Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 10	December 12 >

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The result was Withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google APIs

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

WP:NOTGUIDE. Unambiguous promotional material. All sources are primary. I cannot find any significant independent coverage discussing the APIs themselves; if there exists some controversy or coverage then notability could be met. If such a story does exist though I imagine it belongs on other google related articles. Darcyisverycute (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator due to new sources discovered and causing confusion due to combined nomination. Darcyisverycute (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Darcyisverycute (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following page as it is also google software, a stub, also has only primary sources, and appears to have no significant independent coverage. I did find [1] but it is only routine news reporting of an update.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found some things here: [2], [3], and [4] Conyo14 (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2 and 3 are good, 4 is arguably only significant coverage of the malware itself. I think WP:PRODUCT could apply here, specifically, "Avoid splitting the company and its products into separate articles, unless both have so much coverage in reliable secondary sources as to make a single article article unwieldy." For example, it seems more logical to me personally to have the google maps API in source 2 covered in Google Maps, and the privacy API discussed by source 3 in Privacy concerns regarding Google, rather than grouping unrelated APIs in the same article. Darcyisverycute (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. Most of the news sources are on the variety of APIs that Google offers, rather than the API itself. However, there are educational sources on the subject: [5] ISBN: 0-7821-4333-4 [6] ISBN: 978-1-84969-436-0. That might be something worthwhile? Conyo14 (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding the sources. 5 refers to the APIs collectively as "Google Web Services", perhaps we should have the article renamed to match that term? 6 seems to be about a separate set of APIs for visualisation, it only specifically refers to google web services once, but there does seem to be some overlap about web integration. Currently, 2, 3 and 5 are sufficient to establish notability in my opinion, and there are plenty more sources covering google web services, eg. [7], [8] which could be included also. If sources establishing notability for Google Web Designer are found among these sources they could easily be added in summary style too. Darcyisverycute (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but TNT I think this article serves better as an educational resource. In its current format, it reads as an advertisement. However, if it were written in an educational format based on the several books I found, then it would be a very useful article.
As for Google Web Designer, delete. There is nothing I found that indicates any particular usefulness towards WP:GNG. Conyo14 (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, TNT and rename as per sources found by Conyo14, rename to Google Web Services. TNT is needed to clean up marketing language. (note to closers: I am the original nominator) Darcyisverycute (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AfD is not cleanup. I'm also not sure why Google Web Designer was thrown into the same nomination when it is nothing similar to Google APIs. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I chose to nominate because I believed the articles did not meet WP:NPRODUCT, because I could not find sources with significant, independent coverage, so I thought AfD was the best forum for determining notability. I do appreciate the sources Conyo14 has found. I chose to nominate both articles together because the articles are both about closely related google software with only primary sources and both appear promotional. I hope that clears up any misunderstanding, if you see issues with my personal choices for AfD nominations please post on my talk page to discuss. Darcyisverycute (talk) 11:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because I'm finding the comments here confusing. Typically, in my experience, TNT means blow to smithereens, Delete, so I don't understand what "Keep but TNT" exactly means. An AFD closer is not in charge of editing an article under discussion so, specifically, what does TNT mean in your arguments? Also, there are two articles that have been bundled together. Some editors have specified different outcomes, which is what should be done, but not all. Also, the nominator, User:Darcyisverycute who initiated this discussion to Delete (which is what AFD is for), is now advocating Keep! If you have changed your stance this radically, it would be appropriate to withdraw or at least strike your nomination statement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Liz here, Darcy, you may want to just withdraw nomination. Cleanup of the article can commence. If you still feel strongly about Google Web Designer, put it in AfD as its own thing. Conyo14 (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Liz and Conyo14, I will explain my thought process. What I meant by keep and TNT is that I can't see anything worth keeping in the article as-is (so it needs TNT to completely wipe it and restart with better quality sources), and the current title of the article doesn't seem like the right one, that it should be called 'google web services' instead. So one option is to delete this and make the correctly named article, but doing so would erase the article history, so it would be better to rename (ie. move) the article alongside TNT. Whether to say that at the AfD now that new sources have been found, or to withdraw the AfD and make a separate request at WP:RM, I was not sure. I thought it was better to post it here, but I can see I was not very clear about that intention.

With that being said, I am not sure if there is consensus to move the page to 'google web services' without opening a move request, but I will ~~close~~ withdraw the AfD nomination on your recommendations. Sorry for making a bit of a mess about this. I do not feel strongly about either article so I will not open a second nomination for google web designer, but I can see that grouping the nominations in this case has caused more problems than it's helped, as I didn't expect divergent responses. (edit: I will not close the nomination yet to avoid disrupting any potential replies) Darcyisverycute (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm pretty sure Google Web Services are now called Google Cloud/Google Cloud Platform --PaulT2022 (talk) 00:41, 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 12:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

J.A. Woollam Company

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject appears to not meet the WP:NCORP. Let'srun (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Nebraska. Let'srun (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Barely sourced. Nothing here supports notability. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NCORP. I was unable to find significant coverage of this company in secondary sources. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 12:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Garfield. Daniel (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Stupid Day

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

This is a clear fail of WP:LASTING and WP:PERSISTENCE. All of the coverage is from the same 2 day interval on November 11-12 2010. No evidence of any lasting significance whatsoever, as has been noted by the creator at Talk:National_Stupid_Day. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- I would also be open to merging this article with the main Garfield article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Military, and United States of America. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did have a good discussion about this here, so I'll spare everyone the trouble of a long-winded rant :) keep as a WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK#3 pass – WP:NEVENT doesn't apply. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The controversy surrounding the panel was an event, and a single comic panel out of an ongoing series doesn't qualify for NBOOK. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to feel that it's a stretch to say "this cartoon should have to pass NEVENT because the art was also covered in the context of the public reception it caused", but it's worth having an AfD to settle the question, if anything :) I could see this going either way, figured it was worth the write anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oh, and good catch on NBOOK, Hemiauchenia – 'parently it doesn't apply to comic strips :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC) Merge to Garfield per RS found below and WP:NOPAGE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – it's still remarked on by RS today, see McCance, Rodney (2022). The Creation of Garfield. Pen and Sword. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How substantial is the coverage? If it's just a 1 sentence passing mention then I wouldn't consider it sigcov. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a few paragraphs, but most of that is a summary of the strip and Davis’s letter. The book itself is a history of Garfield and lists National Stupid Day as one of several “notable” strips. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Maddy from Celeste.★Trekker (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Garfield. I found a 2018 News18 article which has a paragraph about the strip controversy; I suspect I could probably drum up a few more post-November 2010 sources if I started cracking open databases. However, I ultimately think this article is much better covered within the context of the Garfield article. I've looked through the available sources and was unable to find any evidence of lasting impact; the 2022 Creation of Garfield Book outright states that the controversy resulted in "no long-term effects on Garfield." Several of the sources (including some summarized in the article) question whether there was really a controversy to begin with; the book states that things "blew over" after Davis's apology. Ultimately, this was a poorly timed strip that resulted in two days of media coverage and a handful of sporadic mentions in the years and decades after the strip ran; I think this information is best covered within the Garfield article rather than as a standalone article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It had 9,921 views while on the main page, which is pretty remarkable. The article is well-written, explanatory, and deserving of being a stand-alone article. And it already had all those nit-picking DYK editors looking at it from every angle before it went live on the Main Page. Let's loosen up, have some fun, and let this stay as its own article. — Maile (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) (2nd nomination), none of these reasons for keeping an article are valid. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I reinforce my Strong Keep, whether any editor agrees or not, or whether anyone digs something to support their viewpoint. Bottom line ... if enough Keeps are here, it is unlikely to be deleted. — Maile (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is based on coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Article views and the quality of the article are irrelevant; even articles that reach a milestone such as DYK can fail our general notability requirements. If you believe this article should be kept, then I encourage you to review WP:GNG and make an argument in line with that guideline. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Garfield - this strip was discussed at the time of publishing. If we look at the sources used in our article there are eight - but they are all basically the same coverage (they describe the cartoon controversy and print the apology). WP:ATD-M seems like a healthy compromise which preserves the material. I also checked WP:SIZESPLIT which states < 6,000 words < 40 kB Length alone does not justify division or trimming: the Garfield article (5,233 words) is not too long to accept this material. Lightburst (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This was actually a full section on the Garfield article at one point until I reduced it to a portion of the History section. Then it was removed. Anyway, this really seems to be forgotten nowadays and thus fails WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTNEWS. Contrast Cow Tools and Loss, both of which have been the subject of jokes years after their release. Right now, there's not much more to this comic than, say, the May 30, 1990 strip (which people also misinterpreted). -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 20:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Garfield. Agree with the nom's rationale and would lean delete, but as the strip was discussed at the time and caused some controversy, there is a case for a very short mention of it in the Garfield page. Also per Rainulator. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Garfield, it doesn't have WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Suonii180 (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Swimming at the 2011 European Youth Summer Olympic Festival. Daniel (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmet Akif Ersoy Indoor Swimming Pool

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

No reason this would be notable. Aintabli (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Turkey. Aintabli (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Swimming at the 2011 European Youth Summer Olympic Festival as an ATD, largely per nom. The only significance I could find about this venue was that it hosted the aforementioned swimming event. Frank Anchor 00:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be inherited notability, which is not allowed. Aintabli (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possible inherited notability is why I voted not to keep. But redirect is certainly allowed and a preferable option because this is a reasonable search term. Frank Anchor 02:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't have any problems with your vote; just wanted to note that inherited notability is not allowed, which was directed to editors deciding on their vote. Aintabli (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Swimming at the 2011 European Youth Summer Olympic Festival as WP:ATD-R, per Frank Anchor. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 12:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh–Namibia relations

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

Almost all the article hinges on reporting from an event in June 2009 where Namibia's non resident ambassador presented his credentials to the Bangladesh president. There's a lot of "we want to do more" but no signs of actual bilateral relations like state visits, significant trade and migration or embassies. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Bangladesh. LibStar (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per dearth of WP:SIGCOV. 03:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Delete -- Yet another in the fad of making a standalone article for every combination of two countries. There is no coverage of this relationship as a relationship, only casual mentions of potential interactions between the two nations (and even then not at a governmental level). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close‎. A requested merge should be processed on the talk page via WP:MERGEPROP. Daniel (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aleph Zadik Aleph

AfDs for this article:

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

Merge into parent body BBYO, which AZA's sister org B'nai B'rith Girls already does. Fails WP:NORG. Existing sources are not independent, and a WP:BEFORE does not turn up anything that would establish notability. Longhornsg (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Longhornsg (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Nebraska. Shellwood (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Jax MN (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - These middle- and high-school organizations are items of independent searches, and with a century-old history and breadth of chapters Aleph Zadik Aleph is clearly notable. A far more helpful addition would be to find a few additional sources, rather than offering a potshot AfD. Merging would only make the group more difficult to find, as youth may not have awareness that AZA is subordinate to BBYO or know to look for the analogous girls' organization. They'd more likely give up, making Wikipedia less useful. And if virtually all the content is maintained in a merge? I don't know that anything is gained. They remain notable, and stand on their own right. Jax MN (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this is a response to the second AfD. A previous effort was closed without deletion. Jax MN (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a "potshot AfD". Please AGF. Notability is established via RS. Can you find and share any? Longhornsg (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: procedural request as this should be a merge discussion, rather than an AfD. Rublamb (talk) 22:20, 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 redirect‎ to Major Arena Soccer League 2. Until such a time as the parent article is deleted, a redirect is a valid ATD. Daniel (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atletico Orlando

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The only reference is a short article about expansion of the franchise via them joining it. Also found nothing suitable in a search. North8000 (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The Major Arena Soccer League 2 already has uncertain notability. Svartner (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Major Arena Soccer League 2 as possible search term. Giant Snowman 15:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Major Arena Soccer League 2.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. Daniel (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Flower

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

Fails WP:GNG, non-notable player JMHamo (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JMHamo (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify – WP:TOOSOON Svartner (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, per WP:ATD-I. Currently does not meet WP:SPORTBASIC. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 12:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awn Hussain Al Khashlok

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails the general and biographical notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Television, Iraq, and Greece. UtherSRG (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ready to change the !vote if more sources are discovered. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NBIO. I did not find any secondary sources to support this article. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 12:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renee Biautubu

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

The subject, a Fijian women's footballer, has not received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, nor is there any indication of notability. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another example of WP:MILL. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Improvement Association

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of GNG type coverage which is probably inherent to it being a 5 episode podcast that occurred during 2021. Coverage is review of it and that it was nominated for an award which it apparently did not receive. North8000 (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the cited sources are more than enough to demonstrate WP:GNG or WP:NPODCAST. There are full reviews in multiple independent sources listed at WP:RSP as generally reliable. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did some searching and found more sources in CNET, The Guardian, The Atlantic, Vulture, Indy Week March 2021, Indy Week April 2021, The Olympian, Oprah Daily, Paste Magazine April 2021, Paste Magazine December 2021, and Sheer Luxe. The News Observer covered each individual episode: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. TipsyElephant (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Vulture, the Financial Times and Deadline are all RS. Article could be expanded. Oaktree b (talk) 00:35, 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 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. Daniel (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amina Said Ali

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

At present, the article is reliant solely upon primary sources (i.e., a conference proceeding showing she presented, the contributors' page in a journal she's on the advisory board of, and a poem she had published). I've done a quick Google and Google Scholar search but haven't been able to find more suitable sources to see if Ali meets WP:POET or WP:NPROF. More sources may be available in Swahili, Somali, or Arabic. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Somalia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NBASIC and WP:NPOET. Nothing in the article, or in a Google search, describes why this poet is notable. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 14:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gary W. Lopez

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

Notability issues - does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NARTIST. Paid contribution that has been through various edit requests and resultant discussions of sourcing (see talk page) where notability has been questioned but no formal discussion held - so I'm nominating here to seek that as I'm not seeing it. Melcous (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Photography, and California. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The hand-holding for what edits to include on the talk page is concerning. Regardless, I can't find mention of this individual anywhere... What's used for sourcing are name drops and trivial mentions; we're a long way from notability if that's the best sourcing we can find. Oaktree b (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Television, Science, Astronomy, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -The subject fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:NARTIST and WP:PROMO. This is an article that was created as an undisclosed paid entry, and there was a history of misrepresentation of the sourcing before the creator was called out for UPE. The IPA award is not notable; anyone willing to pay an entry fee can apply for it...basically, it's a a pay-to-play award with no credibility in the fine arts world. There are three tiers: student photographers, non-professional photographers and professional photographers, literally anyone on earth can apply. In the academic world awards like this are analogous to publishing in predatory journals. His photos are beautiful but that is not how notability is established for the encyclopedia. I get it that the creator wants to get paid by their client, but the client is not a notable photographer per WP standards; a personal website (not WP) is the way to promote this person. Netherzone (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to my rationale, delete per WP:PROMO per the discussion below in the Comment section. WP should never be used as a source of advocacy, promotion or advertisment - WP:NOT. Netherzone (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't look like notability claim can be sustained. The more things are probed, the more it becomes apparently that pillars that are supposed to be solid were hollow inside. Graywalls (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Producer Gary W. Lopez has a Ph.D. in Marine Biology from Scripps Institute. He has produced and/or written more than 30 educational films and television programs and over 100 Public Service Announcements. He has a broad background in documentary filmmaking. His films have won numerous awards including seven CINE Golden Eagles, three American Film Festival Awards, and two National Educational Film Festival Awards. His clients have included The Cousteau Society, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, BBC, and Encyclopedia Britannica. In addition, he has produced and/or designed more than 20 multimedia software titles and served as CEO of two large software companies. Here is one of several citations. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have been around long enough and have discussed reliable sources matter enough to know association doesn't inherit notability. That's like trying to claim notability of a local plumbing service company, because they've had service calls at Microsoft, Walmart, Target and other fortune 500 companies. Graywalls (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The citation is a bio from Jean-Michel Cousteau's Ocean Futures Society website. Here is a reliable source that covers some of the same information. My intention is to provide reliable sources that show Lopez is a noted professional. The current article has 14 citations with many coming from secondary sources like Dennis Taylor and Kathy Trissell talking about his achievements. Greg Henderson (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "noted professional"? How is that relevant to wikipedia's notability guidelines, which is the only thing that matters here? Being profiled in a local newspaper is not a great indication of encyclopedic notability. If that were the test, from the source you have provided, we would have articles about a golden retreiver, a cat thief, a flower market organizer and a high school amateur tennis player. We don't. Melcous (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I consider this article to be a secondary source as it was authored by a reliable source, Dennis Taylor. Additionally, there are other secondary sources by Sylvia Mendoza, and Kathy Trissell. His video work with Jean-Michel Cousteau and the documentary Voyage to Kure got national attention. Greg Henderson (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Politely, if there is a way to object to the proposed deletion I would like to pursue WP:DEPROD. I think the article can be improved and support the notability guidelines. However, I agree that Lopez should not have to spend any of his time defending the worthiness of his work. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that is time that I respond to the discussion of my Wikipedia article, especially the notion of whether my work is "notable." I have had a diverse career, much of which was not notable, but there are at least two aspects of my work that are important. First, I produced a lot of films, one of which was a two-hour documentary film entitled, Voyage to Kure, that was broadcast nationally on PBS and distributed worldwide. I wrote the treatment and the shooting script, raised the funding, hired the crew and vessels, oversaw the editing, etc., all the things that a television producer does. Before it was broadcast, we screened the film for the governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, at a gala event, and at the request of the White House, we screened that film for President George W. Bush and his staff. Bush told the press that our film was his inspiration to use his Antiquities Act power to create the largest marine protected area in the world, Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument , a 583,000 square mile national monument that protects the marine life and culture. (Los Angeles Times, June 15, 2006). Our documentary film was a three-year project that was responsible for a presidential action that protects a portion of the ocean that is four times the size of the State of California and protects the nesting areas for 80 percent of the Pacific seabirds. There are not a lot documentary films that have had that level of impact on society. In my opinion, that is notable.

My second notable work was founding and leading a national non-profit, The NROC Project. This work has been going on for more than twenty years and has served more than 10,000,000 students nationwide. Today our learning platform, EdReady, has been adopted statewide in Texas, North Carolina, Montana, and systemwide in Kentucky, Indiana, Arizona, and is used in all 50 states. Currently there are 1.3 million students active in EdReady and will gain the math and English skills required to attend college because of our platform. Our work has substantially improved the lives of million of people in the U.S.

If this work is does not reach the standards of "notablility" at Wikipedia, I support deleting my article. GW Lopez (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

. Delete Sorry, I did not put my vote at the head of my comments. Melcous gave me some good advise about the pitfalls and risks of having a Wikipedia article. I do not want to spend my time defending the worthiness of my work. Please Delete my article.Thank you. GW Lopez (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Comment - Received an email on December 13, 2023, from Senior Wikipedia Administrator Brendan Conway, a member of the Wikipedia AFD “Article for Deletion” Reviewer’s team, saying "Given the notable aspects of your work, particularly your documentary film and the significant impact of your nonprofit, The NROC Project, it is clear that your contributions hold merit for inclusion on Wikipedia. To proceed with improving your article, I recommend focusing on providing well-sourced and neutral information about these achievements."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Greghenderson2006 (talk • contribs)
Greghenderson2006 there is no such thing as a "Senior Wikipedia Administrator" nor an "AFD Reviewer team". You should be aware yourself and inform Mr Lopez that this is a scammer looking to get him to pay them. I see here that Mr Lopez is offering the $1499 they suggested to an editor Melcous (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Greghenderson2006, this seems like a blatant attempt to game the system. Firstly, there are no super-editors whose comments or !votes can trump other editors !votes here, so posting this at the AFD seems really weird and intimidating to me. It sure seems like someone is trying to game the system. The link Melcous about the $1499 payment is very disturbing. Netherzone (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting us know. I had no idea it was a scammer. We should dissregard the comment. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the plural "us" you speak of is you and your client Mr. Lopez. Did he offer $1499 as a fixer fee? Netherzone (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Us" mean everyone reading this. Lopez sent me the email from [email protected] (user:Brendanconway), which mentioned user:William Avery. Lopez said that Brendan made the offer for $1499 to help fix the page with "well-sourced and neutral information." He thought it was a legitimate deal. How can we verify that brendanconway and/or William Avery are scammers? They have active accounts on Wikipedia. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to verify if these are scammers. What I find very problematic is that your client, after paying you to make his article, is now offering someone else (scammer or not) $1499 to "fix" his article so it survives deletion. To my way of thinking this reinforces the fact that the article is an attempt to use WP as a vehicle for promoting and advertizing, which is a clear policy violation of WP:NOT. Netherzone (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Melcous:, Since there's no authentication process to sign up for an account on Wikipedia, there's no telling if that account is the article's subject though. The offer to pay could be just show for others to entice others to pay under similar circumstances. Pinging CU @GeneralNotability: to look into this non-sense. Graywalls (talk) 07:52, 15 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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

São Bento Fountain

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

This is my first AfD nomination so apologies if it is not correct. I've nominated the article because the subject does not appear to be notable. The article was created without any references in 2009 and I could not find any sources which suggest that the fountain is notable. Golem08 (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Portugal. Skynxnex (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inclined to agree on this one, as can find scarcely anything about it which would even marginally assert any notability. There wasn't a single content edit over a 10 year period which indicates to me this is not a notable topic. Searching under the native name of "Fonte de São Bento" returns mostly either social media or tourist-related sites. I'd be interested to hear what Joseolgon, the creator, thinks all these years later. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that it does not appear to be heritage-listed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source: There's a short paragraph in Portuguese about the fountain aided by a graph in this Olinda history book. Left guide (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That source is about a fountain of the same name in Olinda, Brazil. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, I didn’t originally realize those are two different fountains, my mistake. In that case, delete. Left guide (talk) 07:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it's very likely that print sources exist, but I can't find anything online, so I have to !vote delete for now. The article is short enough that it can be easily recreated if more sources are found. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – There are no sources on pt.wiki, I believe that any mention of the fountain must be part of the main article from Mira, Portugal. Svartner (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. The article is a mess and completely unsourced, making me wonder if it is even notable. ❤History Theorist❤ 05:12, 16 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 Malawi Twenty20 International cricketers. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sami Sohail

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

Fails to meet WP:NCRIC and WP:N. There are very few sources that focus perely on the subject of the article. --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 18:49, 11 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 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Africa. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails GNG. Many of these citations fail WP:SPS. Of those that remain, most are mere mentions of the subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Malawi Twenty20 International cricketers Fails WP:GNG, however there is a suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Malawi Twenty20 International cricketers as a sensible WP:ATD, this is what we do for non-notable international cricketers where such a list exists. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Surprising inclusion! Clearly fails WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. Robo^Cric Let's chat 10:30, 16 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 Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of CPU power dissipation figures

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

Primarily, I start deletion discussion according to WP:NOTCATALOG, in addition to quality concerns including extensive presence of original research, as well as verifiability concerns for the more than 1300 processors listed. XrayBravoGolf (talk) 18:37, 11 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 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. XrayBravoGolf (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE and WP:NOTIINFO. A huge collection of non-notable tech-cruft. Ajf773 (talk) 08:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Data is not from WP:RS. Constant314 (talk) 11:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Well, several years ago (2007 ?), there was an article that listed the available low power consuming CPUs. That was very informative, but it is gone. That days the high power CPUs were popular. Environment protection was unpopular. There ought to be a discussion in the "Articles for deletion" archive, but I can't find it. -- Well, according to this article, it's more easy. This "List of CPU power dissipation figures" was at first part of the article CPU electrical consumption that moved to CPU power dissipation (21 November 2005). After a few years it was moved to Processor power dissipation (6 March 2009‎). In the same year the list section was seperated from the "Processor power dissipation" article to List of CPU power dissipation (15 November 2009‎). After a few years the list was moved to it's current lemma List of CPU power dissipation figures (14 August 2012‎). -- I think the relevance is proven. That's why I think it should be kept or merged back to the lemma "Processor power dissipation", where the list came from. -- Temdor (talk) 01:49, 15 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 Avatar: The Last Airbender (2024 TV series). Daniel (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Kong

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

WP:BLP of an actor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. The attempted notability claim here is a minor bit part in an as-yet-unaired future television series, which is not sufficient in and of itself, and the only source shown is an unreliable franchise fansite which is not a WP:GNG-worthy source. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he has a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it, but nothing here is already enough as of right now. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi Bearcat (talk · contribs), since I "created" it, can we have it redirected to the show page? and call it a day. Ebbedlila (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's for the discussion to decide, but for what it's worth it isn't generally good practice to redirect an actor to one specific work he was in, unless that's absolutely the only acting role he or she ever had in his or her entire career. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Religious person in Sacramento that was shot, with the same name, is about all you pull up in Google I find nothing for an actor with this name. The one source used in the article from Tumblr doesn't show notability. Delete for lack of sourcing. Likely not meeting notability for actors. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, lets just redirect the page to the tv show. Ebbedlila (talk) 19:28, 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. With any luck the sources presented in this discussion, which were not objected to or determined as unreliable, can be incorporated into the article. Daniel (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost City of Faar

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

Article has been tagged for over a decade as unsourced - I did a Google search and the subject does not seem to be notable. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 18:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pendragon: Journal of an Adventure Through Time and Space. Kazamzam (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NBOOK/GNG
1. Publishers Weekly review [9]
2. Kirkus Reviews magazine review [10]
3. Two reviews by two different authors in School Library Journal (one of text, one of audio) [11][12]

—siro χ o 19:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Skynxnex (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The reviews provided above should be sufficient for passing WP:NBOOK. A reception section using the reviews should be added to the article, of course, but they do exist. Rorshacma (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Kazamzam: wrote the following on my talk page "Hi, I saw your AfD for the second book in the Pendragon series and proposed a redirect to the main series article. Going through, I think that is the appropriate move for all of the other books as well. I checked all time of them and the best they had as an independent source was the Publisher's Weekly blurb and most didn't even have that. Would you be willing to put up the rest of the series under the umbrella of the AfD for the sake of expediency? Happy to discuss further but to me, none of these cut the mustard. Thanks"

I have no objection to anything you guys decide here so long as I don't have to do anything myself! I am sure your collective wisdom will figure out what is best. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:NBOOK per sources provided by Siroxo. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 13:35, 15 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 speedy deleted‎ by Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs) as "G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user (Slowking4) in violation of block or ban". (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phelim Kine

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

Article created by a sockpuppet of Slowking4, an LTA who rapidly creates stubby biographies of marginal notability, probably for pay. This one is about a journalist who writes on many notable topics, but there's no evidence that he himself is notable. The references in the article are links to his biographies in various publications he's written for, all of which use almost identical text and provide no in-depth information. The most compelling of the refs provided is an interview about Liu Xiaobo, but it is from Human Rights Watch, an agency where he is a deputy director, and is still about the topic and not about the journalist. I did not turn up any sort of depth of coverage from the internet. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Journalism. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "work appeared in", and "was [sic] spoken to" notable orgs is lame attempt at coattail notability, specifically listed at WP:Identifying PR which says to look out for Sourcing to indexes of the author's contributions to publications, instead of to individual contributions. These indexes constitute the majority of the sourcing in the article: sources 4,5,6,7,8, 10, and 11 out of 13 total in the revision I'm currently looking at. This is also obviously self-sourced e.g. "Phelim Kine {{|}} The Guardian". the Guardian. Retrieved 2023-10-29 and is the kind of thing that should never appear in an encyclopedic article. D per nominator. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:G5 - created by blocked or banned user in violation of their block or ban. Kinopiko ^talk 20:01, 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 Signage. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information sign

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

See Talk:Information_sign#Does_this_page_need_to_exist? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Signage. The "Information symbol" section can perhaps be merged into Information source (mathematics), which is what U+2139 is often used for. Owen× ☎ 18:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Signage. The article tries to presents itself to the reader as relating to all information signs, but the term itself is vague, and the article only displays 5 signs, 1 of which isn't even a sign, and 4 of which are traffic signs strictly form the UK or Germany. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 19:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Signage. BD2412 T 02:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. This is a valid subsidiary article under the signage concept. We have many cases where more detailed topics are better handled with separate articles. Is anyone suggesting that we delete the billboard article or merge it into signage? With all due respect, the current signage article is a rambling mess and what it does not need is bloating more to absorb the information signs article. Indeed more of it needs to be hived off into subsidiary articles. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... but if it really has to be merged out if existence, visitor center is a rather more useful destination. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated page is about signs. Your proposed target is about tourist information centres. Owen× ☎ 10:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe that the article should be retained on its own merits. But your reply reveals a critical difference of perspective. You see it as just another road sign, like "sharp bend ahead". I see it terms of how it is used. Example: you are in a large museum and you want to ask where an exhibit is located. You look around for a large i or $i$ sign to tell where the information point is. The fact that it is one of many kinds of signage is incidental; the critical factor is what it tells you. The lead image at the visitor center article is, yes you guessed it, an information sign. So what next? Assimilate gender symbol as just another sign, used for toilets? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't "see it as a road sign". I see it as an article that purports to be about an "indicator of a source of information". If I saw it as an article about a road sign, I'd suggest redirecting it to Traffic sign. And if the Gender symbol article were as poorly sourced as this one, then yes, I'd be proposing it be redirected to Gender or another well-sourced article. Owen× ☎ 14:07, 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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tripmasters

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

Removed WP:PROD. Fails WP:GNG WP:NCORP. Sourced to database entries and blogs. A412 (Talk • C) 17:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Washington, D.C.. A412 (Talk • C) 17:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NCORP. No evidence of notability is demonstrated within the article or found through a Google search. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 14:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall Emards

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

Seems to have been an ice hockey team of this name. Article has been tagged as unsourced for over a decade - I did a Google search and the subject does not seem to be notable. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Canada. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - did some digging in Newspapers.com and found a decent number of references to their matches against various teams in Canada and New York, have added to article. Kazamzam (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Bit more to add to above comment [13][14] —siro χ o 19:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:05, 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) Let'srun (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Global Legal Information Network

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

Nothing much on the page to suggest notability, I see refs that confirm subject existed but nothing I can see in significant detail possibly as AtD would be to merge with Law Library of Congress JMWt (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. JMWt (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GLIN is under the umbrella of, but separate from, the LoC and has independent notability. For my WP:THREE, I'd probably start with [15], [16] and maybe either the NASA one about its development ([17] which is independently cool in and of itself) or The Futurist ([18]). That said, the article is in desperate need of a loving editor (not exactly thick on the ground since you won't find a drier subject), but WP:DINC. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Commentary on the sources would be great :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sohom (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep as sufficiently sourceable and notable, per User:Last1in. BD2412 T 00:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets GNG with sources listed above by Last1in, especially The IALL International Handbook of Legal Information Management and The Futurist. The Law Library Journal piece is a good third source, though a bit shorter on coverage afaict. I am not confident the NASA/Maryland source is independent, but I might be misunderstanding Kalpakis' role. —siro χ o 19:13, 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna T. Rose

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

Only two sources available, one is encyclopaedia and another is death news. — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - these sources are sufficient. Why are you putting this up for AfD when the subject is in both the Jewish Women's Archive and had an NYT obituary? Kazamzam (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The NY Times obit opens by saying that she "gained international recognition in her 41 years at the Brooklyn Museum for innovative work on the museum's role in education and in the community". It's clear from this source and the Jewish Women's Archive that she meets criterion 2 of WP:ANYBIO. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kazamzam and Chocmilk. I would WP:AGF though, seeing that nom has been working in deletion. StonyBrook _babble 20:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely; I'm not familiar with the Jewish Women's Archive but it does look like a tertiary source so can understand why the nominator discounted it. It cites the NY Times obituary and something called "WWWIA 7"; not sure what that is but if someone knows it could be good to see whether that's something to add to the article. Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That tertiary source is the Encyclopedia of Jewish Women - encyclopedia coverage is typically a pass of WP:ANYBIO #3, so shouldn't be discounted. -- asilvering (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Two NYT sources are solid, the rest help show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no valid reasons for deletion as a quick BEFORE identifies other items to add. Also, NYT makes a clear case for notability as is their choice to run an obit. Star Mississippi 21:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Two sources are sufficient for a new article. In fact, one source works if it's a new article still being worked on. This looks like the first article for a new Wikipedian. The basics are there, along with sources. Let's not bite the newbies, please. — Maile (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom focuses in the intro on references, while by WP:NEXIST they should have focused on sources. It's a major misunderstanding of how notability works. Moreover, two valid references are also sufficient for the WP:GNG. In conclusion, no valid reason for deletion was brought forward. gidonb (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why was this even nominated? MaskedSinger (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep: Was created by a new editor using bare URL links, which can subject an article to an AFD in error by new page patrol folks, but notability not in doubt.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Clearly meets GNG, consensus to keep is basically unanimous. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Thaler

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

Not seeing anything that satisfies WP:MUSICIAN. The article states "Many of his personal & professional references are often citations of other self-generated web-pages, & content." Clarityfiend (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Skynxnex (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: bad sourcing, individual isn't notable, ~~and this article reads more like a personal attack than something encyclopedic.~~ Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 20:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~striked for now per Doomsdayer520's comment.~~ Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 20:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
unstriked per my reply to Doomsdayer520. article still feels rather promotional to me, and the page creator's fairly obvious connection to the subject doesn't particularly help in my eyes. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 22:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clear vandalism by some disgruntled disreputable third-party of unknown origin, and who wishes to hide in the shadows. This is cancel-culture garbage in the worst of ways.

The individual who made the Dec 1 change(s) to this page did not even provide a Wiki account, and flagrantly disregarded many publicly available third-party sources lauding and describing Mr. Thaler's continuing work, credentials, and music industry experience. AllMusic, Discogs, Modern Drummer Magazine, Sticks 'n Skins (hard cover book), L'est Republican newspaper, Sabian, The Sound Collective NYC, SAE Institute, The Future Music Forum, Sync Summit, Monday Magazine, Stuff, ACast, CBC, Fountain.fm, Urban Music Scene, etc etc etc. There are such a large number of articles dating back to the 90's/2000's available for review that it is comical how inappropriate this vandalism is, or that Wiki does nothing to eject the perpetrator. Further, the edits posted purposely and aggressively defamed Mr. Thaler and others, even in "colloquial" language and terminology, is this common practice at Wiki to allow this? This article, as you can see, remained on Wiki for at least 10 years without any incident or demonization, only to be attacked multiple times beginning during Covid. This is reprehensible. HarleyMarcos (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The nomination and first vote above appear to be reactions to some vandalism in the article, committed by an anonymous user on December 1 and later reverted. The obvious personal attacks in the December 1 version were somehow interpreted as poor article quality and non-notability, which I find to be a curious leap in logic. In the article history, you can see that before and after that date we have a pretty typical biography, perhaps with questionable notability but without any bad-faith shenanigans. Mr. Thaler is indeed a known instructional drummer and producer though I'm undecided on notability for the time being. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll strike my vote for now; when I saw this article the first time I was extremely exhausted and it slipped my mind to check the page history. thanks for letting me know. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 19:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Doomsdayer520: I'm going to add though, I still feel as if Thaler isn't notable, and the page creator (who replied to this AfD with a long rant about cancel culture) does seem to have a clear personal connection to the subject; this is the singular and only page this user has created, a good portion of their edits have been adding Thaler to other pages, and the only photos they have uploaded to Commons are both only of Thaler and literally the only pictures of Thaler on Commons at all. I still kind of feel like this article is more promotional than encyclopedic, and I have doubts about his notability minus his alleged production on other albums. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 20:16, 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) 16:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing notable, no sources that discuss him at length. Sourcing used now is pulling at straws and this is overly wordy, when it doesn't really say much. It's an extended CV. Oaktree b (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete. This is a professional profile, I can't see a reasonable path towards what we have here meeting NPOV without stubifying, which is probably not worth it given other editors' assessments of notability. No prejudice towards recreation of a neutral article if notability is established. —siro χ o 19:27, 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. ✗plicit 03:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veronika Bokor

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

Objected draftification. Fails GNG and BASIC with no SIGCOV found. It only passes SNG barely and only in an single event. Timothytyy (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Tennis, and Austria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or draftify. I've been able to quickly find [19] [20] and [21], which, while individually short in length, are significant and entirely about the subject. Iffy★Chat -- 13:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She is not notable enough - just one WTA Tour level appearance. JamesAndersoon (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To me, this seems far from being notable, even for a draft WP:TOOSOON kind of thing. She may have done well nationally (which led her to some support from the Linz tournament), but that didn't really translate to the international pro tour. The coverage mentioned above is very weak (some of it being the results/tournament recaps, some of it relying on her quotations). My searches haven't produced something more meaningful, fails WP:GNG and the nominator described well why the SNG doesn't help here.Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It fails WP:GNG ... I know she is not notable enough, but my question is then why so many other players deserved its page when they also barely passed? Why delete this one and keep others? Let then delete all of these pages. Otherwise, this is not fair. JamesAndersoon (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Veronika Bokor passed this criteria [22]. And in the past it was also the case that other players got page if they passed this criteria. What is now the problem? JamesAndersoon (talk) 10:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Let then delete all of these pages" and that's the point. But most editors don't have the time to dig through all the tennis players that might be nor not be notable. There's a lot of articles after all. As for the criteria you cite, it says right at the top in the Frequently asked questions section, Q1: "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline." Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I didn't know about that. Thank you for informing me. JamesAndersoon (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While numerical support for Delete is strong enough here to determine a consensus, no-one has really replied to or debunked Iffy's three sources and claim this meets GNG (despite all !votes) assering that GNG isn't met. Need an explanation from delete !voters why these sources don't count before this can be closed as delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Jovanmilic97 already responded to the sources? Timothytyy (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources mentioned above are two quote-heavy interview-based pieces in Nön and a slightly heftier blurb in MeinBezirk that nevertheless is not enough for SIGCOV.

JoelleJay (talk) 03:10, 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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Salvati

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

Listed only YouTube and Twitter sources from top to below, i removed some of the sources and came to the point that the subject isn’t notable enough to pass the WP:GNG — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Journalism. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero sourcing in RS that i find, what's used for sourcing now in the article are all red per source rater bot. Oaktree b (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly that's fair. I created this page because she's been working in proximity with and directly with a lot of prominent political figures, but I agree that there isn't enough surrounding information around her to make this page relevant by Wikipedia standards unless someone else can find other sources. It's additionally difficult for someone like her because everything anyone has said about her exists on Youtube and not in written articles... Paco Markon (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Current sources are unreliable and quick search shows insufficient depth of coverage to meet WP:NBIO. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elm City rivalry

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

This doesn't appear to meet the WP:NRIVALRY. Let'srun (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and Connecticut. Let'srun (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not much time to search now, but The Southern News has an article on it that notes that "One of the best rivalries in the NE10 Conference is between Southern and the University of New Haven, the Elm City rivalry". BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Southern News and The Charger Bulletin are the student-run newspapers at Southern Connecticut University and the University of New Haven. They are therefore not WP:INDEPENDENT and get little or no weight in assessing whether the topic passes WP:GNG. In this case both schools compete in Division II, which is the third tier of college football below FBS and FCS. Moreover, neither program has a history of particular prominence even at the Division II or College Division levels. Purported rivalries between such lower-level programs with no real history of prominence are not necessarily notable. See WP:NRIVALRY ("Sports rivalries are not presumed notable.") My searches turned up some coverage of the basketball series, but a quick review didn't turn up anything of real depth about a football rivalry, just a couple brief passages. See this and this. If others come up with more/better coverage, I'll keep an open mind. Cbl62 (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of actually in-depth, independent coverage as either a series of games (the actual topic of the article) or an alleged "rivalry". It's clear that the game series exists, but it is not an independently notable subject and should just be covered in brief at the articles on the teams or at the indistitutional articles under sections about sports/atheletics departments. The first source in the article is in-depth, but is not independent; the second is irrelevant to the subject (just a source for a particular date, and mentions only one team/institution and no "rivalry"). The third source, above, lacks depth and just mentions the "rivalry" then gives brief coverage of a specific game, while being dominated by notices of upcoming and unrelated events.
As laid out in detail at User:SMcCandlish/Rivalry game mess, this is yet another case where the notion of rivalry game (an organized series of matches between two teams with a degree of geographical proximity, often but not always with a trophy and often but not always with a distinct name, sometimes with "Rivalry" in it) has been sorely confused with that of sport[s] rivalry (a sports subculture of antagonism between the fandoms of two teams). This is reparable with a bunch of article renaming and recategorization to account for the ambiguity (which has arisen because rivalry game is often reduced to rivalry as a shorthand in unclear sports journalism), and probably something that needs to be proposed for cleanup work at WT:SPORT. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Tsarfati

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

Fails WP:BIO. François Robere (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. François Robere (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He comes up in a significant number of promotional websites, which don't contribute to notability but might be diluting material that could contribute to notability. However, the only times I found him in independent sources was as an interview subject for Evangelical media covering news items about Israel. These, too, don't contribute to notability. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete found superficial mentions in some websites only. Hogo-2020 (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears mostly on "religious propaganda" websites, for lack of a better term, such as this [23]. Nothing I can see for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Straight off the bat, this fails WP:NPOV per Oaktree. The lead section is unsourced and fails MOS:LEAD, specifically, Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. gidonb (talk) 03:26, 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 Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Vao

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mission Vao

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

Not sure if theres any SIGCOV here. I'm also having hard time of finding sources at google search that mainly talks about the character. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:59, 11 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 Video games. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series. I am not seeing sufficient significant coverage for an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline. A bit of sigcov in a couple books: [24][25] Combining with the Eurogamer source in the article [26] this probably can meet GNG, but it's borderline especially for a fictional element. A merge will make it one of the larger entries on the list, but that's probably fine. —siro χ o 18:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~Comment Looking over the sources, unless I'm missing something I'm not seeing any real talk in a large amount as to why this character is important outside of KOTOR, or any in depth examination. I'll still trying to figure out what the "baseline" for notability is, but this doesn't appear to meet that.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first two sources both discuss the character in context of gender representation, and other related aspects. Note that the second source draws conclusions independent from Eurogamer but also goes on to reference that article as well. The Eurogamer source itself discusses the character's reception in the context of the characterization of a 14-year-old girl. Overall, it's not so much that it couldn't be effectively covered in a merged entry, but it is indeed SIGCOV across multiple independent sources. —siro χ o 19:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@siro I think what really hurts the perception of things is that big mass of "top X lists" that aren't being cited to say anything. A character's rating on a list matters a lot less than what's being said on it, and some like Den of Geek are giving her a paragraph of coverage but not cited as such. I'm switching my vote to a neutral comment for now, but I really feel if it's going to survive it needs those sources to be gone through and rewritten with the weaker ones tossed, you know?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge per Kung Fu Man. A lot of these are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. A rewrite might allow an editor to highlight the WP:SIGCOV instead of a WP:REFBOMB. But I don't see enough worth keeping here. Merge is a good WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Note that the article has been improved significantly since its initial nomination. The nominator also attempted to withdraw their nomination, but apparently nobody caught that and closed the AfD early. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Twink Twining

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

~~stub on an unnotable sportsperson; apparently played one game in his entire career. fails general notability guideline. preliminary search only turns up databases and mentions of his name. ltb d~~l (talk) 11:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC) (edited 07:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and Pennsylvania. ltb d l (talk) 11:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: Seems to be covered here [27], but paywalled. I can't find anything beyond trivial mentions of this person. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He's got a somewhat in-depth obit in the Philadelphia Inquirer (arguably SIGCOV) - and then there's a bunch of brief newspaper pieces from various places as well under the names of "Doc Twining" "Earle Twining" and "Howard E. Twining"; according to Bullpen, he is covered in the book Native Sons: Philadelphia Baseball Players Who Made the Major Leagues; it also mentions a newspaper quote stating that he was a "well-known athlete" who captain the basketball team at Swarthmore, managed the football team and was a star pitcher for the baseball team who led victories over major schools such as Michigan and Penn. there's arguably enough for a decent biography / pass of WP:NBASIC in my opinion considering the obit which is at least one piece of sigcov for this 1910s-era MLB player... @Oaktree b: in case you're interested in seeing the uncovered source. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence the obit is independent. The fact that it lists the location and time of the funeral suggests it is not. JoelleJay (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obits are by nature independent, as the deceased don't tend to write much. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, the Inquirer had on their obits page a section for family death notices and then one for staff written obits for notable people (which usually had more text about their lives); Twining's had much more text compared to many of the other death notices: I'd say there's a good chance its independent. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it was an editorial obituary, those are still not written independently of relatives, who have to send all the biographical details themselves, and they also rely on the family to nominate the decedent for consideration. JoelleJay (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't most journalists have to rely on closely-related people to help cover the events / develop the articles? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a massive difference between a journalist collecting research on a topic by speaking to people close to an event, and a family member soliciting the newspaper asking it to run a profile on someone and providing all of the details they want to be included. JoelleJay (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you know that Twining's family and the Inquirer did all this how...? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From the newspaper...? You mentioned they had staff-written obits. These are their instructions for submitting a candidate for an editorial obit. Clearly not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They (the Inquirer) still have to judge whether the submitted candidate was a notable person and the obits are still written by the journalists; I would dispute that that is "clearly not independent". BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The act of "judging" whether someone was (locally) "important enough" has absolutely zero bearing on whether the coverage is significant or independent. The obits are written with the assistance of relatives, which does not count as independent commentary. Do you really think that every local long-time florist or attorney in the city who gets one of these obits is notable enough for a standalone if they also happen to have a handful of mentions elsewhere throughout the years? JoelleJay (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And almost all good sports reporting includes what you'd call "assistance" from closely-related people; the fact that its written by the independent staff journalists versus the people closely-related to said events is what makes the sources independent. As for The act of "judging" whether someone was (locally) "important enough" has absolutely zero bearing on whether the coverage is significant ... Do you really think that every local long-time florist or attorney in the city who gets one of these obits is notable enough for a standalone if they also happen to have a handful of mentions elsewhere throughout the years? – you're right, we do not consider whether a newspaper considered someone locally important as to whether the coverage is significant, we take whether the coverage is significant; and in this case, it is. Discounting significant coverage on an MLB player under the guise of "then we'd have articles on florists!" is a fallacious WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not !voting one way or the other, but if !kept, then: 1) re-direct (instead of delete) to List of Major League Baseball players (Ti–Tz), 2) retain Category:Cincinnati Reds players on the re-direct page so the player is not deleted from the category record, per WP:RCAT. Somewhere down the line it might be appropriate to have List of Major League Baseball players who played in one game. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not derived from playing a single game. Local newspaper obituary was not independent and recognized him more for career as prominent local doctor than as one-time athlete. Reywas92^Talk 14:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think an article on an MLB player whose full name was known has ever been deleted? Regardless of the "consensus" at WP:NSPORTS2022, MLB players have been considered notable for decades on Wikipedia. Every MLB player ever has had an article since probably 2009 or 2010 I think. Personally, I'm never going to vote to delete an MLB, NBA, NFL, or NHL player but I don't technically have a guideline based reason for keeping right now (since NBASEBALL got nuked and hasn't been replaced with anything)...so I'll just leave this comment... It feels like there's been an anti-sports bias here in recent years. I guess everyone just plays video games nowadays. If you want stuff to work on deleting, Category:Company articles with topics of unclear notability is littered with ads. Thanks, ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, there was one MLB player with name known who was deleted - that would be Rit Harrison of 1875 in a kind of questionable close. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Playing for the New Haven Elm Citys of 1875 is a lot different than the World Series era Cincinnati Reds. (though I wouldn't have voted delete there either). ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep After expansion by BeanieFan11. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will be expanding the article soon to show a pass of WP:NBASIC... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... played in major league baseball for the Reds. I agree with WikiOriginal about the status of such ball players and the sources mentioned by others seem legitimate to me. Spanneraol (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ - There are some passing mentions I found on Newspapers.com, and apparently he was the first MLB player from Swarthmore College, so maybe there's more out there, but right now I'm not seeing notability. I would suggest redirecting to 1916 Cincinnati Reds season rather than the List of MLB players mentioned above, but either target would work. Hatman31 (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm impressed by the research and expansion; my first choice is now keep. Hatman31 (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have just performed an extensive expansion of the article to over 600 words and 14,000 bytes; this expansion clearly shows a pass of WP:NBASIC, which states that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; and additionally, we are not restricted by WP:SPORTCRIT as we have the piece of significant coverage from The Philadelphia Inquirer, in addition to many shorter pieces that add up to build a big picture of this person's life (many of them mention that he was a very prominent figure in the area, so its probably safe to assume this MLB player has further offline sources as well - plus he's on SABR's list for wanted bios, so once someone does that it will be more sigcov). @Ltbdl, Oaktree b, Hatman31, Bison X, and WikiOriginal-9: Does this major expansion persuade any of you to suggest keeping this extensive and well-sourced MLB biography? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's much better now with the information added. If it was up to me, we'd keep all these ball player articles, cause it's baseball! Anyway, I think it's fine as it stands now, more than a one or two line notation. Oaktree b (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I added some snazzy photos from the 1916 yearbook. Now it's a full article. Oaktree b (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: President of the Dermatological Society and his activities as a doctor also help notability, pretty minor career as a baseball player. Seems to have a decent record as a coach in college. We've at least met BASIC now. Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
President of the Philadelphia Dermatological Society. There are hundreds of regional medical specialty societies in this country – that does not contribute to notability, especially when it's only mentioned in the obit and not independent sources. Lots of orgs rotate presidents regularly too, maybe not a long-term or significant position. Reywas92^Talk 16:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
nomination withdrawn thanks to WP:HEY. can't close right now due to other people voting delete and redirect ltb d l (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above: Appreciate the work people have put into this, but as it stands there doesn't appear to be enough GNG level coverage. Redirect as a ATD. Let'srun (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But do you realize that GNG is not the only route to notability...? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but here that does not apply. Let'srun (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm? NBASIC is the notability criterion for people (of which is concerned here), whereas GNG is a broader criterion for any subject not passing a particular sub-criterion; may I ask why you say that the notability criterion for people does not apply and thus we should get rid of this well-sourced extensive MLB biography? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of stars more luminous than any closer star

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

Never cited any sources and no coverage in reliable sources. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 09:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No citations in the article. Cannot be verified. killer bee  09:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the first person to recommend AfD, I can attest to WP:NOTSTATS in addition to WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stars larger than any closer star is very similar, and could have been bundled with this one. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty cool. Whether this is OR/SYNTH is a bit fuzzy, but it is definitely pushing up against WP:CALC: Comparisons of statistics present particular difficulties. Editors should not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies. If not OR, might not pass NLIST but could possibly be merged. I wonder if it can be transwikied somewhere in Wikibooks. I might ask like to userfy to attempt that at some point. —siro χ o 18:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SYNTH. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of coverage in reliable sources as well as WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTSTATS. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the above reasons, and because it is dependent on the current accuracy of measurements. The more distant the component, the less likely the information is to be valid. Praemonitus (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because no sources have been cited, and is practically useless. Atlantlc27Lol (talk) 14:22, 16 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of stars larger than any closer star

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

No coverage in reliable sources and relies on WP:SYNTHESIS. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 09:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above. killer bee  09:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the first person to recommend AfD, I can attest to WP:NOTSTATS in addition to SYNTH. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stars more luminous than any closer star is very similar, and could have been bundled with this one. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have no idea what the criterion even means. And how is the Sun larger than any closer star? What star is closer? Taylor Swift? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By principle of vacuous truth, this statement is automatically true. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of coverage in reliable sources as well as WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTSTATS. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the above reasons, and because it is dependent on the current accuracy of measurements. The more distant the component, the less likely the information is to be valid. Praemonitus (talk) 17:02, 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. ✗plicit 09:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson Keland Management

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE. I didn't really see anything on Newspapers.com, just ad placements. Suggest merging any useful info. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Management, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 20 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!} 04:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BEFORE finds nothing that could support company-specific notability guidelines. I don't believe there's any info that needs to be merged to Samuel Curtis Johnson Jr. or Karen Johnson Boyd since this company is basically just their financial advisor. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:27, 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!} 06:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above. Not enough details for an article. killer bee  09:21, 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 merge‎ to Stanford University Graduate School of Education. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Berman Jewish Policy Archive

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

Redirect or merge into Stanford University Graduate School of Education. Fails WP:GNG and no WP:SIGVCOV about the archive per a WP:BEFORE Longhornsg (talk) 07:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Longhornsg (talk) 07:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Stanford University Graduate School of Education. killer bee  09:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Light merge to above target. There's a bit of promo and outdated information in the article that should not be merged. —siro χ o 10:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 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. ✗plicit 14:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mission 11 July

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

Only 1 reliable review from The Indian Express. Other sources are about the actress Nattasha Singh and glamsham.com is questionable. In my search, I found this, which adds nothing. Another reliable review can save this film. Else redirect to Nattasha Singh. DareshMohan (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t search hard but what about this?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+this. Film quoted here and in "The Shifting Terrains of Nationalism and Patriotism in Indian Cinemas" (article published here) (simple mentions but which indicates it's been noted as a film on terrorism and relates it to a more general trend, which the article can mention). Not a great source but the film has been called "a debacle of Bollywood debut" for Singh. All in all there seems to be enough in English only at least to expand the article, verify things, and attest some notability. For me it's a Keep.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The NewsBlaze plot summary (not a review) is functionally illiterate and clearly wasn't edited despite being on the main (Australian) NewsBlaze site. Master's theses are not reliable sources. Passing mentions do not contribute to notability in any capacity. JoelleJay (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No appreciable coverage in RS. The Indian Express piece is just 7 short sentences of mostly snark, which is hardly SIGCOV.

JoelleJay (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above. killer bee  09:24, 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) Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 17:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Danny Meadow Mouse

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

The article has remained unsourced since 2015. I have done a quick Google and Google Scholar search and haven't been able to find any reliable, secondary sources with significant coverage of the book. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 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!} 06:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- per wp:nbook clause 5: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is exceptionally significant, and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study." While this book in particular hasn't been the subject of much scholarly discourse, nevertheless Burgess is a significant American children's author and is the subject of academic study. All of his books are notable. Central and Adams (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with user Central and Adams. killer bee  09:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Wikisource, not only is the author significant, but Danny Meadow Mouse is the lead character in multiple works. — Maile (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments by Central and Adams and — Maile . --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:31, 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 redirect‎ to Jewish Federations of North America. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Berman Jewish DataBank

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

Redirect to Jewish Federations of North America, which maintains the database. Fails WP:GNG on its own. No WP:SIGCOV beyond passing mentions in RS. Longhornsg (talk) 06:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Longhornsg (talk) 06:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jewish Federations of North America. killer bee  09:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and WP:ATD-R. I added a mention at Jewish Federations of North America#Council of Jewish Federations, seeing as there was none in the article, so I recommend that as the target. StonyBrook _babble 12:43, 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 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, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gabardıç

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

Not notable. Aintabli (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Music, and Turkey. Aintabli (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No proper content in article. Not notable. killer bee  09:30, 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buccaneers–Dolphins rivalry

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

This is an interesting one. Some coverage definitely exists calling this a rivalry due to the regional proximity, but barring source #5 is mostly passing coverage in the context in the preseason, which is when most of the games between these teams have been played, or in the case of source 3 is WP:CRYSTAL. Per WP:NOPAGE, all the pertinent content here can be easily covered on the respective team articles. Let'srun (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and Florida. Let'srun (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. killer bee  09:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This clearly passes GNG. There is extensive coverage available. See just on newspapers.com: Florida Today 1991, Palm Beach Post 2003, Florida Today 2001, Tampa Tribune 1981, Tampa Tribune 1978, Sun Sentinel 1997, AP 1991, AP 1984, Miami News 1984, News-Press 1992, Poughkeepsie Journal 1976, Miami Herald 1984, among others; then online: Sun Sentinel 1986, Baltimore Sun 2000, etc. – in addition to what's already in the article. @K6bee9: BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you didn't read my deletion rationale. I am aware of the coverage but don't believe it rises to the WP:NRIVALRY. The coverage is mainly either routine game previews or is WP:CRYSTAL in the case of the 1970s articles. Let'srun (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NRIVALRY states that GNG is the only thing that matters; additionally, as far as I'm aware CRYSTAL applies to Wikipedia articles (e.g. me writing an article about someone who I think will be notable in ten years, but isn't yet), not to the sources themselves (but even if it did, the amount of 1970s sources it would discount is two). BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. What BeanieFan11 has posted is more than enough to satisfy notability. Conyo14 (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources presented by Beaniefan. While much of it is passing mentions and routine coverage, there is enough significant coverage to establish notability per GNG. Frank Anchor 00:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion and added sources for evidence of GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I get the feeling here that some people are forgetting WP:NOTINHERITED. The fact that the teams are notable doesn't make an alleged "rivalry" between them notable on its own, especially when most or all of the coverage is in-passing or is speculative. How many of the keep responses are actually based on "Regardless of the teams' notability, I have examined these sources and I am certain that several of them provide in-depth coverage of the rivalry as a thing unto itself" reasoning? I'm skeptical that it's any of them, but none of them cite specific sources as being in-depth. And its important to remember that just because a stand-along article could exist doesn't always mean that it should; it seems perfectly reasonable to me to summarize this material at the team articles, instead of devote an entire page to it with increasing amounts of fancruft over time. Anyway, I have not yet pored over all of these newspaper.com result in detail, so I'm in the neutral camp for now I suppose. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Personally, I don't see why coverage of other rivalries are okay, but this one isn't. -------User:DanTD (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Riswan

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

Falls under WP:BLP1E and notability cannot be proven. The reason for all of the news coverage is the current frenzy around him;his Instagram reel had over 350 million views. Thilsebatti (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Dance, and Football. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Will these WP:ANYBIO-(Freestyler)[28]] A champion in WFFA) and As such there are sources where the article is a WP:SPORTSPERSON pass, and Article as an Instagram record holder[29][30] WP:BLP1E notability policies be included to keep this article, if it passes I think the article should be kept. ----Owner of magical cat 🐈 (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since you wrote the article yourself, I would like to let you know that you are adhering to wrong notability guidelines. WP:ANYBIO states that the person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times; or the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field or the person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary. Being a champion of World Freestyle Football Association is not considered a major achievement. According to WP:SPORTSPERSON, a sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The subject is not even a professional footballer. Entire coverage is because of his one viral Instagram reel (WP:BLP1E). Thilsebatti (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entire article is based on a Instagram reel. Page is being used to show the record only. killer bee  09:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Instagram reel record a considerable WP:BLP1E notability potential ???--Owner of magical cat 🐈 (talk) 10:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Spworld2: You have wrong understanding about WP:BLP1E. It states that being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event and the person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Every single source is about his viral Instagram reel. You should also read Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. Thilsebatti (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article have a WP:BLP1E notability potential?? --Owner of magical cat 🐈 (talk) 10:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, almost all references are about his Instagram reels. Kkb091 (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this person a WP:BLP1E quantifier of owning individual reels views on Instagram(405+ millions)? --Owner of magical cat 🐈 (talk) 10:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry not on reels but reel. Kkb091 (talk) 18:47, 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Granny (2017 video game)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Most sources here are primary; others, except for Common Sense Media, are of questionable reliability. A WP:BEFORE search only yielded a Game Rant article, which is a Valnet content farm with also questionable reliability. There are no critic reviews on Metacritic. WritingAboutCreepypastas (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It simply does not seem notable. The only RS review appears to be Common Sense Media. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. killer bee  09:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a dearth of reliable sources and/or reviews. Steam and Google Play are not reliable sources. The Newsweek walkthrough is also not considered reliable according to WP:RSPS, and the Common Sense Media source doesn't even appear to be an actual review. The UsGamer source is thus the only reliable source with decent commentary, but it is a WP:GAMEGUIDE post and not one that provides critical commentary. I took a look at the notability essay WP:NVIDEOGAMES, and it said that notable games typically have significant and detailed critical commentary, which judging by the lack of reviews this game does not have. Another look at the WP:VGSE turned up nothing substantial either. The Night Watch (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:BEFORE, WP:RSPS, WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:NVIDEOGAMES, and WP:VGSE. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addie Walsh

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

This BLP relies upon a single source with many sections left unreferenced. I have completed a quick search for additional sources, though I couldn't find anything aside from IMDb and other unreliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:CREATIVE. Credited writer/head writer/etc for more than 1000 episodes of notable soap operas. Verifiable multiple-time winner of multiple well-known awards for multiple shows (WGA Award, Daytime Emmy) (eg [31][32][33]). —siroχo 09:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per reasoning above. Kazamzam (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No proper relevant sources. Is using only one reference. killer bee  09:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the lack of sources is not a reason for deletion (see Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process). Regardless, I have added in sources for some of the statements in the article. I have no comment on notability. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, DaffodilOcean! You're right that lack of sources on a page is not a cause for deletion in and of itself. However, if sources cannot be found, the subject of the article doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. As such, the subject would not require a Wikipedia page. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources exist to verify notability as defined by WP:CREATIVE. Rublamb (talk) 14:29, 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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hermoton

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

Offwiki request by Generalissima. Rationale to come. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 02:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, simply described as an ort ("location").

Macedonian imperialism and the Hellenization of the East (1924) names it as one of a number of locations Alexander marched through in his campaign in Mysia. An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis (2004, pg. 986) describes it as a frontier marker of Kyzikos. Could find no other descriptions, so it appears to be some sort of non-notable geographical feature. If it was a town, only its name has survived. Generalissima (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed. Completely non-notable ancient location.

TheBritinator (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On the assumption that either could be the correct name, and since the linked page is just an index to PW, I checked the actual entries for both "Hermaion" and "Hermoton", in alphabetical order. PW has somewhat more to say than "a location":

Place in Mysia minor, known for the race and outwitting of the Parians on the Propontis and the Lampsacenes on the Hellespont in their dispute over the border of the territories on both sides. The name probably means a border marker made of stones or hill earth. It was 70 stadia from Parium and 200 stadia from Lampsacus. Presumably Hermaion from R. Kiepert's Map of Asia Minor B. 1, 13.5 km south of the ruins of Parium, 39 km southeast of Lampsacus, near Karajaly on the Karapunar (Black Fountain) Dan. It is very likely that Hermaion was called Hermoton in later times.

The article cites to Polyaenus for the race and outwitting of the Parians, and to Arrian for Hermoton. Here's what Polyaenus has to say in Strategemata, vi. 24:

The Lampsacenians and the Parians, who had a dispute about the boundaries of their respective territories, agreed each to dispatch a certain number of persons from one city to the other at an early hour of the morning; and wherever the two groups met, that spot should be the common boundary between their territories. The Lampsacenians persuaded the fishermen, who were employed along the road where the Parians were due to travel, to cook some fish on that morning, and make libations of wine, as a sacrifice to Poseidon; and then they should ask the Parians, as they passed by, to share with them in the sacrifice, in honour of the god. The Parians agreed, but one mouthful of fish, and one glass of wine, induced them to take a second, and so on; until so much time was lost, that the Lampsacenians arrived first at the Hermaeum, which is seventy stades from Parium, and two hundred from Lampsacus. By this trick, the Lampsacenians gained a large territory from the Parians, and the Hermaeum was established as the boundary between the two states.

Under "Hermoton", PW has this to say, citing Arrian's Anabasis of Alexander, i. 12. 6:

Place (small river, see Hermotus) in Mysia minor, station of Alexander's train from 334 BC. BC, between Colonae and the Granicus, probably the same as the Hermaion in Mysia minor.

And checking Arrian, there's not much to add, apart from Alexander sending out scouting parties ahead of the army, which are described in some detail, although whether this should fall under the heading of Hermoton or is simply adjacent to its mention is unclear. For transparency, I used Google Translate on both articles, then edited them for spelling and grammar in English; I also omitted some internal citations and technical abbreviations.

Neither of these sources expressly state that Hermaion or Hermoton was a town, although one might infer that from the way that it's mentioned in Arrian. The Barrington Atlas evidently regards it as a village or town. But irrespective of whether it was a permanently settled place, it does appear to have some significance of its own that wouldn't be fully covered under say, Parium or Lampsacus, to say nothing of Alexander. Certainly there's enough for a short article, just as there is in PW—where it's actually split between two articles.

I'm not aware of any policy that says that the subjects of Wikipedia articles must be more notable than those in other encyclopedias; as our space is practically unlimited and we have the potential to combine material from different sources—such as what Polyaenus and Arrian actually had to say, how the Barrington Atlas or other archaeological resources regard the place, etc. we should presumably have a lower bar for inclusion, not a higher one. An assertion of non-notability despite the above articles, and particularly the mention in Polyaenus, seems arbitrary to me, and contradicts the plain statement in our policy that notability is not temporary; locations that had some notability in the Greek world do not become non-notable because they have no importance to the modern world, or because our information about them is limited to what a few surviving passages in Greek writers have to say, and what can be inferred from them. P Aculeius (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentioned alongside another 'small town' called either 'Priamus' or 'Priapus' in several bios of Alexander (see 1, 2, and others). I agree with P Aculeius that the two entries in the Pauly-Wissowa (a first-rate specialist encyclopaedia) are evidence that this topic has encyclopaedic value. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no information of any value. killer bee  05:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Geography, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on discussion above, seems to meet WP:GNG and possibly the first criterion of WP:POPULATED but that's harder to establish. Being included in a respected specialist encyclopedia is also a good inclusive criteria considering WP:5. And I'll also echo P Aculeius's implicit reference of WP:NOTPAPER. —siro χ o 10:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've expanded it a bit using the material I cited above. I thought about quoting it, but that's a Google Translate version of the text from PW and Polyaenus, edited a little by me for clarity—so I figured it'd be easier to summarize than trying to figure out how to cite as a translation. I didn't include all of the details, including the map citation, which mentions several locations I'm not sure whether to identify with the more recent geographical references. So there could be more material here—including whether the river mentioned with the map under "Hermaion" is the same as the Hermotus mentioned in PW. P Aculeius (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also the article should probably be moved to "Hermaion", with redirects from "Hermoton" and "Hermaeum". But that can wait until after this discussion is closed. P Aculeius (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources identified. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 20:45, 14 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 05:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Specdo

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has previously been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Specdo). At present, notability guidelines likely have not been met given that the sources seem to be primary. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article feels rather promotional and the sourcing is fairly poor; sources used in the article seem to be literally the only sources that exist on him. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 14:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion due to previous AfDs
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No variety in sources. I agree with user Darling about the article being promotional only. killer bee  05:19, 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 merge‎ to Godzilla vs. Destoroyah. ✗plicit 06:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Destoroyah

AfDs for this article:

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

Kaiju antagonist from one of many Godzilla movies. Seems to fail GNG. My BEFORE shows only passing mentions, and article's reception is cobbled from a few mentions in passing (from film reviews) and one listicle. So WP:SIGCOV is not met. WP:ATD-R easy solution is to redirect this to Godzilla vs. Destoroyah. PS. Note this was already redirected in this fashion in 2014 after the first AfD. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Godzilla_vs._Destoroyah. Since the page does not have enough content and is more related to the movie, i propose merging with Godzilla_vs._Destoroyah killer bee  05:30, 11 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, Film, and Japan. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Godzilla vs. Destoroyah. When it was recreated, no effort was made to demonstrate SIGCOV. It's still in the same FANDOM-style state and better discussed in the main article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per those above. BD2412 T 19:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:55, 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. ✗plicit 03:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malawi–Poland relations

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

This article is based on 1 interaction between the countries of Poland providing medical aid. The relations lacks things that typically contribute to bilateral relations such as state visits, embassies, significant trade and migration. LibStar (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Poland. LibStar (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two passing mentions means this fails WP:SIGCOV. I doubt this content is valuable enough to be merged somewhere, but if anyone has an idea for ATD, go head, and ping me and I'll revise my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per user Piotrus. killer bee  05:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The trend to build a standalone article for every combination of two nations, no matter how insignificant their connexion may be, is a bit out of hand. The source presented are WP:PRIMARY, and I can find no scholarly treatment of this relationship nor mentions in reputable journals. There is no info particularly worth merging and, more importantly, nowhere to merge such info. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:58, 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. ✗plicit 03:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal–Poland relations

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

These relations lack items that contribute to notability like significant trade, migration, state visits and embassies. The only thing of note is Polish assistance during the 2015 earthquake, which could be covered in April_2015_Nepal_earthquake#Rescue_and_relief. LibStar (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Nepal, and Poland. LibStar (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed. Poland occasional aid to Nepal (maybe we can find few more examples) is not enough to warrant keeping this article. Ping me if better sources are found (I doubt it). The information about that particular incident is already present in April 2015 Nepal earthquake so there's no need for merge or redirect. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not relevant article. killer bee  05:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Another example of the trend to build a standalone article for every combination of two nations, no matter how insignificant their connexion may be. The sources presented are either WP:PRIMARY (Nepalese or Polish government press releases or statements) or casual mentions that do nothing to denote notability (ref 1, for instance). I can find no scholarly treatment of this relationship nor mentions in reputable journals. There is no info particularly worth merging. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:02, 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amy S. Thompson

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

Taking this to AfD because Speedy deletion was denied under "5C," but the individual has not obtained distinguished professorship. I don't see notability, but hoping those more academically inclined can determine if this is up to standards

Subject seems to be an ordinary professor by the looks of this article, and I do not see anything that demonstrates WP:GNG, and not sure references fall under WP:SIGCOV.

I can't seem to make out how this individual is more notable than any other professor. (Also seems she participated in something but did not win) Cray04 (talk) 02:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cray04 (talk) 02:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some coverage in Gnews where this person was interviewed when the university was cutting language studies, but nothing notable. I don't see notability with what's given in the article either. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is a bad nomination: the nominator has apparently been told that "Woodburn Professor of Applied Linguistics" at West Virginia University is the type of named professorship at a research university that passes WP:PROF#C5, but has failed to understand what they were told and has repeated only a garbled version of that in the nomination. Looking more carefully, though, the Woodburn Professorship is not a "one step beyond full professor" level of distinction, but rather something that is typically given to "mid-career" associate professors [34], so it probably doesn't pass #C5. That all said, I think the subject also has enough well-cited works to make a plausible case for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There are also seem to be three reviews of The Role of Context in Language Teachers’ Self Development and Motivation [35][36][37]. Not enough for WP:AUTHOR on its own, but certainly contributing to the broader notability that David Eppstein has suggested. —siro χ o 03:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. My findings are similar to David Eppstein's, but I would add that she was hired as head of department and subsequently appointed to an additional, higher-level administrative position, which offsets the breadth of the Woodburn professorships. I've done some polishing of the article to make notability clearer, and initially edit conflicted with the article creator, Vycl1994, making some of the same improvements. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on reasonable GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep Above discussions are reasonable. killer bee  05:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment normally I'd expect a claim of a professorship to be supported by at least a direct mention on an institutional website. In this case, the current Woodburn professor appears to be someone quite different[38], while the source supporting Thompson's holding the post (since 2018) is her own 31-page CV available as a pdf from the currently cited source[39], the main web-page curiously not mentioning her professorship. I think other editors are correct that this professorship is a red herring anyway for notability. But is there any limit to our trust of academics, or do we believe the claims they put in their CVs without further verification? Elemimele (talk) 11:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- 5 links to a different department within the same university. The source found by David Eppstein indicates that multiple Woodburn Professorships can be awarded throughout different departments. See [40], and the Inside Higher Ed source that indicates Thompson holds her named professorship as of 2023. Vycl1994 (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the general question, I believe we have usually accepted CVs hosted by the university/department website, at least for reputable universities, though if reasonably challenged of course further verification becomes required. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Her Woodburn professor title is noted on the website of her department of which she is the chair here. These websites are usually not managed by a central unit at the university, and each office's website at college level is maintained/updated by their respective staff/admins.

Thompson has a role in the dean's office in addition to her chair role. Her dean's office page was updated today. Her Woodburn Professor title is reflected in her bio here. Oztanmeh (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Eight papers >100 citations plus multiple book reviews is enough for me. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – Article fairly passes the mentioned policies, even has a Scholar profile. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 05:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than 5 papers with 100+ citations makes her eminently notable. This is a very poor nomination and deserves a salmon out the freezer and slapped across the kipper with it. Very poor. scope_creep^Talk 10:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable per sources available. Metroick (talk) 05:25, 15 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 Karsilamas. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Entarisi ala benziyor

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Aintabli (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Dance, Music, Albania, Armenia, Greece, and Turkey. Aintabli (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Karsilamas. The article doesn't need to have a separate page. Since it is mentioned that it is a form of Karsilamas, I propose the article be merged. killer bee  05:38, 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 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 03:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aise

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

Not notable. Largely unsourced. Problems date back to well more than a decade ago. Aintabli (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Music, Greece, and Turkey. Aintabli (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough as per user Aintabli. Lacks references as well. killer bee  07:45, 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 United Synagogue Youth. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. The redirect target may be further discussed at WP:RFD, if needed. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kadima (youth group)

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

Redirect to parent organization United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. Fails WP:NORG. Longhornsg (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to its immediate parent organization, United Synagogue Youth. From what I can find, Kadima has recently changed its name to USY Gesher. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
USY and Kadima/Gesher are separate organizations under USCJ, per their website. Plus the USY page should also be merged/redirected to USCJ, but that's for antoher day.Longhornsg (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with United_Synagogue_of_Conservative_Judaism. Since this group seems to be affiliated with United_Synagogue_of_Conservative_Judaism, it would be better if the article is merged. killer bee  05:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United Synagogue Youth since that is where there is a mention. Per WP:ATD-R, this unnotable org will be nigh impossible to source, especially with all the Kadima false positives. No need to merge since there is nothing worthwhile to be kept that is not there already. StonyBrook _babble 20:14, 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. ✗plicit 01:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duel at the Diamond

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

Besides some passing mentions showing that there are some games between these teams with this name, there isn't any WP:SIGCOV about this to meet the WP:NRIVALRY. Let'srun (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Baseball, and Virginia. Let'srun (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are other instances of these games like the Apple Cup, Platypus Trophy, along with many, many others. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: With all due respect, WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST applies here. Those subjects are clearly notable, but this one has to stand on its own merits. Sports rivalries aren't inherently notable. Let'srun (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per user Let'srun. killer bee  05:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nom. The only keep vote is just WP:OSE, and doesn't actually demonstrate that this article passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:17, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bahçevan

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

The song is not notable. The sources are non-RS. Aintabli (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, Israel, Armenia, and Turkey. Aintabli (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. killer bee  05:48, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harkuşta

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

Same dance as Yarkhushta. Could be merged, but there isn't much to add to the other page, and the sources here aren't the best. Aintabli (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Armenia and Turkey. Aintabli (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per user Aintabli. killer bee  05:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Rosendorff

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

Marked for notability concerns since 2011. I find no evidence of multiple significant roles to meet WP:NACTOR. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is all the coverage I could find [41]. delete for lack of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough and relevant information in the article. Not notable enough. killer bee  05:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sport in Manawatū

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

Article does not prove that this is a notable topic. —Panamitsu (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: reads like a tourism brochure, and lacks sources. Owen× ☎ 01:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with users Wcquidditch & Panamitsu. Not properly sourced. killer bee  05:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like an essay. WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 09:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of the sections except one do not have a reliable source at all. This article clearly falls short of WP:VERIFY. ST7733B (talk) 09:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This ticks a few boxes of WP:NOT (WP:NOTDIRECTORY as something like a yellow pages minus the phone numbers, WP:NOTGUIDE as something of a hobbyist regional travel guide, etc). Even if the subject is notable, this article does not seem like a starting point for an article though I could be proven wrong. Since it's something of a list, if anyone wants to save for development purposes, I support userfy as well. —siro χ o 09:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per all above. Svartner (talk) 03:05, 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!} 00:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Credit Insurance & Surety Association

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

Lacks refs to establish notablility. Tagged for over 10 years - Altenmann >talk 00:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tiny organization. Seems confused about the "Netherlands". gidonb (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks proper sources. Is sourced from their own website. killer bee  06:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious WP:ADVERT and likely not WP:NCORP passing. Graywalls (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a WP:BROCHURE. —siro χ o 10:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sources to support the notability of the organization. See here. The reports published by ICISA are considered relevant, see here and here. True, the article as it stands is promotional, not encyclopedic, etc. But the organization is notable.

Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not properly sourced with reliable independent of the subject sources. In its current form, it resembles a brochure, as someone previously noted. --BoraVoro (talk) 10:03, 14 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!} 00:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Saunders (rugby union)

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or sng. References were all data/database types except this one https://tiebreakertimes.com.ph/tbt/ben-saunders-set-for-ntt-docomo-osaka-return-in-rugby-league-one/229244 which was a few paragraphs on when he has played. North8000 (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, Japan, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Coverage that I can find seems to be limited, however he has had a considerable career, the majority of which in Japan, where sources are more difficult to find due to the language issue and them being offline, so there may well be more coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:55, 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!} 00:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why Men Marry Bitches

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

After looking for sources to support this article for a book, I was able to find one review in Publishers Weekly, which is good. However, I only found one other review, which was from a questionable source. The author did go on the Today Show to discuss the book, but I think that has more to do with the first book, Why Men Love Bitches, than the notability of this book. I feel like notability of this book is on the line. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the book received fairly wide coverage in the news. I've added a couple of refs to the article, but there are probably better ones available. Owen× ☎ 01:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OwenX: I appreciate the support in improving the article. However, one of the sources provided does not discuss the book at all (only its predecessor) and I could argue that the other source doesn't provide significant coverage of the book. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The longer version of the Sunday times article referneces the second book as well. 2603:8001:6E00:293C:B890:4827:F6C4:C286 (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEPCurrently both books are charting on Apple ibooks bestsellers. See: https://books.apple.com/us/charts/nonfiction/9002. According to Simon and schuster, the book sold 1 million copies and is also a NYT bestseller. 2603:8001:6E00:293C:B890:4827:F6C4:C286 (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Sherry Argov~~ Right now we have one review and absolutely nothing about the content of the book itself. Nate • (chatter) 01:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See: https://books.apple.com/us/charts/nonfiction/9002 and please click on the "see all" link on the upper right side to expand the list. I share this not only for the two books being discussed, but the notability of the books that are on the same list (all of them have independent Wikipedia pages). 2603:8001:6E00:293C:B890:4827:F6C4:C286 (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't source any book to an e-commerce site; that's pretty much one of the top rules regarding sourcing. You can't be that obtuse, truly. Nate • (chatter) 03:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to keep as it took a bit, but a basic and supported summary not based on publisher/bookseller copy has been added, addressing my concern. Nate • (chatter) 22:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Yahoo UK has this article [42] and this in Bustle (which isn't the most reliable source, but this seems fine) [43], should be at notability. Also some discussion (brief) in Brazil about the book [44]. Oaktree b (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tiktokers-send-self-help-book-for-bitches-into-charts-after-20-years-jpjhkgmdt
https://www.newsweek.com/book-tiktok-why-men-love-1568446
https://www.today.com/video/why-men-marry-strong-women-460352067547
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/relationships/love-sex/why-men-love-bitches/articleshow/6127860.cms
https://www.bustle.com/articles/21737-do-men-really-love-bitches-depends-on-your-definition-of-the-word
https://www.bustle.com/entertainment/why-men-love-bitches-trend-gen-z-tiktok
https://www.newsweek.com/book-tiktok-why-men-love-1568446
https://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/opinion/you/why-bad-girls-score-good/articleshow/21843606.cms
https://newsghana.com.gh/why-men-love-bitches/
https://www.sololibri.net/Il-viaggio-Luigi-Pirandello-novella-analisi-commento.html
https://www.elimparcial.com/tijuana/tijuana/Por-que-los-hombres-aman-a-las-cabronas-llegara-a-Tijuana--y-Mexicali-20211111-0013.html
https://www.cultura.gob.mx/estados/actividades_detalle.php?id=105333
https://www.elsoldepuebla.com.mx/gossip/omg/aracely-arambula-david-zepeda-y-anastasia-rompen-tabus-con-un-trio-en-puebla-4764319.html
https://www.bookey.app/book/why-men-marry-bitches 2603:8001:6E00:293C:B890:4827:F6C4:C286 (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The Times UK: "TikTokers send self-help book for ‘bitches’ into charts after 20 years": Subscription, unable to find "marry" in preview, but may exist.
- Today Show: "Why men marry strong women": Primary source: Interview with the author on Today
- The Times of India: Why men love 'bitches': Reprint of the article in the Bangalore Mirror (shared below)
- Bustle: Do Men Love Bitches?: One sentence that mentions the book: "Argov, who also wrote the follow-up Why Men Marry Bitches defines a bitch as a woman who is confident, secure, and independent."
- Bustle: The Second Coming Of Why Men Love Bitches: One sentence that mentions the book: "WMLB and its 2006 sequel, Why Men Marry Bitches, first went viral on BookTok in 2021"
- Newsweek: The Author of 2002's 'Why Men Love Bi**hes' Is Heartwarmed By All the TikTok Attention: One sentence that mentions the book: "Why Men Love Bi**hes: From Doormat to Dreamgirl—A Woman's Guide to Holding Her Own in a Relationship and its 2016 year follow-up, Why Men Marry Bi**hes: A Woman's Guide to Winning Her Man's Heart, were bestsellers not long after their original releases and have sold consistently since"
- Bangalore Mirror: Why bad girls score good: Provides an overview of the two book's key ideas
- News Ghana: Why Men Loves Bitches: Reprint of the article in the Bangalore Mirror
- SoloLibri.net: “Il viaggio”: la novella femminista di Luigi Pirandello (in Italian): Review that's not about any work by Shelly Argov
- El Imparcial: 'Por qué los hombres aman a las cabronas' llegará a Tijuana y Mexicali (in Spanish): Article about the play Why Men Love Bitches; doesn't mention Why Men Marry Bitches
- Government of Mexico, Culture" Porqué los hombres aman a las cabronas (in Spanish): Routine coverage about the play Why Men Love Bitches; doesn't mention Why Men Marry Bitches
- El Sol de Puebla: Aracely Arámbula, David Zepeda y Anastasia rompen tabús con un trío en Puebla: Article about the play Why Men Love Bitches; doesn't mention Why Men Marry Bitches
- Bookey App: Why Men Marry Bitches Summary And Review: Maybe useful? Provides a summary of the book with some commentary on it.
Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Sexuality and gender, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sherry_Argov. killer bee  09:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NBOOK (and GNG). There are also reviews in Library Journal [45], Maclean's [46], Tuscon Citizen [47] —siroχo 09:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above. The second book was featured on the Today Show two times (see caption: "Al Roker talks with Sherry Argov about her new book Why Men Marry Bitches"). The websites I was able to find about the second book only are: Publisher's Weekly, Tuscon Citizen, Macleans, Library Journal, Sydney Morning Herald, Daily Nation (Africa), Periodicos (Brazil), Panorama (Italy), Domashniy (Russia), Siechnice (Poland) Kobieta (Poland), Babinet (Czech). The ones that review or reference her first and second book: Times U.K., Sunday Times U.K., The Times India, Mumbai Mirror, Newsweek, Bustle.

https://www.today.com/video/why-men-marry-strong-women-460352067547

https://www.today.com/health/want-man-propose-5-relationship-principles-keep-mind-t74256

https://nation.africa/kenya/life-and-style/saturday-magazine/bookiscape-book-club--3442714

https://www.panorama.it/cultura/3-libri-riconoscere-stronzo-stronza

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why-men-love-bitches-the-retro-relationship-bible-that-gen-z-cant-get-enough-of-w5cftc0r5

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/relationships/love-sex/why-men-love-bitches/articleshow/6127860.cms

https://babinet.cz/clanek-2569-knizka-proc-si-muzi-berou-potvory-a-hodne-holky-zustanou-na-ocet.html

https://www.newsweek.com/book-tiktok-why-men-love-1568446 both books

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/10-things-i-learnt-about-men-this-summer-20120116-1q35y.html

http://periodicos.uesc.br/index.php/eidea/article/view/397

https://kobieta.interia.pl/uczucia/news-dziesiec-dowodow-na-to-ze-marnujesz-z-nim-swoj-cenny-czas,nId,2403573

https://siechnice.com.pl/news/prezenty-walentynkowe-on-line-ostatnia-chwila
https://domashniy.ru/svadba/sterva_vyhodit_zamuzh_20_principov_otnoshenij 69.122.188.214 (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The goal of this discussion is to determine whether the book meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for books. As such, we are looking for reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of the book. Here's an analysis of the sources you provided:
Today Show: Why men marry strong women: Interviews with the author are not independent and thus, don't count toward notability

Today Show: Want a man to propose? 5 relationship principles to keep in mind: An excerpt from the book is not independent from the source and thus, doesn't count toward notability

Nation: Bookiscape Book Club: Provides one paragraph discussing a book club response to the book. This does not provide significant coverage and thus, doesn't count toward notability.

Panorama: 3 libri per riconoscere 'lo stronzo' (ma anche 'la stronza') che hai di fronte (in Italian): I'd say this is questionable. It provides a multi-paragraph summary of the text.

The Times: Why Men Love Bitches: the retro relationship bible that Gen Z can't get enough of: Again, this article is based on subscription, so I can't tell if it actually mentions this book, but I'll AGF. However, based on the description, it seems to be written from an interview with the author, which may mean it's not independent.

The Times of India: Why men love 'bitches': Provides a summary of key points discussed in the text, though it's unclear whether the article is about this book or Why Men Love Bitches.

Babinet: Knížka: Proč si muži berou potvory a hodné holky zůstanou na ocet (in Czech): This source provides a review of the book. It has significant coverage and is independent. Because I'm not familiar with Czech or Czech sources, I can't determine the reliability of this source.

Newsweek: The Author of 2002's 'Why Men Love Bi**hes' Is Heartwarmed By All the TikTok Attention: This source still doesn't provide significant coverage about this book (see my earlier comment).

The Sydney Morning Herald: 10 things I learnt about men this summer: This source doesn't provide significant coverage of the book.

EID&A: A dicotomia razão e emoção na obra Por que os homens se casam com as mulheres poderosas? Uma breve análise do tratamento dado às emoções femininas (in Portuguese): This source was provided earlier and is currently listed on the article. It's a good source, though.

Kobieta: Dziesięć dowodów na to, że marnujesz z nim swój cenny czas (in Polish): Provides an excerpt of the book, which doesn't count as independent.

siechnice.com.pl: Prezenty walentynkowe - ostatnia chwila! (in Polish): This source doesn't mention Argov at all...

Стерва выходит замуж: 20 принципов отношений (in Russian): This provides a quick overview of the first 20 principles, which I would argue (again) doesn't count toward establishing notability.
If you disagree with any of my reasoning, please feel free to reply.

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A lot of sources provided here do not actually support notability, as Significa liberdade very helpfully outlines. However, WP:NBOOK only requires two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include ... reviews. I'm happy to take Library Journal [48] and Maclean's [49] as the two independent, non-trivial reviews. In future I advise the IP editor(s) here to focus more on policy and quality, rather than quantity: all these interviews, excerpts, and TV appearances are a distraction. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: certainly enough to support having an article. whether its better for readers to have one article discussing the books and the author is a separate inquiry.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets WP:NBOOK and the WP:GNG. User:Let'srun 15:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Guyana women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makayla Rudder

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

Redirect to List of Guyana women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches was coverage from non-independent sources or passing mentions, such as those already present in the article. JTtheOG (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Canada, Caribbean, and South America. JTtheOG (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Guyana women's international footballers. Not notable enough. killer bee  09:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:15, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Uzbek Women's Football Championship

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

Reviewed during NPP. This is basically a "stats only" article with no sources covering the topic of the article in depth. So, no indication of wp:notability under GNG or the SNG. Regarding the subject of the article, the prose contains merely a statement of it's existence and what it is and the n remainder is stats-only covering who won it. In trying to do my NPP job properly, I can find no evidence of wP:Notability under GNG or the SNG. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Uzbekistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. killer bee  09:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – Supposedly it is the most important women's football competition in the country. Women's football is certainly less notable, but I don't think it's a case of exclusion. Svartner (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being the top event of the country doesn't mean it passes WP:GNG, which is needed for this article to be kept. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:11, 15 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 Armenia women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ani Karapetyan

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

Redirect to List of Armenia women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. No indication of notability. JTtheOG (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Armenia. JTtheOG (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. killer bee  09:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:15, 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 merge‎ to Latvian–Estonian Basketball League. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Latvian–Estonian Basketball League All-Final Four Team

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

Reviewed during NPP. This is basically a "stats only" article with no sources covering the topic of the article in depth. So, no indication of wp:notability under GNG or the SNG. Regarding the subject of the article, the prose contains merely a statement of it's existence and what it is and the n remainder is stats-only covering who won it. In trying to do my NPP job properly, I can find no evidence of wP:Notability under GNG or the SNG. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball, Estonia, and Latvia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. killer bee  09:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Latvian–Estonian Basketball League as NOPAGE. —siro χ o 09:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Latvian–Estonian Basketball League. Svartner (talk) 03:09, 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 List of Democratic Republic of the Congo women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Natacha Boyengwa

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

Redirect to List of Democratic Republic of the Congo women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. JTtheOG (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Democratic Republic of the Congo women's international footballers. killer bee  09:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above as WP:ATD —siro χ o 09:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Democratic Republic of the Congo women's international footballers: Currently doesn't warrant a standalone page. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Democratic Republic of the Congo women's international footballers. If they become notable later then restoring the page isn't a big deal. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:42, 15 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.