sequencer. PPQN indicates the number of divisions a quarter note has been split into, and directly relates to the ability of the sequencer to accurately represent fine rhythmic variations in a performance, or to recreate the “feel” of a performance. Older sequencers were capable of 96 PPQN (sometimes even less), which often resulted in a stiff “quantized” feel to the music (even if it hadn’t actually been quantized). Current versions can reach 768 PPQN or even higher resolutions, which is more than adequate for most musical applications. Note that the resolution of the sequencer is especially important at slower tempos. If your sequencer is limited to a lower resolution, one trick is the double the tempo of the song, then perform the parts in half time. This effectively results in a doubling of resolution."
3. Loops and Grooves: The Musician's Guide to Groove Machines and Loop Sequencers. Hal Leonard Corporation. 2003. ISBN 978-0-634-04813-5.
  The article notes: "If a sequencer has a limited number of steps, which was always the case with analog and digital hardware sequencers, the concept of resolution becomes an important factor. In this context, resolution means the number of steps used to represent a note or measure. Resolution is a numerical value expressed as pulses per quarter note or ppqn."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pulses per quarter note to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:52, 28 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!} 21:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I've added citations to three books, two of which (Anderton and Rumsey) have enough information that they should be considered SIGCOV. I have some concerns that the main body of the article (the long 2nd paragraph discussing feel) is basically original research, whose ideas are supported by the texts but not really in those terms. That notwithstanding, there's sufficient mention of this concept to merit inclusion. Oblivy (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge so it seems there is value in having this content remain. Does it make sense to merge with MIDI beat clock or roll up into MIDI? Pdubs.94 (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as article has been around since 2009 and barely squeaks by WP:SIZERULE guidelines. could easily be covered under MIDI beat clock Pdubs.94 (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with MIDI beat clock. Changing my vote. I've made the argument for keep but the merge target is really a good option.Oblivy (talk) 02:22, 6 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Chelsea Inn

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

This article has been tagged as not meeting notability guidelines since Jan 2018, with no improvements since. It does not appear in any relevant or reliable news that I can find online. CoconutOctopus talk 22:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Architecture, Companies, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd vote to keep it, it is historically significant to Atlantic City. TiMike (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Lots of hits in Google news, though mostly mentions; seems to be reasonably signficiant to Atlantic City. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:21, 27 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!} 21:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:53, 5 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. Obviously the discussion about what happened on German Wikipedia is totally irrelevant, and is ignored. There are other irrelevant comments too, such as the very strange comments about whether someone did something "on purpose" or not. Ignoring all that, and looking at the reasons given for keeping, we see a lot of stuff unrelated to Wikipedia's policies, such as that Sven Odia is "most influential", that he "has played a key role", that an editorcpredicts that he "will always be in the news". There may be a case for changing Wikipedia's notability guidelines to include factors such as those, but at present they don't, so those considerations too are irrelevant. I'm afraid that "he does not have abundant secondary sources but this should not stop his page being retained" is not just not a reason for keeping, it is as clear a reason for deleting as could be possible, because a substantial amount of coverage in secondary sources is precisely the main requirement of Wikipedia's notability standards. The conclusion is that scarcely any argument compliant with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines has been advanced for keeping the article, whereas reasons for given for deletion do conform to policies and guidelines. JBW (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Odia

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Got speedy deleted in dewiki. Also seems like a violation of WP:PAID. Icodense (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icodense (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:09, 14 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!} 23:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Any info on this person could go under the Engel & Volkers page, seems largely promotional. The speedy delete from dewiki is also telling. Kazamzam (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we can discuss the notability instead of basing it on the deletion on DE wiki. Also, the DE wiki page was requested under speedy deletion by a non registered user having no other edits on DE wiki. When I translated the page it was check by 2 editors who were ok with the content. All sources that I used contains info about him and are reliable that's why I thought it may be a good inclusion from my side and I kept in my not to use any single word that is promotional in nature but I will leave it to the community obviously. Thanks NatalieTT (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The speedy delete from DE wiki was by a non-registered user and therefore should be ignored. The Engel & Völkers article is substantial and mentions Sven Odia in only one sentence. It states facts about the company in a non-promotional manner. It is not 'largely promotional' - WP:NOTPROMO.Didgeridoo2022 (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sven Odia is most influential in German real estate. He has played a key role in the international expansion of Engel & Volkers. Admittedly, he does not have abundant secondary sources but this should not stop his page being retained. A person of such importance will always be in the news.ZogNitKeynmol (talk) 03:15, 27 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!} 21:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have started a SPI case for the two accounts above, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Didgeridoo2022. --Icodense (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. SPI has come back as possible and needs to be reviewed for behavioural evidence. Further policy-based input required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dare I ask why we should ignore the speedy delete? Because an unregistered user made it? IP editors are human too... Industrial Insect (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that I think someone did that on purpose. Also, DE wiki editors say we have nothing to do with EN wiki as a policy then why someone would base that deletion of DE wiki on EN Wiki. I jut try to follow all policies and cite reliable info with no promo etc. NatalieTT (talk) 08:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "someone did that on purpose"? Of course someone did that on purpose. Nobody files a speedy delete by accident. Or are you trying to insinuate that you (or Mr Odia) have personal enemies here who are out to get you? Please stop focussing on the person who filed the speedy delete and start focussing on how Mr Odia meets notability. For Mr Odia's notability, it does not matter in the least who filed the speedy delete. The article was deleted by an admin who surely was not an unregistered user, so now what? --2003:C0:8F18:6600:7C0A:BA91:1F17:E8AE (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hence proved, with this comment you second that my concerns are genuine. Admins should check the relevance between this IP and the person who initiated the AFD and start an SPI. This IP is personally involved and watching everything. I don't know Odia but I will now try to reach out to him if possible and ask if he had any encounter with anyone on Wikipedia DE or EN. I thought he is notable and saw some recent coverage of new CEO etc so I thought I should create a page. I'm sorry if this is hurting you so badly. NatalieTT (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI is now open. NatalieTT (talk) 13:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a pretty obvious revenge action for the SPI case I opened a few days ago. Of course there are other German editors when a Germany-related article is discussed. You mentioned the article in dewiki at de:Wikipedia:Löschprüfung#Sven_Odia, so there is even an obvious reason why someone else from Germany found this AfD. We're not all the same person just because we're from the same country with 84 million inhabitants and there is no big conspiracy, lol. --Icodense (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record: Revenge SPI closed as a "meritless report". --2003:C0:8F3A:5300:20C0:3645:5B24:5DAE (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient media coverage of the CEO. Wikipedia:Notability does not exist. --Puttkgbru (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Odia is no longer CEO. He was replaced by Jawed Barna on 1 November 2023. [1] --Puttkgbru (talk) 10:37, 8 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Burgio

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

Fails WP:BIO without significant independent coverage. User:Namiba 20:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Games, and California. User:Namiba 20:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Notable senior poker player and writer (columnist for CardPlayer Magazine and author of to books on poker). Article cited zero sources at the time of nomination, but have now added a few of the many articles about him available in ProQuest, Newspapers.com and the Internet Archive. Yes, some of the coverage quotes him, but there is plenty of factual coverage about him as well. (Still trying to decide whether the two Scott Buono reviews of his two books are OK to cite, but regardless, Burgio is notable and the article should continue to be improved.) Cielquiparle (talk) 03:26, 21 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!} 23:24, 21 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!} 21:01, 28 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, Daniel (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The sources ALREADY IN THE ARTICLE are sufficient to meet GNG.Central and Adams (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dermot McGlinchey

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

Currently sourced only to a WP:SPS, but we should "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." The subject appears to fail WP:GNG; I conducted a web search, and reviewed matches on newspapers.com, and did not find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cue sports, and Northern Ireland. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined toward keeping or at least draftifying, since he's a national (N.Ir.) champion, and national champions usually turn out to be notable. The problem for us is that material on snooker from this far back is usually on paper, so it's going to take research into newspaper archives and print snooker magazines and the like. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish: I can't get to NewsBank because of the British Library's ongoing IT problems, but apart from newspapers.com as mentioned above, I also checked the British Newspaper Archive, which has numerous passing mentions but no significant coverage as far as I could find. For 1991, the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association opened membership to anyone who paid a fee. The November 1990 Snooker Scene reported that there were 443 new snooker professionals, including McGlinchey; in a monthly magazine with only around 32 pages, obviously there was not going to be room to provide in-depth coverage of all of the new intake alongside all of the other snooker and billiards news and reports. Cue World had already been merged into Snooker Scene by that point, and from the issues of Pot Black I have from around that time, it seems unlikely that they would have given any more coverage than Snooker Scene, despite their higher page count. In my opinion, it would be very unlikely that a player who never reached the top 100 in the rankings would get significant coverage in the snooker press after 1990, unless there was something apart from their results to report on. The Snooker Scene coverage of McGlinchey's 2006 national amateur title (in the July 2006 issue) would perhaps scrape throught as one suitable source, although it's mostly quotes from him. The magazine's report on his 2010 win (in the July 2010 issue) is two short paragaphs of very routine coverage. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:CUENOT In the case of large countries, if the player has won a major regional championship (e.g. at the state level in the US; or the England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland level in the UK), they may also qualify and Professional players should have their own articles if they have won an international or national championship organized by a major organization in the sport (i.e. local leagues emphatically do not qualify), or are highly ranked in their sport. I am not sure if this is enough.

Hi, Jeraxmoira, please note that WP:CUENOT mentions in its introduction that it "should not be relied upon in the article deletion process, which is subject to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not wikiproject recommendations." If you know of any reliable sources that cover McGlinchey, let me know. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could find nothing online apart from trivial mentions. Jeraxmoira (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find nothing notable about this player, who seems never to have got past the last 64 of any professional event or accomplished anything else of note during his brief stints on the professional tour. Simply winning the (amateur) Northern Irish Championship does not in itself make him notable. Many of the other winners and runners-up do not have Wikipedia entries either -- and those that do, like Mark Allen and Jordan Brown, are notable for other reasons. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the absence of any SIGCOV in IRS, we have no evidence this individual is notable. CUENOT is an essay, not a notability guideline, and holds no sway at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: Here are some narrowed Google News hits [2]; I have not pored over the few results yet to see if they're helpful. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Degrees of Separation (video game)

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

The only reliable independent (non-interview) sources I could find were a Nintendo World Report review and some brief PC Gamer articles. QuietCicada - Talk 14:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada - Talk 14:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, We have multiple sources, at least one of which is reliable, significant coverage, and independent. Therefore this meets WP:GNG. Garuda3 (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It got a Nintendo World Report review, and a basic Metacritic check shows a review from Vandal, a reliable source. Mobygames lists way more reviews, including Meristation. Therefore, it's notable beyond a shadow of a doubt. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in addition to what is listed above, there is a review by The Games Machine (Italy) linked at Metacritic. --Mika1h (talk) 16:15, 7 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 Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colditz (audio drama)

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

Not independently notable, does not pass GNG. Best redirected to Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. I am also nominating the following related pages because they exhibit the same characteristics. They do not meet the GNG, and they ought to be redirected to the same target:

Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Radio. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. And, not that it's been suggested by the nom, but we don't need to delete the original article in article history. ~Kvng (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Because this will affect 11 articles, relisting for a clearer consensus (rather than closing with a 'soft' redirect).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the above. Would need much better sourcing (such as non-trivial editorial reviews) to be acceptable as stand-alone articles. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. When factoring in NmWTfs85lXusaybq's intent to withdraw, there is consensus here to keep the disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 16:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Affleck (disambiguation)

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

This disambiguation page has a primary topic for the ambiguous title while all the other ones are included in the same article Affleck baronets. The criteria WP:G14 may apply like that for Insta (disambiguation) (deleted by UtherSRG, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insta (disambiguation)), as the only one extant Wikipedia page got disambiguated is Gilbert Affleck. A hatnote on the top of primary topic is sufficient like that in the case of WP:ONEOTHER. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: We don't need disambiguation pages for item that don't even have an article. Cortador (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cortador: Besides Affleck baronets, this dab has an entry linked to Suffolk Militia now. I'm withdrawing this nomination if you strick your vote. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cortador, we absolutely do need dabs when they don't have an article, that is what MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION cover. Readers are looking for information on a 'Gilbert Affleck', the dab is their index, even if it's a small amount. Additionally, I have added a 4th entry. The nominator is drive-by tagging hundreds of pages for deletion with no BEFORE. Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Valid and useful dab page, helping readers and editors to disentangle several holders of the same name on whom we have at least a little information in the encyclopedia. PamD 09:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Said holders are already listed in the Affleck baronets article, and only one seems to be independently notable (with having his own article). Boleyn added a fourth entry of a military leader, but I haven't seen evidence that that leader is independently notable either. Cortador (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They don't need to be notable, just a term from which a redirect would be appropriate per WP:Redirect and in particular WP:R#KEEP. If the term to be redirected has other uses, then the link needs to be provided by a dab page or a hatnote on the primary topic. When the hatnote would become cumbersome, a dab page is the solution. PamD 09:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion re-opened and relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 27.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - When there is only one meaning to a term and no article, but an obscure reference to an article with a different name, we sometimes create a redirect. The disambiguation page serves the function of those redirects, for unlikely but possible search terms. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of the items on the disambiguation page are only cursory mentions. Do any of them have actual WP:POTENTIAL to become of interest to the readers? Otherwise, the hatnote might as well just point to the Affleck baronets list, it's not terribly difficult to find Gilberts in there. --Joy (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there are sufficient mentions of people named "Gilbert Affleck" who are noteworthy enough to have their name properly listed in an encyclopedia article, such that it might be useful to a reader to have them pointed to in the event that Gilbert Affleck is not the subject of their search. BD2412 T 00:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. When factoring in NmWTfs85lXusaybq's intent to withdraw and parsing the IP's !vote as neutral, there is consensus to keep this disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 16:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Insta (disambiguation)

(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) 07:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 07:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the PROD'der, I support the deletion per the nom's stated reasons. UtherSRG (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG, are you fine with the dab page after the update by Ca? I'm withdrawing this nomination once you change your vote. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to the last revision, and I'm the creator of this page. Also, add insta- from Wiktionary, where insta means "instant", as seen in "instakill". 176.33.244.42 (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, dictionary definition doesn't count as a topic in the disambiguation page per WP:DABDICT. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added some valid entries. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ca: Do you think any of them would ever be notable for their own article? If not, then we only have one notable term, and so no need for a disambiguation. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the Wikipedia:Disambiguation guideline, and there is no such requirement afaik. This DAB page helps people locate info about terms. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not explicit, but it is implied in that the way disambiguations come about is when a topic has too many hatnotes that a dab page should instead be created. You only get hatnotes when you have articles, and you only get articles when you have notability. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm a bit confused with G14: Does an entry of MOS:DABRED count as one extant Wikipedia page in the criteria? If not, Insta (disambiguation) could be speedily deleted. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! That's even better. I've now CSD'd it. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG No, the question is "Would a redirect from this term, "Insta", to that article be compliant with WP:Redirect, especially WP:R#KEEP?" If the answer is "yes", and there happens to be more than one article for which the answer is "yes", then a dab page is needed (or hatnotes). PamD 09:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion re-opened and relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 27.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Rather obscure uses of the term outside Instagram, but I don't see a reason to delete it. Oaktree b (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - When there is only one meaning to a term and no article, but an obscure reference to an article with a different name, we sometimes create a redirect. The disambiguation page serves the function of those redirects, for unlikely but possible search terms. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a rather straightforward example of a disambiguation page properly disambiguating a term. BD2412 T 00:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Ainsworth (disambiguation)

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

This disambiguation page has a primary topic for the ambiguous title while all the other ones are included in the same article Ainsworth baronets. The criteria WP:G14 may apply like that for Insta (disambiguation) (deleted by UtherSRG, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insta (disambiguation)), as the only one extant Wikipedia page got disambiguated is Thomas Ainsworth. A hatnote on the top of primary topic is sufficient like that in the case of WP:ONEOTHER. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 3 valid entries. The dab is for people searching 'Thomas Ainsworth'. This page makes it as clear as possible who we have information on and where to find it. Just directing readers to the baronets page without clarity could easily lead to people identifying the wrong person in this. Additionally, dabs are pretty cheap. Boleyn (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally there were missing entries, as there often are, and I have now added a 4th entry. Proposing for deletion hundreds of page in this timeframe, without fully checking them other, and sometimes just overwriting them, is really disruptive. Additionally your drive-by tagging of 'oneother', even on pages with 6 entries, is in the thousands within a coupple of days. You can't possibly be chevking these out properly. Boleyn (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Valid and useful dab page, helping readers or editors to disentangle several holders of same name on whom we have some information. PamD 09:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Helping the reader who is looking for, perhaps a Thomas Ainsworth alive in 1500. The dab page shows clearly that none of the TAs on whom we have information in the encyclopedia is the man they are looking for.

The logic is "Would "Thomas Ainsworth" be a valid redirect to page "xyz" per WP:Redirect and in particular WP:R#KEEP?" If so, and the answer is "yes" for more than one value of "xyz", then a dab page, or complete set of hatnotes at the base title, is needed. Here, where we have useful distinguishing information about two of those TAs, the dab page serves a useful purpose and should be kept. PamD 09:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion re-opened and relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 27.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

100 höjdare

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

Unsourced for almost two decades, and I wasn't able to find WP:SIGCOV in any online sources on Google. HappyWith (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Sweden. HappyWith (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a well-known, successful show; a search in a media archive gives 3354 articles in Swedish media either mentioning the show or the concept (taken from the show). For example Aftonbladet (the major tabloid newspaper in Sweden) had an article in 2015 following up on how the life of some participants after they "became famous" in the show. I can find some older articles online, like this one in Svenska Dagbladet (a Tidningarnas Telegrambyrå article). There's this paywalled article in Dagens Industri about the financial success of the show. Here's an article from 2005 about recording the show. These just from a quick search in a Swedish media archive – I'm sure someone with more time could dig up more than I have. /Julle (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The recently added sources look to be enough to meet the GNG ands establish notability. Could still use better sourcing and removal or unsourced detail. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as sources have been added now. /Julle (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Harris (law enforcement officer)

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

While it's possible that the suicides as a whole were notable, there's no indication Harris is a notable person. While he is deceased, WP:BLP1E applies as this was a recent death. A redirect to Santa_Clarita_Valley_Sheriff_Station#Suicides might make sense, but expecting that to be contented given creator's belief that the article is "approved" so briging it here for a broader discussion. Star Mississippi 15:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and California. Star Mississippi 15:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep
This event is historical. Harris was a Captain who committed suicide and 3 others followed within 48 hours of his, an unprecedented event in LASD history. His role in the 4 suicides was substantial as being the first one, and him having the highest rank. According to Los Angeles Times, Harris was a notable, "Recognizable figure on TV". Harris roles, as described in his article, primarily dealt with him being on TV. Comintell (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"making statements on live television and to members of the media" does not confer notability, that was his job as a spokesperson. You're making the case for the suicides being notable. Not Harris as an individual, unfortunately. Star Mississippi 17:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Holding a Transportation position in the Department is not notable. As sad as this may be, very much a non-notable individual. Routine coverage is all there is to be found for sourcing; his job was no different than any other mid-level law enforcement officer. Oaktree b (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not much WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:NPEOPLE. Seawolf35 ^T--C 00:11, 6 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. ^Complex/_Rational 16:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sonu Singh Rajput

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

No credible claim of notability TheLongTone (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of Notability. Fails GNG. B-Factor (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails ....no indi sources .. all two sources are spam/gossip ..non notable Worldiswide (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of CSI: Miami characters#Notable cast members. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calleigh Duquesne

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

Sources in the article are primary, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of CSI: Miami characters#Notable cast members. Spinixster (chat!) 14:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 14:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the relevant list of characters. Pure plot summary, no independent analysis of significance, reception, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BEFORE didn't bring up any reliable analysis or reception. Seems like an unlikely search term, but redirects are cheap if someone insists. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:46, 11 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. The delete arguments are strong and policy-based. The keep arguments are not, repeatedly mentioning that this person was in something Oscar-worthy without indicating the Oscar's relevance for this individual over many others working on same projects. Multiple relistings have not resolved this. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Mitchell (actress)

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

Only one of the refs - the briefest of stories - is about the subject. The rest are about a film in which she acted. Does not pass GNG. Looks like a promotional article, insofar as the main contributor was able to offer a professional photo of the subject. Tagishsimon (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this and Piper Rubio below can be merged into some sort of list of child actors of the 2020s. BD2412 T 19:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This makes no sense to direct people to a list of other actors when clicking on her name through her movies. 2607:FEA8:A941:15C0:1C88:D5D0:9D82:D03A (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete. Even less coverage than Piper Rubio, this photo only appears six times over the whole internet, Imdb a few times and on Amazon. Appears to be an attempt at PROMO that fell flat. There is zero coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a lack of coverage temporarily due to the SAG-AFTRA strike. The dates for 3 upcoming movies she stars in have been pushed to late 2023 to early 2024. 2607:FEA8:A941:15C0:1C88:D5D0:9D82:D03A (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~ Piper Rubio has only earned status through one movie which is her latest. Emily has done 4+ with more on the way. She stars alongside Hilary Swank in an equal role - Age should not be a factor here. 2607:FEA8:A941:15C0:1C88:D5D0:9D82:D03A (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with User:Oaktree b. Too premature for her to have a page. Recreate when she's done more and thus satisfies WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 11:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- What warrants as "more"? She has 3-4 box office titles with more on board for 2024. 2607:FEA8:A941:15C0:1C88:D5D0:9D82:D03A (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Coverage in major media outlets is the "more" we're looking for. Oaktree b (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is from the IMDB page. 2607:FEA8:A941:15C0:1C88:D5D0:9D82:D03A (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Photo was pulled from her IMDB page. All media coverage was halted due to the SAG strike. Some releases have been pushed to a further date. Elleem22 (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The threshold of WP:NACTOR may very well be too low, but as it stands, playing a significant role in a movie that won an Oscar for Best Picture, and another key role in a movie that won multiple awards, is more than enough to meet this notability threshold. Owen× ☎ 19:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- How long does the deletion message stay at the top of the page? 2607:FEA8:A941:15C0:D4BB:F3B6:9E4A:620D (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per OwenX, has proven notability as an actor. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Owenx that playing a significant role in an Oscar-Winning movie warrants a keep. Age shouldn't be a factor. Another movie she was in is currently on track for an Oscar nomination. 2607:FEA8:A941:15C0:D4BB:F3B6:9E4A:620D (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the case for NACTOR seems weak, might still be WP:TOOSOON I think.-KH-1 (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- If this were about a 60 year old actress, with a key role in an Oscar-winning film and substantial roles in other accoladed movies, would you also say "WP:TOOSOON"? I feel like ageism might be at play here. Owen× ☎ 14:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There really isn't enough secondary independent material on her to justify an article, and her being only 6 raises additional privacy concerns.
JoelleJay (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- She's almost 8. 2607:FEA8:A941:15C0:D4BB:F3B6:9E4A:620D (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not happy at closing this as "no consensus" because I find the brief "privacy" concerns from JoelleJay convincing. More discussion is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parents and agents are aware of this page and have been in discussion with other editors. Elleem22 (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JoelleJay makes a good biography of living persons point about biographies of minors. Age is a factor here, per Wikipedia policy. This biography of a minor hangs off several sources that aren't about the article subject, but about several movies and list their cast members, and a single source that is. The one source that is is a television interview that is a couple of minutes long. There's nothing in the sources documenting this subject's life and the documentation of this person's works is not multiply, independently, and in-depth sourced. Ironically, the article's very creator is making the case here in this discussion that documentation of this person's work is slim. For a 60-year-old actor with no documentation of xyr life and only mentions as cast members in documentation of xyr works, this would be an edge case. When documentation of a child's life and works is slim, we should err on the side of not including that child in Wikipedia. Multiple in-depth independent documentation of this person's life and works has to exist and the person has to be older than an age that per policy causes us to set the bar particularly high for content. Uncle G (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't s Shirley Temple level child star that's beloved by millions, this is a child that does acting... Has never headlined a major production, nor done anything to rise above the rest. Oaktree b (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She plays the lead role in Ordinary Angels, which was supposed to be out in 2023, but due to the SAG strike, was moved to 2024. She co-leads with Hilary Swank and Alan Ritchson; this is a major Lionsgate production. 2607:FEA8:A941:15C0:8C28:D027:7D4A:5A45 (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure I understand the privacy issue. Every fact in the article was sourced from a publicly accessible source. We didn't do any investigative journalism, or even any synthesis of such. Are you saying the L.A. Times is violating the privacy of this actor? The career of actors depends on publicity. If her parents or her agent had any say in this, they'd likely be saying, "Strong keep!!". What is the goal here? Whom are we protecting, exactly? Owen× ☎ 18:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agent and parents are a "Strong Keep". Elleem22 (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NACTOR applies only to "significant roles", which I think is referring to a leading actor or other person with a critical role in the film. This is a long way from that, I think. NACTOR was never meant to override the GNG by giving notability-by-proxy to everyone who appeared in a notable movie. No one here seems to disagree that the GNG isn't met (at least for now), and that's what we should go with. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TimeShard

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and band-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: generally couldn't find very many sources on them. has the AllMusic bio and ratings for their two albums, but not much else. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 22:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the newly-found sources. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 00:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a strong suspicion that this dance music act should be presumed notable. The relative lack of available sources is more likely due to their prominence in the 1980s/1990s, with published articles not making it through to the internet age. At minimum TimeShard appears to meet:

WP:NBAND#12 - substantial segment on a national radio broadcast (they had a session on BBC Radio 1 in 1994).
WP:creative#2 - innovative in the dance music scene as one of the first live dance music acts.

Keep I have added sources to the article which are sufficiently reliable for both of these to meet WP:V, including the allmusic bio and Resident Advisor coverage, which both contribute to WP:GNG. I have also added a 1994 gig review in Melody Maker [3], a 1994 interview in The Mix [4], and a 1994 feature in Generator Magazine [5]. I will continue to look for further sourcing, but these multiple sources are now supporting notability per WP:NBAND#1. ResonantDis_tortion 23:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DESG

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

Seems to fall below threshold of notability. All cited sources are primary. Not much third-party sources I can find. Seems to be a relatively obscure government organisation which does not merit article. Elshad (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. Elshad (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. No need to drag this out further. Cheers for a constructive discussion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Hartwell

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

This association footballer biography article has zero references to establish notability. After searching (see article Talk for sources searched), unable to find in depth reliable sources. Did find many people with same name born before and after this person. Article was created on 12 December 2008. JoeNMLC (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - article now has sufficient content to establish notability. Thank you for improving with two reliable sources. JoeNMLC (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per [6], and having faith for WP:OFFLINESOURCES. WP:BEFORE may have been somewhat done by nominator, but I am not convinced he should be deleted considering who he played for. Govvy (talk) 11:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as his main coverage in Newspapers.com was three articles in April 1904 about when he first transferred from Kettering to Manchester United (like this article in Manchester Evening News). And actually, the website mentioned above is not so encouraging (4 appearances over 2 seasons, although per ENFA it seems he played for 3 more years after leaving Man United). Cielquiparle (talk) 12:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:29, 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!} 07:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @GiantSnowman: Per Govvy. Defineotly has offline sources and the source Cielquiparle mentioned above described Hartwell as "regarded as a very capable player". Article needs imporvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the sources showing significant coverage? Cielquiparle has reviewed the offline sources and suggested deletion. Giant Snowman 21:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I definitely have sources at home that will be able to flesh out this article, I’m just in America for a week so I won’t be able to go over them until at least the first week of December. We’re not on a deadline. – Pee Jay 17:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest this is re-listed again to allow PeeJay time to present these sources. Please ping me when you do so I can re-consider my !vote. Giant Snowman 10:33, 26 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!} 07:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay: Can you provide offline sources? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I only got back from the US on Saturday and been suffering with jet lag since. The best source I have is "The United Alphabet" by Garth Dykes, which fills in Hartwell's biography a fair bit. I'll add to the article when I can. – Pee Jay 13:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If any editor wants to work on a draft, let me know or make a request at WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ilona Bugaeva

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Coverage is limited to images of her in costume, repeated on numerous websites, without in-depth analysis or biographical content. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Visual arts, Popular culture, and Russia. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:26, 13 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!} 07:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Back to draft. Figure lacks notability from credible sources. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 16:07, 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!} 07:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has received significant coverage in multiple sources. There's certainly enough here for an article. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ : The Yahoo Life article is fine, mentioned in a few Russian sources that seem RS as well. Oaktree b (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Those sources were a bust. I also found French Cosmo and one Turkish website, but they're basically photo galleries. Oaktree b (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Fails WP:GNG with no WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS available, only appalling tabloid-type articles and photo galleries, e.g. sexy video game character cosplay gallery—why is this a reference? Draftification is pointless since she's not notable. Uhai (talk) 06:37, 11 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. That said, the sheer magnitude of the article in Russian should make us question whether we have a notability issue, or a translation issue. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ptaha

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. No indication of notability whatsoever. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Russia. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to be notable for his legal troubles, and has enough context to meet BLP1E [7] Mach61 (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CNN BBC news report with coverage of him in the last minute Mach61 (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources you've presented are not about the rapper's career, but only talk about his legal troubles, which are not enough for establishing notability; the BBC report only mentions the subject in passing and show a brief interview. There isn't even a single mention of any of his legal issues here on Wikipedia anyway. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't have anything to do with legal troubles. Mach61 (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mach61: Once again, that source only mentions the rapper in passing and isn't solely about his career. Sources that mention the subject only in passing are not enough for establishing notability. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the aggregate, they do establish notability Mach61 (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs translation from corresponding Russian Wikipedia article (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 20:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The two Keep arguments are not strong, but not one !vote has supported deletion. This needs more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fails notability. No in-depth coverage, rather is about an event, that doesn't make him notable. Atighot (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:59, 5 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tun Razak Chair

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

No refs on the page, I don't see the level of independent RS which would show notability JMWt (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Malaysia, and Ohio. JMWt (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Strong Keep - I added a few sources, and there are dozens more, but I have not seen sources that significantly cover the subject. Shoerack (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how you are !voting keep if you are also saying there is not significant coverage as per the GNG. JMWt (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, WP:GNG isn't the only notability criteria we applied to the subject of a Wikipedia article. There is WP:SNG, and for academic-related subjects, we have WP:NPROF (WP:ACADEMIC). In fact, I have now changed my weak keep to a strong keep. Named academic chairs in major research universities are notable, per WP:NPROF. According to WP:NPROF, merely holding a named chair will satisfy WP:NPROF. Holding such a named chair confers notability, and this indicates that the chair itself is notable. Shoerack (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. Well that's an argument I suppose. JMWt (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm not following the logic here. WP:PROF#C5 is essentially a shortcut criterion, saying that if a person holds a named chair at a major research institution, they've done things that make them a kind of person we can have an article about. This doesn't translate to saying that the named chair itself is a topic that ought to have an article. If a person holds such a position, there's probably a lot to say about the person, but how much is there to say about the chair? XOR'easter (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: In academia, named chairs are notable (or distinguished) positions. This is why it confers notability on its holder, per WP:NPROF#5. Shoerack (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being "notable" in the colloquial sense isn't the same as notable for Wikipedia purposes, i.e., deserving of an article dedicated to it. They're related ideas, of course, but not synonymous. WP:PROF#C5 does not say that a person inherits article-worthiness from holding an article-worthy position. In fact, it doesn't say anything about whether or not we should have an article about the position. That's a judgment we have to make on different grounds. XOR'easter (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would amount to circular reasoning or argument to conclude that "a person inherits article-worthiness from holding an article-worthy position." I was making the direct opposite of this argument. In another context, if a music award such as the Grammy Award confers notability on musicians, then the Grammy Award is notable regardless of whether we should have a Wikipedia article on it or not. Shoerack (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You keep using the word "notability" to mean something other than what it means on Wikipedia. As a result, your arguments are fundamentally disconnected with how this site works. XOR'easter (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the word "notability" used in a way that suggested something other than what it means on Wikipedia? There had been multiple discussions where the consensus was that a "named chair position" in major academic universities is notable per WP:NPROF. Our late colleague, User:DGG (of blessed memory), participated in many of these discussions, including this. In this discussion, Necrothesp pointed out that We generally keep articles on historic named chairs.. I understand that case law may not apply, but past discussions and consensus have established that "named chair positions" in major academic institutions are presumed notable per WP:NPROF. Shoerack (talk) 09:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure any precedent established in the past applies to what is essentially a chair for a visiting professor. And the discussion you refer to was about a chair established in 1863, not 1980. 1980 may be "historic" in a strict sense, but not in the sense I was referring to in that discussion. I'm not expressing an opinion as to whether this article should be kept or not; just pointing out that the previous discussion you cite is not really relevant to this one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. Shoerack (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to this: Where was the word "notability" used in a way that suggested something other than what it means on Wikipedia? When you said, the Grammy Award is notable regardless of whether we should have a Wikipedia article on it or not, for example, that is incomprehensible when interpreting notability in the Wikipedian sense of the word. XOR'easter (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Grammy" is an example of a notable award that confers notability for singers that our policy specifically describes. So, I wasn't referring to a random award that I presumed it to be notable based on my personal opinion. Shoerack (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSICBIO is a guideline, not a policy. And the guideline says that people who win a Grammy are notable, not that the notability of the Grammy Award somehow hinges upon the fact that people who win it are notable. That would be bizarre and convoluted. XOR'easter (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody actually advanced the argument that a guideline is a policy. Shoerack (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People who hold a named chair pass WP:PROF#C5, in situations where we can reasonably expect the chair to be given only for scholarly excellence. The purpose of this criterion is to provide another way to make sure that people known as excellent scholars get Wikipedia articles. That purpose and that notability criterion do not apply to articles about the chair itself, for which the only notability criterion is WP:GNG. We have no evidence of passing GNG (through in-depth coverage of the chair itself in published reliable sources) and in fact we have what appears to be an admission above that despite searching none were to be found. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — There is a presumption of notability for named chairs. When any academic holds a named chair, we don't ask for sources to establish the notability of the named chair they hold; the academic is generally considered notable by virtue of that position. We don't require that the named chair itself meet WP:GNG to be considered notable. This is because named chairs are a specific type of honour reserved for notable scholars. This is not the same as the faculty dean's position. This is an established chair that has been held by scholars for more than three decades. That said, if a specific position confers notability, that position is notable. We have a long-standing consensus that established named chairs in major academic institutions meet WP:NPROF. In one of these discussions, there was an admission that "Personal chairs and research chairs pass WP:PROF#C5, named or not. Administrative chairs of departments do not.". Shoerack (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NPROF is people. It does not apply to furniture (metaphorical or otherwise). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said it does, and I have no idea where the furniture came from. The excerpt above is from your own admission that NPROF does apply to a named chair in major academic universities. I doubt that by "Personal chairs and research chairs pass WP:PROF#C5, named or not," you were referring to furniture. Were you? Shoerack (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to understand this discussion but I assume that when NPROF talks about a personal chair, that refers to the person (ie the professor) rather than the chaired position. The argument appears to be that if the "chaired Professor" is a criteria that shows an individual is notable per NPROF then the chair (ie the endowment/position itself) must also be notable.

The counter argument is that the chair (ie the "furniture" or endowment behind the chaired professorship) is not covered by NPROF. JMWt (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with others that NPROF covers professors, and not positions. A named chair might still meet GNG. I am holding back on !voting for the moment, in case significant coverage of this chair might be found. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A named chair doesn't have to meet WP:GNG. As I pointed out above, named chairs are notable (or distinguished) positions in academia. This is why it confers notability on academics that hold such positions, per WP:ACADEMIC. Shoerack (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A named chair absolutely does have to meet WP:GNG. A person who holds a named chair does not, per WP:NPROF, which is clearly written only to apply to biographical articles. If you wish this article to be kept, leaning in to a specious argument might not be the best strategy... Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We have a large number of articles about named chairs as shown by the hierarchy of categories beginning with Category:Professorships and down through categories such as Category:Professorships by subject and Category:Professorships by university or college. This one is sourced better than most. Whether we should have articles such this is a subject that needs a wider discussion than here. Currently the consensus is that they are acceptable. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is not whether they are acceptable, rather the issue is whether there is a presumption in our guidelines. I don't think there is a presumption in NPROF, which applies to only to "the person" not the chair. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What was the intention of the WP:ACADEMIC when it was drafted? In my view, the intention was to apply the policy to all academic-related topics, from academics to their positions and awards. We may not conclude that WP:ACADEMIC does not apply to academic positions such as "named chair" and "distinguished professor" positions. I understand that policies and intentions may not perfectly align, and there may be unintended enforcement or implementation consequences. Shoerack (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In general WP:ACADEMIC is a living project, and many of us interact with it and tweak it on a continuing basis, just like the rest of Wikipedia. I can't say that in my short experience it has ever been applied to anything but a human being, and no one has yet argued that a "transitive property" like this applies. I think that pages like this need to be looked at on their own merits. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the original intention was to codify and clarify the earlier "Average Professor Test", still summarized in the guideline as "When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?" It never has been intended to apply to anything but a person. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the intention was never to apply the policy to all academic-related topics. It doesn't even discuss how to evaluate the article-worthiness of any topic other than a person, and it never has. Here is the first version with any text in it, and here is the version where the present numbering was established. The opening line: This guideline, sometimes referred to as the professor test, is meant to reflect consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements. For the purposes of this guideline an academic is some-one enaged in scholarly research or higher education and academic notability refers to being known for such engagement. It's plainly about the people, not the places they work or the offices they hold. XOR'easter (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some named chairs are notable enough to warrant a page. One that comes to mind is the Rumford Chair of Physics at Harvard, due to its historical origins and connection to Benjamin Thompson, Count Rumford, an important and notorious historical figure. So the Rumford chair does in fact satisfy GNG, seems to me. Does this one? Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak Delete- My original logic: "Since this is the first chair at a major American university to be funded by a foreign government, I believe that this particular chair is sufficiently notable to merit a page. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)" But based on what others have pointed out regarding the weakness of secondary sources, this may not be enough to satisfy GNG on its own-hence my change. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability, in Wikipedia terms, requires in-depth coverage of the topic in reliable sources. Being the first to do something is neither necessary nor sufficient. Can you explain which in-depth reliable sources you are using to reach this conclusion that it is notable? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m just taking the page at its face value. If you think it’s in error, that’s a different matter. And bring the first thing in a long series of very different things does seem notable to me in this sphere, so agree to disagree there. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Chairs are notable only for the people who hold them. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
I mostly agree with that. And yet, would you delete the Rumford chair page as well? There must be the possibility for a rare exception. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But that one meets GNG, right? so no need for exceptions. -- asilvering (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The topic does not meet GNG, which is the sole determinant of notability for this subject. Obviously the "named chairs" in NPROF refer to the holders of those positions, not the actual positions.

JoelleJay (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: — I have no further opinion on this article at this point as to whether it should be kept or deleted. Shoerack (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I propose that we close this as 'no-consensus' and we allow the discussion to continue elsewhere. Personally I think the points made by Shoerack are novel but interesting. And potentially undermine NPROF if a Professor is included in en.wiki on the basis of a "named chair" but the chair position itself is non-notable per the GNG. JMWt (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps let me bold this: I withdraw the nomination JMWt (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not permitted to close a nomination as withdrawn when there are other "delete" opinions expressed in the discussion. And a no-consensus outcome would be strange for a discussion in which there is no actual support for it meeting the relevant notability guideline, GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, it is permitted to strike your nomination statement and cast a vote of “keep.” (or any WP:ATD or “neutral”). Frank Anchor 03:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find more than PR from the university itself, and even if I'm being overly ungenerous in that evaluation, I don't see how this topic could require more than a line or two in the article about the university itself. The argument from WP:PROF#C5 is specious (the guideline is for evaluating people and always has been). XOR'easter (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: — While this debate may not be closed per WP:WITHDRAWN, I do think that a separate discussion at the relevant venue is warranted. Technically, we are saying that a professor meets WP:ACADEMIC if they hold a named chair in a major academic institution, regardless of whether the named chair meets GNG or not. But for the named chair itself to merit a stand-alone article, they must meet GNG. My argument is that if named chairs confer notability on academics, it means the named chairs are presumed notable. The problem is that WP:ACADEMIC did not explicitly state this. We can expand the scope of WP:ACADEMIC to cover academic positions such as "named chairs" and "vice chancellor," for example, but that's certainly not a discussion we should have in this debate. Shoerack (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that, for a magazine article to convey GNG-notability on its subject, that magazine article must itself be notable? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such policy that requires that a magazine article be notable to convey GNG-notability on its subject. Multiple independent, reliable magazines are required to establish a subject's notability. These magazines don't have to be notable, but they do have to be reliable, and multiple of them are required to establish notability. Reliability and notability are not the same. That said, we only need a single reliable source to confirm that a subject holds a named chair in major academic institutions, and that confers automatic notability on the subject. My argument is that, if this is the case, there is a presumed notability for named chairs in major academic institutions, and we do not need multiple independent, reliable sources to establish their notability. Shoerack (talk) 09:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A single sufficiently substantial NYTimes article on a subject would tend to establish notability for that subject. It doesn't make the reporters who wrote the article notable. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you got the idea that a single "substantial NYTimes article" established notability for a subject when our policy clearly says that there must be multiple such sources cited. In addition, I have no idea why you think your "reporters" example is relevant to what I wrote above. Shoerack (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, the point was that a single sufficiently substantial NYTimes article would tend to establish notability (emphasis added). In other words, where there is one sufficiently substantial article in the Times, it's a safe bet that there will be more. Second, the GNG is a guideline, not a policy. Third, it is an analogy to the claim you keep making. You say that because the fact of a person holding a named chair makes the person notable, the chair position itself must be notable. That's a lot like saying that because being covered in the Times makes a person notable (or tends to do so), then the reporters who write the coverage for the Times must be notable (or will very likely be so). XOR'easter (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You repeatedly keep saying that GNG is a guideline, not a policy, when nobody is advancing the argument that a guideline is a policy. That said, while Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are not technically the same, they document the good (or best) practices accepted in the Wikipedia community, and they are enforced. I.e., we enforce both our guidelines and policy. "That's a lot like saying that because being covered in the Times makes a person notable (or tends to do so), then the reporters who write the coverage for the Times must be notable (or will very likely be so)." is your own analogy, not mine. I have made my points; it's left for the closing admin to evaluate whether they have merit or not. Shoerack (talk) 09:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The rationale for my decision to vote delete (after careful consideration) is primarily grounded in the application of Wikipedia's general notability guideline WP:GNG and the specific interpretation of the notability guideline for academics (WP:PROF or WP:ACADEMIC). The key points I believe support deletion are: 1. Lack of significant coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources that are necessary to establish the notability of the chair itself WP:GNG 2. The notability guideline for academics WP:NPROF applies to individuals, not to the academic positions or chairs they hold, which means the notability of the person does not extend to the chair position (WP:PROF#C5). 3. The discussion between @David Eppstein and @XOR'easter underscores that notability of a subject requires in-depth coverage of the subject itself, not the notability of related individuals or the significance of the position they hold. While there are arguments for keeping the article, such as the historical significance of the chair and the precedent of having articles about other notable chairs, I think the general consensus should be deletion – due to the lack of substantial coverage of the chair position itself as an independent subject worthy of a standalone Wikipedia article.

PD Slessor (talk) 07:24, 13 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 merge‎ to King Kong (franchise). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mechani-Kong

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

Minor kaiju that never even starred in their own movie, just a supporting character for some. Our article is a 100% unreferenced plot summary and list of appearances. No ja wiki article. The best WP:ATD-R might be to animated TV show he debuted in and where he is lited among characters (The King Kong Show). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Japan. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to King Kong (franchise). SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with King Kong (franchise) while establishing a section for him in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to King Kong Escapes, which seems to be his most well known appearance. I question the Merge votes given there is basically nothing to Merge in the article. A Redirect, if not to King Kong Escapes, but elsewhere, would be for the best. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per WP:ATD. There might not be much worth preserving, but this can be worked out through editing. Does not pass WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sukanya Basu

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Presented sources are mostly WP:SELFPUBLISHED. Google searches yield nothing substantial. Hitro talk 10:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, India, and West Bengal. Hitro talk 10:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Her correct name appears to be Sukanya Basu Mallik. There are also potential sources to review under this name. However, looks like an article under this name was previously deleted. Rublamb (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nomination, article is a list of achievements with self-published references. Reconrabbit (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the references are self published. Lacks third party references. For now Delete . B-Factor (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'd have been happy to speedy it. Deb (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All of the references are self-published, and therefore cannot not used as sources. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 15:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lifetrack Therapy

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

This article is a promotional pieces relying on poor sources, primary sources, and plain text disguised as citations. I could not find sufficient independent coverage of the subject. Cortador (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional. Both Lifetrack Therapy and Yukio Ishizuka were created by User:PositiveMentalHealth, the only articles created by the user. — Maile (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: borderline G11. This SPA smells of COI. Regardless, nothing but self-published primary sources, no evidence of notability even if rewritten by independent editor in a non-promotional style. Owen× ☎ 19:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability and clearly promotional. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 19:32, 10 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KD Subdivision

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

It exists, but I couldn't establish how it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Kentucky, and Tennessee. AllyD (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A 161-mile railway line will pass as a geographic feature; sourcing the history shouldn't be a problem. I'll see what I can do to make the article more presentable. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I'd consider rail lines to almost always be notable, I question whether the CSX subdivision is the notable topic. Subdivisions are things made up by someone at CSX headquarters in Jacksonville, and do not necessarily correlate to lines as a whole, or to notable topics. This article is one of many mass-produced by an editor who decided every single CSX subdivision should have an article, irrespective of sourcing, notability, or if it even made sense to do so. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point, although in this case the "KD" name goes back to the L&N in the 1970s: [8]. Mackensen (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more participation here from those editors who work on railroad articles or are knowledgeable about them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find primary sources briefly talking about the rail line. What's used now for sourcing in the article is trivial. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b I don't think that's a fair description of Kincaid Herr's book. Mackensen (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about merging this and other CSX subdivisions to "List of CSX Transportation lines"? Some of this data is already included in the list article. We could expand the list by one column for a capsule history of each subdivision. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that's inappropriate for a list article, especially one that's 36 KB already. These lines have their own history and are geographically distinct. Mackensen (talk) 01:51, 29 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!} 08:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has been improved. The CSX subdivisions, divisions, and regions need a much deeper dive than just this AfD. gidonb (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still no evidence of significant coverage in multiple sources. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 07:48, 13 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. Significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources has not been demonstrated. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lemogang Maswena

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Botswana-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In a quick search there is some coverage about the athlete in the local media in Botswana. I vote to keep, but it's on the threshold of WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added additional sources in the article Svartner (talk) 04:20, 27 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!} 05:39, 28 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!} 08:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kudos to Svartner for the extra sources! gidonb (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Transactional announcements on one WordPress-hosted news outlet do not demonstrate GNG, which requires multiple pieces of SIGCOV in IRS.

JoelleJay (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ratata (band)

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Passes WP:NMUSICIAN "Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country." and "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Important band in the history of modern Swedish music. Among the sources are an hour-long documentary produced by the national television company. No explanation why the band would lack notability. A bit perplexed by the first attempt to reduce a fairly ambitious article from 2014 to a redirect with no prior discussion. /Julle (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eheim

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

No WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:ORGCRIT DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Computing, and Germany. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:55, 5 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 11:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lust (upcoming film)

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

Procedural nomination per: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 13#Lust (upcoming film). This previously redirected to the article of the composer for the film, Sanjib Sarkar. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm unable to find anything that confirms this was ever released or reviewed or had anything notable about its production. Most references already used are reporting the same thing, which reads slightly promotional as if it was trying to generate buzz when trying to get sold. - 2pou (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all sources read like a rewritten press release. Cortador (talk) 08:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Internet FAQ Consortium

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

Trivial, self-explanatory WP:DICDEF. No sources other than Wikipedia mirrors. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like it was a thing mentioned 20+ years back but I don't see the significant level of coverage needed for inclusion on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 09:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I'm closing this as Keep because that is the consensus but this article needs a lot of work. This closure isn't an endorsement of the current article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Moonies

AfDs for this article:

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

Cites no sources at all, could not find any to establish notability DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and England. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on procedural lines, at the least - the article cites half a dozen press pieces about the band, though they are improperly formatted and contain overly florid quotes that should be trimmed per WP:PROMO. So the nominating rationale is incorrect on its face. The article certainly needs cleanup (and has for many years), but that also is not a valid reason for deletion. Chubbles (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No footnotes but plenty of suitable sources. Thincat (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept, it should be renamed to The Moonies (band) and The Moonies redirected to Unification Church. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: obviously needs some work to fix the improperly formatted citations, but the article is otherwise fine and obviously notable. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 19:55, 5 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 05:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Open conference

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

Article is comprised entirely of unsourced original research, particularly as indicated by the sole talk page message. Further, online searches don't substantiate this use of the term, other than this article. Harej (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:A11 Kinopiko ^talk 05:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I untagged this article. I'd like the AFD to proceed in case editors can locate sufficient sources to retain this article. It's a little soon into jump to speedy deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - whilst the term "open conference" is certainly in use, I don't see any general agreement with regard to what is meant and certainly nothing I can see appears to verify the claims in the article. It might be that the author(s) have found a source which justifies their claims but without pointing to it I can't find it. More likely, I think, is that is this is a personal assertion. JMWt (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources. No evidence that this is anything but a personal attempt to promote an idiosyncratic use of the phrase. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:25, 11 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. I'm persuaded by those editors arguing for Deletion. If an editor wants to work on improving this article in Draft space, contact me or ask at WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angi Uezu

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

Successful, but I couldn't establish how he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Martial arts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rank has never been considered sufficient to show WP notability. The problem is that my search didn't find significant independent coverage of him. I found lots of mentions of his rank, books and tapes he helped produce, and seminars he was giving--but no significant independent articles about him. The closest I found was the Black Belt magazine article by Coleman, but Coleman was one of his students so definitely cannot be considered independent. I'll reconsider my vote if better sources are produced. Papaursa (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's clear evidence of significant coverage if you for his Japanese name. I haven't gone through the coverage yet but the fact that sources aren't in English is not a reason to delete the article. WP:GLOBAL. DCsansei (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- DCsansei No one said sources had to be in English, but they still have to show they meet WP:GNG. To those of us who don't read Japanese, it would be helpful if you could pick out a few sources that show WP notability (see WP:THREE). Papaursa (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I found this [9] [10][11] Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 06:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those sources are martial arts schools that teach that style--definitely not independent. Papaursa (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: his ja-wiki article is also very brief, and also tagged for notability. -- asilvering (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage by martial arts schools is rarely independent and often unreliable. Searches in Japanese return a lot of wiki mirrors and more martial arts schools, plus some false hits. If that's the extent of the sourcing then he does not meet GNG.

JoelleJay (talk) 01:18, 11 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. But I'll admit that Quantity of nonreliable sources can, in extreme cases, make up for a shortage in RS is an AFD argument I haven't encountered before. If this is actually written down in poilcy anywhere, you might have a short of reversal of this closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Write-only language

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

Witticism of no independent notability. Wikipedia is not the Jargon File (which has been used as a reference here despite being one of the most notoriously unreliable sources on the Internet.) The only source which isn't either user-generated or by definition unreliable is for the APL Game of Life paragraph, which is already adequately covered elsewhere. (the reference to The Craft of Text Editing is simply wrong; that source uses the term in a completely different way.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm in two minds about this, because although in general I agree that Wikipedia should not be a repository of jargon, this is a term that people are quite likely to look up. One could even call it an important concept in programming, especially for those of us who detest C/C++. Athel cb (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Athel cb. Quantity of nonreliable sources can, in extreme cases, make up for a shortage in RS. Owen× ☎ 19:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This dates from the time when people really did import the Jargon File uncritically into articles. Our standards are far higher now. Indeed, they were far higher then. I remember a few repeating-the-Jargon-File articles being deleted, or completely rewritten using far more accurate sources, back around the middle 2000s. This is not a real properly documented concept in computing. You won't find anything other than computer humour lists with this. No-one truly regards languages as "write only" and seriously discusses them as such.
This is unverifiable from reliable sources, because in the world outside of jokes it isn't true. And it isn't properly documented standalone as a joke. At best, there are reliable sources that give 1 sentence to saying that APL, specifically, is jokingly called this, by "wags" and putting "write-only language" in quotation marks. (Torben Ægidius Mogensen's 2022 Programming Language Design and Implementation says "jokingly" and uses quotation marks, Kent's and Williams's 1989 Encyclopedia of Microcomputers has "wags".)
That's at best 1 sentence in APL (programming language), and a not particularly good one at that. (The stuff that grew in the article at hand around 2011 about something else was rightly challenged and removed in 2019 for being a joke on "blogs and wikis", as is discussed on the talk page.) I notice that our APL (programming language) article proceeds to present an unsourced serious counterargument to what is only a joke assertion in the first place according to these reliable sources. Ironically, editors trying to seriously correct what is a joke is even in the edit history of the article at hand. The very first version in 2004 tried to seriously counterargue the joke and point out that it wasn't really the case.
The best that you'll get for other computer languages is publicity blurbs on book jackets and letters to the editor in amateur computer magazines. No, Bjarne Stroustrup doesn't actually seriously discuss this as a concept either, despite what Google Books string matches might tell you. This is an encyclopaedia, not yet another computer humour book. People can look up stuff that is wrong; that doesn't mean that we should have badly sourced wrong stuff, that people have been pointing out is wrong since the inception of the article in 2004, solely in order to satisfy them. Delete.
Uncle G (talk) 04:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Uncle G. Interesting as a literal example of citogenesis. Source 4[12] cites this article(!) for it's definition of write-only language. I couldn't see any reliable sources in a quick google search and CS sources are usually readily available via google.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eyðgerð Mikkelsen

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

The subject, a Faroese women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that came up in my searches was this transfer news piece and this three-sentence piece about her national team debut. JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Denmark. JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Tunisia women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Najla Harrathi

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

Redirect to List of Tunisia women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found in my searches was this short piece. JTtheOG (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Tunisia. JTtheOG (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. It looks like this discussion was relisted but not placed on the most recent AFD daily log. Thanks to Cyberbot for making sure this discussion didn't fall through the cracks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agent of influence

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

This article has been flagged as NPOV since 2015, and is unfixable, since the subject is a pejorative term with no fixed meaning. JQ (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page needs improvement but it presents various decent sources to attest that this is a notable and well-defined subject; it has a range of acceptions but they are limited, and it does evidently have some pejorative implications but then so do words like spy, war, secret service and so on. I can’t really see what the issue is, here.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's nothing unfixable about the article and it meets none of the criteria in WP:DEL. Note that an article failing WP:NPOV is NOT a reason to delete it and it having been tagged for a long time is irrelevant as WP:THEREISNORUSH IMO the main problem with this article is that someone (I think the same person who has nominated it for deletion) appears to have completely gutted it over the last few days. This article needs discussion on the talk page to build a consensus on how to improve it, not wholesale content removal and/or deletion. --Shimbo (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Any possible NPOV concerns should be addressed through editing rather than deletion. The reset of the nominating statement reads to me as a non-sequitur. As for notability, there's already a few refs in the article, and a quick search online reveals more hits (nb: not an exhaustive list, just a few top hits):

Girling, John. "Agents of influence." Australian Journal of International Affairs 38.2 (1984): 111-114.
Pokalova, Elena. "The Wagner group in Africa: Russia’s quasi-state agent of influence." Studies in Conflict & Terrorism (2023): 1-23.
Lockhart, John Bruce. "Sir William Wiseman Bart—agent of influence." The RUSI Journal 134.2 (1989): 63-67.
Akrap, Gordan, and Władysław Bułhak. "Agent of Influence and Disinformation: Five Lives of Ante Jerkov." International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence 35.2 (2022): 240-264.
Maley, William. "Agents of influence." Quadrant 31.7 (1987): 34-38.
Eckstein, Arthur M. "Clandestine Agent: The Real Agnes Smedley." Journal of Cold War Studies 9.4 (2007): 106-114.
Edwards, Aaron. Agents of Influence: Britain’s Secret Intelligence War against the IRA. Merrion Press, 2021.
Gentry, John A. "Diplomatic Spying: How Useful Is It?." International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence 34.3 (2021): 432-462.
Hollingsworth, Mark. Agents of Influence: How the KGB Subverted Western Democracies. Simon and Schuster, 2023.

While I lack the time to go through these in detail, it appears rather clear that the term is both used and discussed in academic literature. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:DINC. The sources are there with a depth of sourcing that more than meets policy criteria. A stronger argument against the article is WP:DICDEF, but I see enough here to overcome that (barely). Also, I don't see the NPOV problem with the article as it stands. We have articles on plenty of pejorative terms. There is no reason that we can't be impartial and encyclopaedic on negative subjects, and this one is just not that slanted. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:10, 7 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 01:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Group dance

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

Unreferenced since 2019. The definition makes no sense, especially contradicting items in the list. - Altenmann >talk 01:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, and looks like a WP:DICTDEF (and not an especially well-written one). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term seem to only be used as a generic phrase. Could not find sufficient sources suggesting that this term has special meaning or usage, nor any evidence that the list of dances pass WP:NLIST. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Hill (television writer)

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

The article has been poorly sourced (either unsourced or solely sourced by IMDb since 2012. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Canadian Comedy Award nomination would be a valid notability claim if the article were sourced properly, but it isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass WP:GNG on her sourceability — but as soon as I was able to determine that this Karen Hill isn't Lawrence Hill's sister who died in 2014 and then had a posthumous novel published two years later, searching for "'Karen Hill' writer NOT Lawrence" got me precisely nowhere. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Béatrice Agenin

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

Article has been poorly sourced (solely with IMDb or not at all) since 2018. A quick Google search doesn't bring up any better sources, though perhaps others are available in French? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Theatre, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Look at her French Wikipedia article. She has a very extensive list of credits. We need a French speaker to translate the key info and bring it over here, together with the sources cited there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-She has enough sources on Google.

[13] and her Awards Molière Award [14][15] atleast should qualify for WP:AnybioWasilatlovekesy (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly notable: coverage in Le Monde etc, Ordre des Arts et des Lettres, 2020 Molière_Award_for_Best_Actress (verified here as the article hasn't been kept updated). It's always useful to look at other language Wikis, especially the subject's native language wiki, before nomming for lack of sources. PamD 08:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And this paywalled article in major newspaper calls her "the queen of theatre" and says she "reçoit ... un brigadier d’honneur mérité" (is receiving a "brigadier of honour" according to Google translate), which seems like a serious honour of some sort but ... ahah: seems to be Prix du Brigadier. PamD 09:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:ANYBIO winning the Molière Award should suffice. French Wikipedia doesn't have a lot of inline citations. I've added two cites to support the Moliere award and one biographic detail. Oblivy (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Moliere award is notable. Here's coverage from Le Figaro and Le Monde [16], [17]. Oaktree b (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources have been added and the Molière Award is significant. Rublamb (talk) 20:43, 6 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 Marxist historiography#In the Soviet Union. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leninist historiography

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

Redirect to Marxist historiography#In the Soviet Union. Me and my colleagues at WikiProject AI Cleanup discovered this article, cleaned up AI-generated fake references, and we believe it fails WP:GNG. The only mentions are passing, and there is not enough for an article. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 01:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marxist historiography#In the Soviet Union: Agreed - not notable enough for its own article with poor sourcing. TheBritinator (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 5 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 04:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

South Carolina Highway 68 (disambiguation)

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

This disambiguation page disambiguated only one extant article South Carolina Highway 68 while the other entries here are either invalid or merely linked to one of its section. The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. The following related pages are also nominated for the same rationale, after some of CSD G14 nominations declined:

NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and South Carolina. Skynxnex (talk) 04:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See no reason why all three topics can't be described in the primary topic Jumpytoo Talk 05:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: South Carolina Highway 68 (disambiguation) was previously a WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: No reason for these to exist. Let'srun (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kensri School

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/KENSRI School

Articles for deletion/Kensri School

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

Last AfD was in 2015, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KENSRI School. Since then we don't grant automatic notability to schools. Unreferenced and no coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, and Karnataka. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only reliable sources mentioning the school seem to be ones covering the death of a student, Shreyas Hareesh. However, they aren't about the school, and just mention it in passing. That said, having a mascot section with just the word "Tiger" and not even a full stop is pretty funny. Cortador (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete per nom. BD2412 T 02:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yukio Ishizuka

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

This article has serious issues regarding the promotional tone and the appropriateness of the content in general. I was just going to revise it significantly until realising that, as far as I can tell, essentially all sources are inappropriate- they're either primary references or from a source that I cannot reasonably verify because they have no existence online. On this basis I don't believe this individual meets notability guidelines Cipactli8 (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Psychiatry, Japan, Massachusetts, New York, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is a promotional piece full of dubious sources, primary sources, original research, and unverified sentences disguised as citations. The user who created it, PositiveMentalHealth, has also does nothing but work on this article and the one on Lifetrack Therapy, which has the same issues. Cortador (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A number of namedrops, a number of primary sources, a heap of obfuscatory refbombing, heavily promotional tone, no evidence the subject actually meets the GNG. Ravenswing 12:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional. Both Lifetrack Therapy and Yukio Ishizuka were created by User:PositiveMentalHealth, the only articles created by the user. — Maile (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious attempt at refbombing. The article didn't show any notability, the article mostly showcased his approaches which have quite clear promotional tone.✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 19:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lulzim Ismaili

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

Non-notable boxer. No sources found other that routine statistics. A7 speedy contested by IP editor. --Finngall ^talk 00:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Boxing and North Macedonia. --Finngall ^talk 00:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NBOX and WP:NSPORT. Nobody (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listing in databases do not provide significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and he's nowhere close to meeting WP:NBOX. He may be undefeated but his last three opponents had a combined record of 21 wins in 102 fights. Boxrec ranks him at #624 in his division. Papaursa (talk) 21:30, 10 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 Laholm Municipality. ✗plicit 01:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bögholmen

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

An unsourced, single sentence stub since creation. Appears to fail WP:GEOLAND. I am not fluent in Swedish, but the only scant coverage I could find, aside from Wikipedia mirrors, basically confirms that it.. exists? In the Swedish Wikipedia, it's currently a redirect to Laholm Municipality. I would be supportive of this option as an alternative to deletion entirely. KangarooGymnast (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Laholm Municipality. I did a check of Swedish sources, and at best, there's some newspaper articles mentioning Bögholmen, but basically none about Bögholmen. Maybe there's better offline sources, but until those show up, a redirect is fine. Cortador (talk) 08:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Laholm Municipality until and unless adequate, reliable sources can be found discussing it as a distinct place. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:47, 11 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.