Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 02	December 04 >

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 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Phoenix Economic Council

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

Tagged as COI for 15 years. Wikipedia is not a permanent webhost for COI content. BD2412 T 22:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 22:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Economics, and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy keep~~ with WP:NPASR. No valid deletion rationale has been offered, nor has evidence of a WP:BEFORE been provided. There is no reason provided why any COI that may be present cannot be addressed editorially. The WP:WEBHOST policy primarily applies to userspace and is thus not a rationale for deletion, and WP:COIEDIT is not a reason for deletion since such edits are not prohibited (just strongly discouraged). I would encourage the nominator to renominate with a valid rationale and evidence of a BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971, since this wasn't SK'd, do you have any further thoughts? -- asilvering (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as how a speedy is now mooted, I'll withdraw the !vote, but I'm not able to endorse deletion without evidence of WP:BEFORE or a valid rationale. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It's not a policy but I'll note that COI does not appear on Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:No original research. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Article is cited entirely to primary sources.4meter4 (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Hallmark Cards#Subsidiaries and assets. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hallmark Business Connections

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

Tagged as COI for 15 years. Wikipedia is not a permanent webhost for COI content. BD2412 T 22:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 22:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hallmark Cards#Subsidiaries and assets (this could probably have been boldly attempted) -- run of the mill coverage that does not rise to separately meet WP:NCORP requirements individually from its former parent. I have updated the proposed target - this is no longer part of Hallmark, but the current parent InComm does not have an article ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect and protect against recreation. Spammers got away for too long. Bearian (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heintzman House

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

Tagged as COI for 15 years. Wikipedia is not a permanent webhost for COI content. BD2412 T 22:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 22:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a publicly-owned heritage-listed building (so COI is less of an issue, though the city council heritage listing is probably generally insufficient) that has been briefly used as local government offices[1], and was most-visited site during the city's 2019 "Doors Open" program[2]. WP:NBUILD applies -- here's what looks to be the total visible local newspaper coverage [3], which is not overwhelming, but looks to have enough to be able to use for sourcing. I believe that there would almost certainly have been more coverage during the 1960s (when it was acquired by the council due to community pressure) and from the 1980s (when it was heritage listed) -- though the heritage notice is fairly cursory[4]. List of historic buildings in Markham, Ontario does not have the capacity currently to capture a potted history. I'm at a "don't delete", and leaning keep (but trim away) over a weighty merge somewhere (if a suitable target and candidate text is provided). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep with WP:NPASR. No valid deletion rationale has been offered, nor has evidence of a WP:BEFORE been provided. There is no reason provided why any COI that may be present cannot be addressed editorially. The WP:WEBHOST policy primarily applies to userspace and is thus not a rationale for deletion, and WP:COIEDIT is not a reason for deletion since such edits are not prohibited (just strongly discouraged). I would encourage the nominator to renominate with a valid rationale and evidence of a BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It's not a policy but I'll note that COI does not appear on Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are a series of heritage documents and the official listing here [5]. Oaktree b (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of coverage in books. This in particular is from the local heritage society [6], these also help: [7], [8], [9]. Oaktree b (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's apparently haunted [10], if that helps coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohawk Warrior

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

This doesn't appear to meet WP:N, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Other than warriors from the Mohawk nation, there is no coverage of a monster truck. Not sure how we're supposed to evaluate sources in the article when there are none... ah the wild west early days of wikipedia. Sources, we don't need no stinkin sources (google it kids, it's a good movie). Oaktree b (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see a bunch of potential sources...
Articles mentioning driver Bryce Kenny:1 2 3
Articles mentioning driver George Balhan: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
other small mentions: 1 2 3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainsage (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would nice to get a review of these new sources to see if they are more than passing mentions or can help establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sources mentioned in the keep are about the drivers and not the car. this is pure "mentioned in passing" and the car not receiving coverage or being notable in itself. Did not find reliable sources after a brief search. tag me when you find something please

FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Weightlifting at the 1988 Summer Olympics – Men's 56 kg. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Arnou

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

Nothing in google news (which is unusual for an Olympian), 2 one-line mentions in google books. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and France. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Weightlifting at the 1988 Summer Olympics – Men's 56 kg. I couldn't find sources which go in depth enough to pass WP:GNG. Olympics.com has his results and as he didn't finish in 1992 and came 9th in 1988, his event at the 1988 games could be a suitable WP:ATD. Suonii180 (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Division of City Schools – Manila

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

None of the refs provide WP:SIGCOV or surpass WP:GNG. For example, this is not even a passing mention. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is more like a board of regents (such as in California or New York) than a school board. It’s likely not to have a lot of coverage under its English name. Can we please hold this open while I do more research? Bearian (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was just nominated so I guess you can have time as in most newly-created AFDs.

As for this, it's actually more of a government office. School boards as they exist in the USA do not exist in the Philippines. It's not a board of regents, as per my understanding, that's more of a body in a specific school than a specific place. Public schools are managed by the Department of Education (DepEd) in a nationwide basis, and DepEd offices are not elected locally. (It's kinda like the Department of Justice handling prosecutorial services than local governments doing it.) Howard the Duck (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I did find some hits on Google news, but arguably they are routine coverage. Bearian (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Howard the Duck, why did you think this article about a government agency needed to be completely deleted, instead of just merging or redirecting it to the parent agency? WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are more than 200 offices like this. These are not plausible search items and most usually, a list of schools is already in the article about a specific place (except Metro Manila ones). Also redirecting it can be ambiguous: for this article, do you redirect to Department of Education (Philippines) or to Manila? Or create 200+ dab pages? Howard the Duck (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ and none appears likely to emerge here. Star Mississippi 03:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erez Da Drezner

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

I don't find any encyclopedic importance for this article, which telling about an anonymous deaf Israel person which haven't any significant things. He even haven't an article in the Hebrew Wikipedia. זור987 (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added standard information for an AfD nomination at the top TSventon (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article meets the WP:NMODEL #1 and #2 criteria. The article describes visits of Da Drezner in two different hospitals in Ukraine, and describes his other deeds.

The article also was written in February 5, 2021 and has not been nominated for deletion until today. --_Dgw|Talk 15:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles can be nominated for deletion at any point that they are live on the main space. We see articles created in 2005 that are brought to AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm on the fence a bit about this as the references are stocked full of non-reliable sources like Youtube and random blogspot domains. With that being said there's the kernel of a possibility that Da Dresner's work in Ukraine might reach the minimum bar for notability... except for WP:BLP1E. If his notability could be shown to extend to his TV work, other advocacy work or really anything other than one trip to Ukraine I might be persuaded. However the sources presently available in the article do not do this and I did not find anything really missing on a google search. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sixth place on a TV show and some charitable works after, but I don't really see notability. Sourcing is scant, i can only pull up articles about the trip to Ukraine. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Big Brother (Israeli TV series) season 2#Housemates as an ATD, and a WP:TROUT for trying to argue non-notability in another project simply because an article for the subject hasn't been created on he.wiki. Also calling someone 'an anonymous...deaf person' is cruel and should never be a part of a rationale. Nate • (chatter) 20:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As things are going in ANI, there are enough evidences that this AfD has not been done in a good faith. I suggest to hold the Afd until archiving the discussion in ANI. If the article has to be deleted, please move it to User:Dorian Gray Wild/Erez Da Drezner until there is an additional activity of Da Drezner. _Dgw|Talk 07:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you changing your !vote to draftifying the article? You understand that would mean deleting the article after the draft is taken? Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not change my vote. The user who made this AfD has been one-way banned from any articles which I edited. If in the end of this discussion, the admin will decide to delete this article, calculating my "keep" vote and the one-way-ban which the user got, I ask the admin to move the article to my user space instead of deleting it. _Dgw|Talk 16:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, my misunderstanding. However it wouldn't be nrormal to cancel an in-progress AfD just because the filer is under an i-ban put in place after filing. Three people who are not the filer have already provided feedback that should be considered without prejudice. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG already cited in the article.4meter4 (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you 4meter4. I have added a lot of sources. _Dgw|Talk 19:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As there appear to be some extenuating circumstances here, this discussion would benefit from input from previously uninvolved users.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sorry to prolong this discussion but I don't see a consensus. Maybe a source review would help. At worst, it looks like this article will be userfied.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - the article passes WP:GNG, but there are too many primary sources cited. I would recommend a major cleanup to make it more encyclopaedic.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Berbir

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

I removed unreliable sources from this article, leaving it uncited. Neither this event, the suburb of Bosanska Gradiska it apparently occurred in, the Croatian unit that apparently participated, or the operation name are mentioned in the comprehensive two-volume CIA history of the 90s wars in the Balkans. A Google Books search found nothing about this fighting either. A non-notable firefight (if it happened at all). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Yet another non-RS page by the same creator. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Intothat darkness 14:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Falangist Party of Germany

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

Possible hoax. Lack of reliable sources for article. GnocchiFan (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is an accidental hoax. This "party" did not exist in reality, but only had a website where it claimed to have registered - Belltower.News states that such organization did not exist outside of its website. So, regrettably, it ought to be deleted. Brat Forelli🦊 17:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Aranmula#Temples. asilvering (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aranmula Kottaram

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

Contested draft. Poorly sourced, and a WP:BEFORE search turns up little. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and India. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone able to tell if this is a duplicate of Aranmula Vadake Kottaram (Northern Palace)? Turtlecrown (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Turtlecrown It certainly seems like that. I've redirected, in part to see what happens. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that there is an existing draft at Draft:Aranmula Kottaram. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz And it's not even a copy-and-paste. This would make a "draftify" result more complicated. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - part of a walled garden with duplicative stubs, all poorly referenced. I do not oppose a proper redirect. Bearian (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian I do not oppose a proper redirect. Me neither, except I can't think of a target. Can you? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aranmula? Bearian (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian Sure. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 07:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Manc

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

Article on website that is mostly self sourced. Pretty much entirely promotional. No serious improvements since creation in 2020. I can't find many reliable sources covering the news site. William Graham ^talk 22:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Websites. William Graham ^talk 22:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify and move protect‎ both of which I have done. Star Mississippi 03:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 in Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Could not find any sources discussing 2025 in this martial arts organization, and I doubt they exist. It is very unlikely there is significant coverage of events that have not happened yet and I can find none. The article appears to be a template into which information on the event outcomes could be placed, and it should be draftified until they actually occur, then re-created if news coverage emerges. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify in line with the wish of the nominator. Looking at 2024 in Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki, it is drastically preferable to maintain one page about the entire year, rather than individual pages about the dozen-or-so events. Geschichte (talk) 08:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also ~~draftify~~ draftify, but in the previous nomination, the article was already draftified, so basically the article creator just recreated it without any regard for that outcome. Procyon117 (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: previous outcome was draftify, which the article creator has disregarded by creating this one again in mainspace. This will have to be deleted since it can't be moved to draft since that draft already exists. Procyon117 (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't oppose a redirect to Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki though. Procyon117 (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and move protect for 1 month. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Indo-European Studies

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

[11] states it has an h-index of 10, and [12] states an impact factor of 0.2. It doesn't seem to meet WP:NJOURNAL, and most material in article is about Roger Pearson (anthropologist). Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - see below Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For deletion. The article as it is stands seems to serve nothing more than to slander it with the legacy of Roger Pearson. As I stated elsewhere, the article is all about Pearson. No one would have the slightest idea its about linguistics with the way it is written. Pearson's involvement is minimal at best within the confines of it. To me it appears anti-NPOV as well. The article has never been well written and the journal will never be given a fair representation the way things are currently going with how secondary sources of questionable reliability portray it in a negative manner. Geog1 (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2024 (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/2024 December 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep because I think it meets criterion 3 of WP:NJOURNAL. Significant historical discussion of the journal exists. Simonm223 (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Archaeology. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having editors disagreeing on how an article should be written/structured is not a valid deletion rationale. This journal is included in some major selective databases (Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Current Contents/Arts & Humanities, and, to a lesser extent, the Modern Language Association Database), so this is a clear meet of NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 06:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Simon223. The Arvidsson source alone (cited in the article) contains more specific coverage than most journals get. – Joe (talk) 07:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per a look at the index, Arvidsson talks about the journal for a single page in the book. [13]

Similar for Bellant [14].

These are mostly passing references, and are more about material that belongs in Roger Pearson's article. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluethricecreamman "More specific coverage than most journals get" is not GNG. The bar for journals is low. A lot of really highly cited ones get no coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh ok. I think I'm willing to withdraw my nomination, if that's the case. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a paragraph (quoted in the article) about Pearson's involvement in this journal specifically. That's neither a passing mention or coverage just, or even primarily, about Pearson. – Joe (talk) 08:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Randykitty, does meet njournals through significant indexing. Does seem to be a decent amount of discussion as well, above most journals. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Industry (TV series)#Cast. asilvering (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Industry characters

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

A contested redirect, an unreferenced list, and technically too old to draftify. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 14:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, United Kingdom, and United States of America. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 14:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim if needed. 1) The topic is Industry (TV series) so notability is established. 2) as a SIZE OR WP:SS split of a notable topic, primary sources are just fine for meeting V and NPOV policies. 3) LISTN is satisfied by WP:CSC point 2, every entry is non-notable. Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reasonable split from Industry (TV series). Sourcing is terrible (this is pretty common across Category:Lists of television characters in my experience), but that doesn't mean the topic isn't notable or shouldn't be covered in a standalone article. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTPLOT. Plot summary not put in context using sources. Wikipedia is not FANDOM. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zxcvbnm - The main Industry (TV series) article already has an extensive character list section, making this a needless spinout. The major plot information for the characters is already included in the parent article, and this list contains nothing but unsourced, overly detailed plot summaries, so no merge is needed. Rorshacma (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Industry (TV series)#Cast where the characters are covered already. While the list doesn't have much, there is a viable redirect target to act as an AtD; @Zxcvbnm @Rorshacma would you two be opposed to this alternative? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be a need for a redirect, which makes it easy to reverse and recreate the list article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm Rest assured, if the AfD results in a redirect, anyone re-reverting it are not the ones who'll get in trouble. If you don't see the need for a redirect, though, don't let the last sentence influence your !vote. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 09:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTPLOT and WP:SIGCOV. Split articles are not exempt from policies, and having one main article isn't an automatic pass for multiple spinouts. If splitting would create a failing article, the answer is to trim, not split. Jontesta (talk)
Keep Added sources. UnknownBat (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UnknownBat Are there any sources located off the Vulture website? /genuine /curious /NotMad I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 09:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will also note that these seem to be plot recaps, which aren't an indication of character notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:ATD. Deletion makes sense due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. But it's a valid enough search term, and preserves the history if anyone wants to work on the list at the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The current article looks nothing like the stub created by the banned sock, so G5 is no longer relevant. Similarly, once editors in good standing voiced their opinion on an AfD, it no longer qualifies for a procedural close just because a banned sock was the nominator.

As for the substantive issues, I see some support that the title is inappropriate. That is not a valid deletion criterion, and can easily be fixed now that the AfD is closed. Please discuss alternate titles on the Talk page.

There were several valid arguments for deletion, including that the bundling of domestic and international genocides is potentially WP:SYNTH, and that most of the content is already covered by other articles. There was some support to the claim that this article is little more than a glorified category. However, I see a rough consensus here that the topic does not inherently fail WP:NLIST. Content can be cleaned up to avoid any SYNTH or duplication, and the title can be modified. Owen× ☎ 22:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of genocides committed by the United States

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

The article should be deleted because the author is a sockpuppet NotSoTough (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G5.4meter4 (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, History, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - WP:G5. Also this is just a linking of various existing Wikipedia articles on select conflicts. The 2003 American Indian Wars covers the same issue, but is a much better coverage. It's not something that lends itself to a simple list. — Maile (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All of the examples listed are examples of genocide/attempts of ethnic cleansing committed by the United States. The fact that it was created by a sockpuppet should be irrelevant; many articles have been created by sockpuppets.ApolloPhoebus (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if not protect - WP:G5, to my knowledge at least, only applies to articles made by users in defiance of their ban, so it wouldn't apply here. However, this list serves little purpose, as everything it mentions is covered better elsewhere, and in its current unprotected state, could easily become a WP:SOAPBOX.

Heck, in its initial state, it included black genocide, trans genocide, and workers genocide (an article the sock was drafting at the time), hence why the WP:NPOV tag was added (before getting removed by the commenter above me).

~~If it isn't deleted, it should at the very least be WP:BLUE LOCKed and actually converted to a list.~~ ZionniThePeruser (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting that the article "serves little purpose" is a WP:USELESS argument; the content is clearly encyclopedic material, as the United States has verifiably committed several genocides. This list is just that; a list of genocides that the US has committed. Yes, things can be better covered elsewhere, but the purpose of this list is navigation; this list's removal would damage a reader's ability to navigate between those genocides. I do agree that the article should be protected, however, as it is clearly a contentious topic and prone to biased edits and sockpuppetry. ApolloPhoebus (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very curious how a new account, just created a few days ago, stumbled upon this deletion discussion and that WP:USELESS essay. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems irrelevant to me. You need to assess what is said rather than who said it and how much seniority they have. Athel cb (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Don't know about the situation of the article creator. However, the topic seems to be a reasonable aid to navigation. The list could / should be significantly improved, but I don't see why it would be deleted. Shazback (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the sockpuppet investigation for reference: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KlayCax ZionniThePeruser (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is an interesting one. This was most certainly created by a sockpuppet with an axe to grind. But it does seem like a reasonable navigational tool. Maybe move to Accusations of genocide by the United States for WP:NPOV concerns? Also noteworthy is that List of genocides committed by the Soviet Union was also created in direct response to this. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I strongly oppose speedy deletion. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps said article should've been included in this AfD, considering they're both so similar in content and format. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm bewildered by this nomination. It's an important page and useful navigational tool. It can be improved, but there is no reason to delete it. There have been several contributors to the page. The vast majority of contributions did not come from sockpuppet accounts. Firecat93 (talk) 09:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps ironically, NotSoTough, the user that nominated the page for deletion, has been confirmed to be a sockpuppet account!

This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of BaharatlıCheetos2.0 (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely. Firecat93 (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't matter who created the topic, its a valid list article. Category:Native American genocide exist, and a list is more helpful than a category, allowing more information to be shown. Could add rows to list information such as year that it happened, number killed, etc. Dream Focus 10:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Dream Focus, Shazback and ApolloPhoebus that there is no valid reason to delete this article. Whether one likes it or not it is well worthy of including in Wikipedia. Athel cb (talk) 10:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep would be very useful (though probably needs to be developed or made into a disambiguation), made by a socketpuppet or not. Mason7512 (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list article is perfectly fine; it should be kept and maintained. Even when article creators are malicious users, if the topics are substantiated topics, they shouldn't be deleted without more thorough reasoning. --Bhjbggoonnv (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request that we remove 'nominated for deletion' AfD from top of article The individual who initially nominated this article for deletion is ironically also a sockpuppet. No content-relevant reasoning has been provided for deletion. There is no need for the template at the top to remain. --Bhjbggoonnv (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It will be removed once the discussion is closed. Firecat93 (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It currently serves no purpose other than being an article that should be made into a category. Another editor pointed out that Native American genocide in the United States exists but the difference between these two articles is that one (the native american article) has content and the other (this one in question) is only a list of entries. Now if it was made into a table, had citations to go along with it, and explanations about it than it would be a different story. The lack of sources also doesn't help WP:GNG even though it should be on Wikipedia, the lack of sources doesn't help notability. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 16:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a glorified category. Could be something more at this title, but as is there is nothing here to save. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The title is completely misleading. There is still debate about whether actions against Native Americans constitute a genocide, while the other entries are genocides committed by others, with alleged complicity by the US. There is not really anything that has been fully confirmed as such, despite what the title implies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In general, it is widely considered that there were a genocide against Native Americas, in the several pages about the topic in wikipedia this is pretty well documented. For other cases abroad there are also other pages in Wikipedia reporting at least a reasonable basis for that consideration (the International War Crimes Tribunal is a good example). An this is even not considering sources outside of Wikipedia, as I commented even the Holocaust Houston Museum has a topic about it. Even there is apage about the Denial of genocides of Indigenous peoples. AyubuZimbale (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article if wanted as reasonable aid to navigation should be converted into a category - and pretty much per cowboygilbert The AP (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is informative and it is collecting relevant historical articles in wikipedia. Although the page is incomplete and further work is needed. There is a relevant number of sources about the topic, for example Holocaust Huston Museum , or this article. In principle the disagreement was in the definition of genocide however with the current definition given in UN, it seems that there is no question about the genocide of Native Americans both in North America and South America. AyubuZimbale (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too subjective. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite objective. Other question would be the best way to proceed: category or this page. But I note that there are pages of other countries not marked for deletion which seems to be quite inconsistent. AyubuZimbale (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If we could table the contentious nature of this article and focus on policy reasons for Keeping or Deleting this article. Although it has become more than a list, does it meet WP:NLIST? It is now sourced, what is the quality of the sources in supporting the claims of genocide? Is this article a duplicate of another list? Issues like a possible rename of this article can be discussed if this article is Kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - material seems fine, even if created by sockpuppet. Main issue is that the grouping of domestic genocides and international complicity in genocides seems like a WP:synth, not sure there are sourcing that combines all in one list outside of wikipedia. the International complicity in genocides could be split into a separate article, maybe, if there are sources that talk about all the international genocides the US is accused of being complicit in. The domestic genocides are mostly captured by Native_American_genocide_in_the_United_States. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

going off of Liz's suggestion, not sure all genocides US was ever complicit in is regularly combined and talked about like this... maybe United_States_war_crimes for international complicity, but these generally aren't grouped like this in sourcing. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as, at the very least, the domestic entries easily meet the WP:NLIST criteria. Simonm223 (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—I think an article/list that discusses atrocity crimes committed by the United States would be useful (see Atrocity crimes during the Russo-Ukrainian War or Atrocities in the Congo Free State, so perhaps something like "Atrocity crimes committed by the United States" or "Atrocities committed by the United States"). This article covers several such crimes, and "atrocity crime"/"atrocity" might better encompass complicity in genocide, war crimes, and ecocide as discussed in this article. Whether or not the name and scope of this article should be changed or a new article should be created—I don't know. But I think something of this article should be preserved. Spookyaki (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support rescoping / renaming of article to Atrocity crimes committed by the United States; same goes for the sister article. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons mentioned already. On Liz's point, I do believe there's worth in taking what List of genocides does with tables, which allows for a much more easily display sourced verifibility, as well as greatly reducing prospects of coatrack cruft. Bejakyo (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As highlighted by others there are issues of redundancy due to what little this article provides already being addressed in much greater detail in multiple other articles, such as the Genocides in history series of articles and Native American genocide in the United States. The sources people have brought so far to this discussion showing RS supporting the topic, don't actually support the scope of this article, as they specifically refer to US genocides against Native Americans, which is already well covered in the afore-linked article. To those who point to WP:NLIST, again they also specify the "domestic" cases, which are all genocides against Native Americans, and so once again, covered by the afore-linked article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 22:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Raj (Rajat Kumar Dey)

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

Non-notable film director. Sources only mention the subject in passing, and reliable sources are clearly lacking. Fails WP:NDIRECTOR. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject has directed only one notable movie. Therefore, I believe it does not meet WP:GNG and fails WP:NDIRECTOR. Baqi:) (talk) 12:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nomination. Taabii (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails WP:NDIRECTOR criteria as they have only directed one film (with a second unreleased). The sources are primarily passing mentions in articles about their film projects rather than significant coverage of the director themselves. No evidence of broader recognition or impact that would meet WP:GNG. Madeleine961 (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NDIRECTOR. RangersRus (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fiorenzo Manganiello

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think much has changed since the last AfD. Most of the sources are insignificant/primary: quotes, mentions, interviews. Does not pass WP:BASIC or WP:NACADEMIC. Frost 11:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, Finance, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frost, Sir/Madam, I have used those references that are not merely quotes or mere mentions. These are news articles that gets published or covered by third party sources. These are not promotional content se. Still, you are more experienced editor than me and can guide me as I have done my research and can share references that fulfill the criteria of WP:BASIC. Your guidance will be highly appreciated. ~~~~ Fanalrino (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have cross checked again. All of the mentioned sources are secondary sources and not simply mentions or interviews and I think so passes the WP:BASIC. So, the subject passes the Notability criteria and should be there on wikipedia. Fanalrino (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are more experienced than me and can help in editing all relevant reasons for deletion, please do highlight so it can be fixed instead of nominating it for deletion. Your input on this matter will be highly appreciated. Fanalrino (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ delete. No sign whatsoever of WP:NPROF. For GNG, I see press releases, a few passing mentions in reliable sources, and unreliable sources. I do not think it is enough. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Striking "weak". Despite the bludgeoning and socking, still no evidence of notability, and I find it increasingly unlikely that any exists. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It does fulfill the criteria for WP:GNG as majority of citations are from secondary reliable sources and do not have passing mentions only. There are complete articles on the subject and about his business. I do agree with the fact that it does not fall under WP:NPROF but it does fulfill the criteria for WP:GNG. It specifically cover the clause titled as ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Also, it adhers to clause "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." So, I think so it should not be deleted. Fanalrino (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:. For complying with WP:GNG, I have added news article sources that are considered secondary sources and these are not mere trivial mentions but specifically written articles about him and his company. They are not interviews and sources like Business Insider or Saudi Gazette, or even Cryptonomist are secondary sources and subject's coverage on these sources clearly shows that he does fulfill the criteria of Notability according to wikipedia guidelines. Also, any additional information that is not backed easily with strong secondary references has been revmoed earlier. So, I would request that Deletion notice should be deleted. Thanks Fanalrino (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I would also like to strengthen my case with following arguments:

General Notability Guidelines WP:GNG

Manganiello's activities, such as co-founding LIAN Group and PolarDC, have been covered in reliable, independent sources like Financial Times, Business Insider, and Digital Infra Network. Coverage demonstrates significant attention beyond mere mentions, highlighting his influence in venture capital and blockchain. Academic Notability WP:NACADEMIC

Manganiello's role as a professor at Geneva Business School and ambassador to the Global Blockchain Business Council suggests academic impact in blockchain education, an emerging field of global importance. Entrepreneurial Contributions WP:NPROF

Founding sustainable blockchain firms (e.g., Cowa) addresses pressing industry challenges, earning him accolades like Blockchain Expert Switzerland. His contributions align with public interest criteria. Reliable Sources and Secondary Coverage

While there is one keen source that is primary (e.g., Geneva Business School), there are substantial secondary sources discuss his ventures, philanthropy, and investments (e.g., Techerati, Cryptonomist), meeting WP:RS It is not only press releases that are about him. There are multiple secondary source articles that are discussing his achievements and of his company. Public Interest and Context

Blockchain and sustainable crypto are critical global discussions, and I think so figures like Manganiello, backed by notable funding and initiatives, enrich this discourse.Fanalrino (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I have improved the article further after its nomination for deletion. The keen issue was of references and I have fixed that by citing majority news articles about the subject that are secondary and not trivial mentions. Also, I have removed extra information that was backed by primary sources. So, I hope it does fulfill the criteria now and it should not be deleted. If there is a further room for improvement, you guys are more expereinced than me and your guidance will mean alot. Thanks Fanalrino (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even if we consider it according to WP:THREE, [15], [16], [17]], [18]], [19] all qualifies as secondary sources and are following the guideline provided in WP:GNG stated as ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

One last point, I would like to add that I did check the previous nomination and in fact those sources were not sufficient according to wikipedia guidelines. But now, majority of the references are new and secondary and are fulfilling the criteria set according to WP:GNG. The article has been improved alot since its nomination and new references and content of the article is improved. Fanalrino (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is fulfilling the criteria for WP:GNG. I have read the article and did research on cited references as well. I think so, it should be kept as cited references are independent reliable references.Sanerba (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC) (sock vote struck.) Frost 15:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources listed above: 1: Geneva Business School announcement N. 2. Blurb by Acquisition International, which is non-independent N. 3. Business Insider piece with 1 sentence of independent coverage of the subject N. 4. Single quote in PropertyEU article N. 5. Trivial passing mentions in Gulf News announcement N. The only source in the article worth mentioning is The Art Newspaper, but that is not enough. JoelleJay (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sir/Madam, with due respect, you have misinterpreted the references. First of all, it was not a blurb by Acquisition International. This article specifically covers the clause titled as ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Secondly, if we have a look at the previous nomination, this specific reference [20] was considered as a reliable source where WP:NPROF applies.

The business insider piece is also independent and does not specifically has only one sentence about him. If you please spare some time to read the article, it is about the subject and his company. It does pass the criteria for WP:SIGCOV. Even if we consdier the Property EU article, it is completely about HIG capital taking controlling stake in Polar, a company founded by the subject. It was used as a reference to specifically cite that 500 Million euros news. Also, the gulfnews one is also not a trivial mention. There are number of other references cited in the article that does pass the criteria for notability but also fulfills the significant coverage one as well. If there is an article about a subject about a subject from independent , it is not every time that they are completely writing his name. We have to read the article and analyze that it does fulfill the idea of significant coverage and it is completely fulfilled in this case. If it requires some editing, it can be discussed instead of simply saying that it does not pass notability criteria. Fanalrino (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adani University

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL, Universities need to satisfy the stringent WP:NORG in order to have an article on Wikipedia. There are indeed sources here, but they are only discussing announcements of either opening of the university or its accreditation by Indian authorities, which is only WP:ROUTINE coverage not WP:SIGCOV, they may also fall under the purview of WP:NEWSORGINDIA - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fully accredited degree issuing University recognized by the University Grants Commission (India) passes WP:GNG added references and there is coverage in Hindi and Gujarati languages as well.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Yes, many of the sources in the article are reprints of press releases or trivial coverage, but not all. I checked the WP:RSPSS entry for the Times of India and there are concerns with fact-checking and ensuring paid advertorials (particularly in entertainment) are not used, but the facts of the articles published on Adani University do not appear to be disputed and as far as I could tell these were not paid advertorials. I think this is probably notable based on the sources identified and, particularly needing in mind that local sources may not be in English, I would vote to keep on notability grounds. However, this is a three sentence article with a large number of low-quality sources, often repeating the same press releases. It would not hurt to draftify the article to allow time for better sources to be identified and a better article to be written. Robminchin (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]

References

^ "Adani University inks MoU with VJoist Innovation". Deccan Chronicle. 27 February 2024. Retrieved 21 March 2024.
^ Chhapia, Hemali (23 February 2024). "MOU to collaborate on academics and research". The Times of India. Retrieved 21 March 2024.
^ "Adani University Granted University Status By Assembly". The Times of India. 4 April 2022. Retrieved 21 March 2024.
^ "Adani Group receives approval to set up university in Ahmedabad". Business Standard. 3 April 2022. Retrieved 21 March 2024.
^ Bhaskar, R.N. (2022). Gautam Adani: Reimagining Business in India and the World. Penguin Random House India Private Limited. p. 20. ISBN 978-93-5492-763-8. Retrieved 22 March 2024.
^ "UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION Total No. of Universities in the Country as on 25.01.2023" (PDF). Retrieved 22 March 2024.
^ "Adani University Holds First Convocation — Preeti Adani Emphasises Innovation, Research Focus". NDTV Profit. 5 October 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.
^ ""Chairman's vision to create university of excellence", Priti Adani at Adani University's first convocation". ANI News. 5 October 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.
^ "Adani University Felicitates Four Gold Medalists, 69 MBA, MTech Post Graduates At Inaugural Convocation". News24. 6 October 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.
^ "Adani University inks pact with VJoist Innovation to transform Indian academic arena". Bizzbuzz. 5 March 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.
^ "Adani University accorded status by Gujarat Legislative Assembly". Ahmedabad Mirror. 3 April 2022. Retrieved 26 November 2024.
^ "Adani University Holds First Convocation; 69 Postgraduates Honored". G R Mukesh. Free Press Journal. 5 October 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.
^ "Chairman's vision is to create university of excellence, says Priti Adani at Adani University's first convocation". ETEducation.com. 7 October 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.
^ Focus, ABP Live (6 July 2022). "Adani University Hosts Global Education Forum". ABP Live. Retrieved 26 November 2024.
^ "Adani University committed to shape new India: Dr Priti Adani". The Hans India. 5 October 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.
^ Sharma, S. (2022). ProjectX India: 15th April 2022 edition. ProjectX India. Sandeep Sharma. p. 47. Retrieved 26 November 2024.

~~Keep - I believe the references found, added and listed above by Pharaoh of the Wizards establish SIGCOV beyond what was described in the AfD nomination.~~ starship.paint (talk / cont) 09:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn my vote above after reviewing WP:NEWSORGINDIA and the sources again. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools. Shellwood (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don’t see any policy that states being a fully accredited, degree-issuing university automatically meets notability. Upon reviewing the sources provided by Pharoh, I strongly disagree that the subject meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. These sources fail to provide WP:SIGCOV and instead rely on quotes from primary or connected college officials. They include press releases, such as the Deccan Chronicle, and paid articles, like ABP Live. As a result, I do not believe this article meets our notability guidelines under WP:NSCHOOL. GrabUp - Talk 13:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources provided mainly cover individual events such as MoUs, convocations, and approvals and the majority of references are from press releases, media outlets with a limited scope, and self-promotional content. Fails WP:SIGCOV.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article can be expanded with the sources Qalb alasid (talk) 06:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Undoubtedly, it fails WP:NSCHOOL. Promotional or routine coverage is not enough for addressing this concern. desmay (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as pointed by Hideja above this passes WP:THREE.WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES does state "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable, although that coverage may not be readily available online. There is coverage in Hindi ,Gujarati languages and in offline sources in addition to English online sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THREE is an essay, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES itself says that it should not be cited in AfD !vote. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pharaoh of the Wizards. Offline notability; the article generated over a thousand page views in the last 30 days. Western criteria/sense for notability shouldn't be excessively applied to educational institutions (especially universities) in the Indian subcontinent, as this would result in the deletion of most of these locally important articles. -- CptViraj (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC) Minor changes. -- CptViraj (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP meets GNG and wp:three.There is coverage in gujarati, hindi media and offline sources also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hideja (talk • contribs) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC) Note moved comment down ,Please do not remove comments.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)— Hideja (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep the references listed above by Pharaoh of the Wizards establish WP:SIGCOV and is sufficent for this article.In addition to Offline notability.115.97.231.229 (talk) 05:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)— 115.97.231.229 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GrabUp. Fails WP:SIGCOV and most sources are just routine coverage. A search yielded nothing else other than more routine coverage. I'm also not sure why three short sentences need 16 sources. Procyon117 (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nom's opening statement is factually incorrect, and I wonder if it has misled some of the respondents. Ratnahastin, the text of NSCHOOL says: All universities...must satisfy either the notability guidelines for organizations (i.e., this page) or the general notability guideline. The word "or" in that quotation means "not both of these". A university can qualify under the GNG alone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but the article still doesn't meet the GNG. Out of the cited sources, only sources TOI, BS, News24 and FPJ are reliable, but they all fail SigCov. TOI, being a collaboration announcement, doesn't offer enough depth. BS focuses on university approval, which is routine and lacks substantial coverage. News24 and FPJ are merely about the first convocation, which is also routine. These all falls under WP:ROUTINE. Other sources mentioned are WP:NEWSORGINDIA and don't strengthen GNG. Am I overlooking anything here? — MimsMENTOR ^talk 07:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not convinced by the keep supporters. Wikipedia has the same standards for all subjects. Those who want different standards for Indian schools should take it to the village pump. ZDX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 10:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. WP:TOOSOON. In its current form, it fails WP:NSCHOOL. Charlie (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Various keep votes are wikilawyering but that is not convincing. Orientls (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Need source analysis clearly 16 sources have been given.Delete voters need to analysis the sources as to why they are not notable.As I see it meets GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hideja (talk • contribs) 21:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the source analysis provided by Mims Mentor and GrabUp. Additionally I note that this is a private university, and although it is correct that NSCHOOL allows that a school may meet either GNG or NORG, when the school is a for profit private institution, NORG is what must be met. We do not have sources that have significant coverage at WP:ORGDEPTH, and applying WP:SIRS to the sources rules most out on independence (per NEWSORGINDIA) and raises questions of reliability, without considering which news sources are primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. as there seems to simultaneously be none re: the difference between the terms. A merger discussion, if needed, can continue on the Talk. There is no outcome here where consensus is leading to deletion, so no relist needed. Star Mississippi 01:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subaqueous volcano

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

Synonym of submarine volcano, I propose that this article is turned into a REDIRECT which leads to Submarine volcano. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The term "submarine volcano" refers to volcanoes under the ocean whereas "subaqueous volcano" is used to describe volcanoes that formed under lakes.

Volcanoguy 00:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The term seems universally to be used to refer to all underwater eruptions, with submarine eruptions forming the marine subset. For illustration, see the editorial and pretty much every contribution in this FES special issue on subaqueous volcanism. If the article is meant to refer to lacustrine volcanism, which to some degree seems to be a recognized sub-category, then it will have to be renamed; and reworked, because it currently is happily covering submarine volcanism - e.g., those Honshu deposits are submarine, and there is a section "Seafloor exploration". --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yup, this is supported by all the literature I found, hence why I nominated the article. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: I never claimed subaqueous is only used to describe volcanoes that formed under lakes. A subaqueous volcano is simply a volcano that formed underwater, thus I wouldn't have a problem with merging submarine volcano into subaqueous volcano since submarine volcanoes are basically a type of subaqueous volcano along with lacustrine volcanoes. Volcanoguy 23:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question.The term seems universally to be used to refer to all underwater eruptions, with submarine eruptions forming the marine subset. If the submarine volcano is a subset of Subaqueous volcano why are we merging Subaqueous volcano to submarine volcano? It should be the other way around with subaqueous volcano being the parent article. Obviously the subaqueous volcano article would need substantial rewriting, but as the umbrella term it should take precedent over "submarine volcano" which could be a subsection inside the parent article.4meter4 (talk) 09:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From a hierarchy persperctive, I think it would make more sense. But on the other hand, almost all subaqueous volcanoes appear to be submarine (not surprising), so while it's not the technical parent term, it is by far the most frequently encountered one. There are presumably cases where we put the main article at the dominant sub-topic rather than at the infrequent parent topic? Eh :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae Got you. It might do a service to the world though to merge submarine volcano to Subaqueous volcano because I am seeing the fallacy that subaqueous volcanos are different than submarine volcanos on layman discussion threads and even the kidspedia webpage for volcanos which made the same claim as Volcanoguy. It's clearly a place of confusion that is a common error among amateur volcano enthusiasts. If our coverage merges to subaqueous volcano and presents submarine volcanos as a type of subaqueous volcano (and we could also cover lacustrine volcanism on that page) we would be the first encyclopedia to help solve that widely held errata among the general public.4meter4 (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4 (talk · contribs) I don't know which of my claims you're referring to, but I don't have a problem with merging submarine volcano into subaqueous volcano. I think those involved in this AfD misinterpreted my first comment as meaning subaqueous volcanoes occur only in lakes which is not what I meant. Volcanoguy 22:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(noted --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge per above. Procyon117 (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose redirect of Subaqueous volcano to Submarine volcano.

Keep Subaqueous volcano and keep Submarine volcano.

Submarine volcanoes are a subset of subaqueous volcanoes, so I oppose a merge of Subaqueous volcano into Submarine volcano.

There are numerous scientific sources that describe sea floor (i.e. submarine) volcanic processes as "subaqueous volcanism" even when they are describing only submarine volcanoes, although the term "submarine volcanism" is also widely used. When describing specific sea floor volcanoes, however, the term "submarine volcano" seems to be preferred. I think this might be because the processes of subaqueous volcanism occur on the sea floor as well as in other geological environments, but sea floor volcanic edifices form only on the sea floor.

I suggest that the Subaqueous volcano article should be kept, but changed to become an overview article with sections on the three types of subaqueous volcanoes: (1) submarine (shallow sea and deep sea subtypes), (2) subglacial, (3) lacustrine. It would be an ideal article to compare and contrast these different volcanic environments. Each of the sections would have "Main article" templates wikilinking to their respective detailed articles: (already existing) Submarine volcano, Subglacial volcano; (to be created) Lacustrine volcano. Some text from these three detailed articles could be copied to or summarised in the overview article. There is still plenty of scope for adding new details from external reliable sources about only sea floor volcanoes to the Submarine volcano article, so I oppose a complete merge of the Submarine volcano article into the Subaqueous volcano article. GeoWriter (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Submarine volcano: There is a large overlap between the two articles. The fact that the two terms are not identical, or that the target is a subset of this one, is not relevant to our decision on whether we need two separate encyclopedic entries for this. WP:OVERLAP is very clear about it: there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept. For example, "flammable" and "non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on flammability. None of those arguing to retain both pages provide a valid reason why the two closely-related terms cannot be handled in one article. That said, if subaqueous volcano is indeed the more generic term of the two, we can have a separate discussion on renaming the target once the merger is complete. Owen× ☎ 21:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 21:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sher Singh Rana

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

“This individual does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. They are neither a politician nor a public figure of significance. Being a small-time criminal convicted and serving a sentence in a murder case does not establish notability. There are millions of individuals worldwide who face incarceration, and this alone is not a criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia.” Spider1217 (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spider1217 (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: This person Kingsmasher678 (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hit the publish button too early? Geschichte (talk) 06:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and India. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless I'm missing something huge this seems like an extremely significant crime and the coverage appears to be reasonably in depth. A search found more. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Delhi, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject passes WP:CRIMINAL straightway. As the primary perpetrator of the assassination of Phoolan Devi, a prominent national figure in India, there's a wealth of SigCov readily available online. The argument against the subject's notability is completely off-base, as the volume and quality of sources documenting the incident and its impact easily fulfill GNG.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 08:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: i think the subject passes WP:CRIMINAL. Baqi:) (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not convinced the nominator's rationale is correct at all, especially considering she is a well-known bandit/politician (just look at the legacy section on her). Definitely passes WP:CRIMINAL, specifically perpetrator point 1. Procyon117 (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The assassins of well-known politicians are usually notable. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments what a hot mess. Bearian (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jalen Markey

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this American former soccer player. JTtheOG (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Florida, Oregon, and Washington. JTtheOG (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Demt1298 (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pantelis Pitsillos

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

This footballer played mainly in the lower levels of Cyprus and with little coverage. I found Gazzetta Greece, Sigma Live and Pafos Net, none of which showed significant coverage of Pitsillos. No evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamad Al-Juhaini

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

Another poorly sourced BLP with no claim to passing WP:SPORTBASIC created by a banned user. The best source that I can find in Arabic is a stats page, FilGoal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saleh Al-Arfej

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

Poorly sourced BLP on a footballer with a very brief career and no evidence of a WP:SPORTBASIC pass, created by a now-banned user. My Arabic searches yielded stats coverage on Kooora and Koraplus and a match report mention on Kooora. None of this is even close to enough. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The match report is not significant, nor does it describe Saleh Al-Arfej in big detail. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 16:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. Owen× ☎ 21:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chief of the General Staff (Bangladesh)

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

Previously draftified. WP:DRAFTOBJECT means it can only be sent back to draft by consensus. This is a formal proposal to Draftify on the basis that it is unready for mainspace. It is not about the role in any meaningful manner, but is a list of incumbents. What does the Chief of General Staff do? What do reliable independent sources say about the role? Why are some of the references 404 errors and another a dead server?. Returning this to draft will give the creating editor the breathing space they need and deserve to create the correct article. Ideally they should not return it to mainspace unilaterally, but use the AFC system, though I recognise that the system is not mandatory 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Bangladesh. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom. This is a good instance where extra time would be beneficial for the content. Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom. A plant and run case, the list could have been decent if it hadn't been created in haste. Dead links need to be fixed, and inline citations should be added. Garudam ^Talk! 21:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Malinaccier (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Satish R. Devane

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

The subject does not meet the notability criteria under WP:NACADEMIC and has only served at non-notable institutions and small colleges, further limiting eligibility for inclusion. There is also no evidence of WP:GNG as an alternative for retention. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Computing, and India. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Karnataka and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly intended to promote. Probable conflict of interest. Deb (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources are a mess with personal profiles (LinkedIn, ResearchGate) and college-specific documents (staff list, profile PDF). Yes, there are indications that the subject is active in academic and professional circles (notably in IEEE, academic books, and research journals), the coverage appears limited and mainly technical. That's said, nothing counts to pass GNG.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 12:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP: BEFORE did not find strong evidence that the subject meets WP: GNG or WP: NPROF. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Fails WP: NPROF. RangersRus (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to O'Reilly Open Source Convention. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

O'Reilly Open Source Award

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

Lack of independent notability for a defunct prize, without page improvement despite tagging for 4 years. My search show reliable sources discussing the prize only in the context of Tim O'Reilly (the founder) or O'Reilly Media. Merging was considered (to O'Reilly Open Source Convention), but rejected in a February proposal over at Talk:OSCON. In the abscence of a merge, and without independent notability, deleting seems the next best solution. Klbrain (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Klbrain (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to O'Reilly Open Source Convention, might be able to merge the lead but the the full list of awards is a violation of WP:NOTDB and doesn't pass WP:NLIST. (I'll note that the aforementioned proposal wasn't rejected, there was no consensus, we can find it here if we so choose). Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge: to the main Convention article, seems to be part of that, without its own notability. Oaktree b (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep (no redirect nor merge) both on the grounds that there are plenty of similar awards lists on Wikipedia, and that at this point this is worthy history to document. It was notable at the time, and that should be sufficient. More recent assertions of notability or lack there of should be rejected.
- On a process issue, I believe this Afd proposal is out of order or at worst a deletion gaming attempt. As noted, the prior attempt had no consensus and had not closed, so re-starting a new one appears to be an attempt to "reset the votes" and hope that others who had opposed this deletion or merge will miss it (as often happens, since not every editor is constantly watching every Afd etc.) Tantek (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: on the process issue. I closed the merge proposal 13:53, as there was no likelihood of a merge concensus (see;Talk:OSCON#Proposed merge of O'Reilly Open Source Award into OSCON); then (immediately) started the AfD at 16:56. The first was a proposal for a merge; the second is a proposal for deletion; the former was closed before the second was started. Klbrain (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: no reason to delete for the reasons already stated by Tantek --Mattl (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm voting delete. Can't find adequate sourcing. Not a super huge fan of the OSCON redirect target (its sourcing also looks a little sparse at the moment), but I do think that a redirect or merge is strictly better than what we have now. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I also think the Keep votes are horribly articulated. The merge discussion (which is here, if you're looking for it) ran for seven months and had little traffic. This talk page gets less than a view a day: it's plainly clear that more opinions are needed and beneficial for deciding what to do with the article. Keep voters should improve the article with better sources instead of complaining that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, making baseless claims that the subject was "notable at the time", or accusing the nominator of acting in bad faith by accusing them of "gaming" the system. The people who are engaging in this chicanery need to knock it off. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wildflower, California

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

One of Carlossuarez46's mass-created articles based on GNIS, an unreliable source. On the same day they created this article, they created 129 other articles. No evidence that this was ever more than the store at the cross-roads that is presently called "Wild Flower", and which would have had a post-office in it for the use of people passing by. To be notable, stores and post-offices need to pass WP:NCORP, which is clearly not passed.

Was PROD'd and de-PROD'd last year since the de-PRODer thought it might pass GEOLAND. Briefly, this article fails WP:GEOLAND due to lack of legal recognition (e.g., incorporation as a town) and WP:GNG due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. FOARP (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence that this passes WP:GNG or that there is actually a community there other than the Wild Flower Market (store). The common name also complicates searching for information. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. I was unable to find any sources about the location and I cannot find anything notable about it at all. Beachweak (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Larson Angok

AfDs for this article:

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

Bio about a musician and activist who does not meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:BASIC. The article was declined in draftspace and moved to mainspace by its creator.

Almost none of the information in the draft is supported by the sources, which have been added at random places in the text. Of the seven sources, five are press releases about him being arrested (which is not mentioned in the article), one (pachodo.org) is a crowdsourced / user generated platform, and one is Angok's own organisation. bonadea contributions talk 13:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Africa. bonadea contributions talk 13:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, this had already been through the process of draft submission - decline - move to mainspace - redraftification, which is why I didn't draftify it again. There have never been any independent and reliable sources in the draft, and looking at the previous AfD, there were no such sources available then, either. --bonadea contributions talk 13:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to be a few stories about the singer's arrest, but I'm not sure that shows notability. I can't find any of the usual factors we'd look at for NMUSIC, doesn't appear to have charted or released albums on a commercial label. Oaktree b (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In agreement with the nominator. The gentleman's music has received no reliable notice that I can find, and his other activities may have some social impact in his country but that does not make them notable. The article violates WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:NOTRESUME. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of passing NMUSIC or GNG

Noah ^💬 15:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I warned this editor couple of times and many also did about the quality of their work but they decided just to go a head and move their work to the mainspace regardless. The subject is not notable and the sources are either self-published or just fake citations. The editor should be banned from moving articles to the mainspace, but I can raise that at ANI.FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. -Samoht27 (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dekete per WP:NOTFB and WP:RS. All of the sources are press releases. Look, in 2024 everyone knows we are not Instagram nor your private press agent. Bearian (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to All-time D.C. United roster. ✗plicit 14:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Carroll (soccer)

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

Minor soccer player supported only by primary sources. Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG, spells in his two clubs only yielded 366 minutes of playing time combined. Geschichte (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All-time D.C. United roster as claim to fame and possible search term. Giant Snowman 21:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All-time D.C. United roster: as above Demt1298 (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to All-time D.C. United roster. ✗plicit 14:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Carroll (soccer)

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

Minor soccer player supported only by primary sources and routine coverage. Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG, spells in his two last clubs only yielded 829 minutes of playing time combined. Geschichte (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All-time D.C. United roster as claim to fame and possible search term. Giant Snowman 21:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All-time D.C. United roster: as above Demt1298 (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tomáš Vantruba

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

Yet another long-time stub of a Slovak men's footballer named Tomáš without sign of meeting WP:GNG. He played 87 minutes of professional league before moving to lower leagues. There are some mentions of him with his twin brother, Martin, but I can't find sources to merit a standalone, independent SIGCOV for Tomáš Vantruba himself. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Didn't really have a career, so what can we expect coverage-wise? Geschichte (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galatasaray Mobile

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

This page seems to be entirely irrelevant and has minimal sources to back up details about its existence. Last edits adding actual content was in the mid 2010s, proving its irrelevancy. This is my first actual AfD, so pardon me if I am mistaken, but fixing the article up seems unfruitful. --~eticangaaa (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is alI could find, I'm unsure if it's a press release or not [21] and it's only one source anyway. Not enough to show notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Alert (video game)

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

It does not appear to pass WP:GNG. However, finding sources for this game is hellish due to the Command and Conquer series PLUS the other game of the same name released the same year. Nevertheless, given it was unsourced since its inception, I have no choice but to nominate for deletion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one source is present within the article, however it only relates to the release date and none of the content in the article. Was unable to find anything else about this game, aside from unreliable blogs or wikis. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Beachweak (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I was able to find some coverage on Archive.org - Electronic Games (Volume 1 No. 2 March 1982 p.71), Play Meter (Volume 7 No. 21 November 15, 1981 p.30), and some additional brief coverage from Play Meter (Volume 8 No. 2 January 15 1982 p.26). Doesn't meet WP:GNG, but if more coverage is found it may be enough to show notability. Waxworker (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from the above concerns, it wouldn't be worth redirecting to List of Irem games as it is linked to too few articles to be worth it. MimirIsSmart (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of rugby union matches between Georgia and Portugal

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

Not a notable rivalry, European countries normally play each other regularly without any special meaning for any random pairing. Fram (talk) 11:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Rugby union, Georgia (country), and Portugal. Fram (talk) 11:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Rivalries need to have significant coverage about the relevant details in their history. This is just a statistical collection of games between two nations. Conyo14 (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this rivalry does not meet WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOTSTATS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HK Television Pakistan

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

Non-notable TV channel. All sources are channel listings, and I found no reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Pakistan. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no RS about the topic, article has unsourced content. Only sourced content is just the existence of channel in channel listings. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the author has a COI and shouldn't have published this in the first place, but now that they have, might as well let this AfD run. No evidence of notability of any flavour. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gheus (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We require significant coverage to meet the GNG; channel listings that merely establish existence don't cut it. Also note that the creator moved this to HK Television Pakistan (with the rationale Move to mainspace: Publish page to main space, notwithstanding that it was the articlespace recreation that was moved and not the previous attempt that is now a draft). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article posted by the channel's founder and we're just not going to find coverage of this in any English language or Pakistani sources mainly because it's against the country's majority religion, but the COI outweighs all. Nate • (chatter) 00:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm Tesleemah (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaspa (cryptocurrency)

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

Non-notable crypto. All soures are database listings, and I found no reliable sources online. Also promotional in tone. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find no notable source. Unilandofma (talk) 12:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Interviews and coverage in non-RS used for sourcing, not seeing much of anything in my search for sources. More crypto PROMO here it looks like. Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to New Series Adventures#Eleventh Doctor. ✗plicit 11:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Forgotten Army

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

Fails WP:NBOOK, lacks WP:SIGCOV, barely any edits. AFDing instead of WP:BLARing bcs name can be confused with other things, including those in the hatnote DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge very selectively to New Series Adventures#Eleventh Doctor and possibly rename: After redirection this should probably no longer be considered the WP:Primary topic. Possibly make this a disambiguation page? This Radio Times article mentions the book and verifies the Vykoids as antagonists, so that probably should appear in one sentence of plot summary at the target. Is there any indication of Doctor Who Reviews being a reliable source or not? Daranios (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a trivial mention about the book and its antagonists. No, DWR is a fan-site, which is generally not considered reliable. Rename might be good, though I think deletion would be better, as someone searching for it is more likely to be searching for the INA or related documentaries, books or other media, rather than this novel. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the redirect could be changed to "The Forgotten Army (Doctor Who)"? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was thinking the same title, "The Forgotten Army (Doctor Who)", or "The Forgotten Army (novel)". The table at suggested target for the redirect is constructed to include a very brief plot summary, and I think we should merge over one sentence of that or so based on the primary source, while Radio Time backs up the antagonists and the appearance of Amy Pond, as yet only referenced to the primary source as well at the target. Daranios (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Light Merge per Daranios. Not much content to merge but the sentence is better than nothing. Change redirect as well to something more specific like the above in order to avoid disambiguation issues. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge without prejudice to recreation if stronger sourcing were to be found. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to New Series Adventures#Eleventh Doctor. ✗plicit 11:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Time

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

Fails WP:NBOOK, lacks WP:SIGCOV, barely any edits. AFDing instead of WP:BLARing bcs name can be confused with other things DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge very selectively to New Series Adventures#Eleventh Doctor. The table at the suggested target for the redirect is constructed to include a brief plot summary, and I think we should merge over one sentence of that or so. This Collider article has a paragraph on the book which can be used to support plot summary, and provides minimal commentary there. The novel also appears in Doctor Who FAQ, p. 316, which I cannot access. The preview looks like this only verifies the publication information. Daranios (talk) 10:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Daranios. No real SIGCOV but definitely some content to include in the target. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Rafmarham (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North Rhine-Westphalian Academy of Sciences and the Arts

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

The article clearly lacks any WP:independent sources. Xpander (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Germany. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Education, and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Simon (entrepreneur)

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

Accepted at AFC in 2015, but standards were somewhat less exacting then. Simon is presented with many references, but appears to be a WP:ROTM businessman dabbling in psychedelic drugs. Much of the rest appears to be wealthy persons hobbies. The references, especially the more authoritative ones, seem to be what Simon says, not what is said about him. Sample checking the others shows them to be of a similar nature. Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Medicine, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the assessment that any sources I could find are not independent (cross between WP:INTERVIEWS and some weird WP:CHURNALISM) and therefore not independently notable. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just Salad

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The discussion page indicates several requests. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 10:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Companies. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 10:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was originally leaning towards "Keep" since I was able to find tons of supposed sources about this place. However, when you actually take a look at them, 99% of the sites covering this place are news sites that take paid stories or advertisement in the form of articles, calling their verifiability into question. While sites like Forbes covered this restaurant, the actual articles are written by "Contributors", aka random users.

Additionally, many of the articles only talk about specific new menu items or related topics which, in my opinion, makes it fail WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:ORGCRIT too. Beachweak (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Earmilk

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

All 9 sources cited in the creation of this page lack credibility and fail to establish notability, as they barely address the topic in any meaningful way. Upon closer inspection, there is little to no reliable information available online. Additionally, the publication in question appears to be self-proclaimed and lacks established recognition. The article was created without prior discussion, and if such a discussion had occurred, it is unlikely the article would have been approved or passed moderation standards. This seems to reflect a pattern of using Wikipedia as a platform to lend credibility to fake or paid news. Moondust534 (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Music. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without looking further into this, so no comment on the notability, something lacking popularity does not make it "fake news" and almost all articles on Wikipedia are created without discussion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. While I agree an initial search is showing that it's probably not notable, I don't see the malice of things being "fake" or overtly promotional mentioned by the nominator. This looks like a run-of-the-mill article creation by an inexperienced editor who didn't understand our notability standards. Sergecross73 msg me 11:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw multiple fake news, so I reported it, with article prices on upwork. A blog cannot be labeled a reliable magazine tho. The platform has mixed reviews, with some raising concerns about its reliability and payout practices. Moondust534 (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really following, but your nomination should be focusing more on how it fails notability criteria like the WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT, not all this "fake news" stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That was a side comment I made. My main point is that it fails notability, coverage about it does not exist. - WP:GNG WP:WEBCRIT. Moondust534 (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For music magazines, especially online ones, I look to see how often it has been cited in other periodicals and books. In this case, the website has been cited only twice in its fifteen year history. It fails WP:NPERIODICAL #1 and #4 for sure. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Virgin New Adventures. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 07:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Return of the Living Dad

AfDs for this article:

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

The article has a source from The Unauthorized Guide to Doctor Who Novels which seems solid. It has a source to Bibliography of Australian Literature which isn't WP:SIGCOV just verifying the credits. Now the reason I bring this specifically up to AFD is to formulate a consensus on the following. It has three sources to Doctor Who Magazine not published by the BBC but by Panini Comics. Despite this it is officially lisenced and maintains a close relationship with the BBC. Are these reviews good enough to establish notability and count towards WP:NBOOK Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, Austria, and England. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe DWM should apply for the reasons you've described. Despite different publishers, DWM has a very close relationship with the BBC and is for all intents and purposes an extension of Doctor Who's marketing (Especially since it's used for official announcements, releases officially licensed comic stories, is used for promotional purposes, and more). It's probably fine for citing interviews and such from but for notability's sake I doubt it's independent enough of the subject to be a secondary source. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Virgin New Adventures. While there are three sources from Panini Comics, the fourth from Bibliography of Australian Literature and the fifth from Guide to Doctor Who Novels, reviews aren't enough to establish long-term notability thus failing WP:NBOOK. Also, I'm unable to find any other sources so redirecting it as this seems the only option. Galaxybeing (talk) 11:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Virgin New Adventures per Pokelego999. I have used DWM as a source many times, and the expanded universe media has always been covered in a promotional tone, in addition to it also not been sufficiently independent, so ref 1 is not secondary enough. Ref 2 is trivial, ref 3 does not count as it's just the synopsis. Ref 4 and 5 are fine, but not enough for a separate article. ({ping|OlifanofmrTennant}} have you done a WP:BEFORE, bcs there isn't any indication of it?)DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did my before when I was looking at the novels trying to determine which ones would survive at AFD. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, so there are no other refs. I'll keep my !vote as merge then.(F, I mistyped the ping template, sorry about that.) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Running my usual source check. None of the sources currently in the article establish notability, but maybe there are more. I'm finding a passing mention here: [22] Google Scholar: [23] There might be a few in here, but it doesn't look very promising. Someone with JSTOR etc. access could give the top two hits a closer look. For now, I'm feeling okay about merge. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Drawn to Life#Sequels, spin-off, and possible future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drawn to Life (video game series)

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

I could not find anything in particular about the series that merits a standalone series page or passes WP:GNG. The main article has been the first game for a very long time and there was no particular reason to diverge from that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Drawn to Life#Sequels, spin-off, and possible future as an WP:ATD. The article already goes off into a collection of sources from the games' reviews. I've not found anything that talks about a series overview. Conyo14 (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Conyo. Very little coverage and has a viable AtD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Code page 860

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

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout, beyond a couple mentions in some books. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ ~~Has enough sources, and is a well-established code page.~~ Transwiki or Merge, because this is a search term, but not notable enough to have its own article. Alexlatham96 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have done nothing to explain how this article has adequate sourcing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One new source showing date of creation: here.Alexlatham96 (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not sufficient, since it's a trivial mention according to WP: SIGCOV. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 859

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

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find any sources to expand the article or establish notability. BJackJS talk 15:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, too obscure. Alexlatham96 (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexlatham96, transwiki where? -- asilvering (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to the Character Encodings Wikibook. Alexlatham96 (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 857

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

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ ~~Has enough sources, and is a well-established code page.~~ Transwiki or Merge, because this is a search term, but not notable enough to have its own article. Alexlatham96 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have done nothing to explain how this article has adequate sourcing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One new source showing date of creation: here.Alexlatham96 (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not sufficient, since it's a trivial mention according to WP: SIGCOV. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 856

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

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has enough sources, and is a well-established code page. ~~I now have no decision about this one.~~ Transwiki, no sources. Alexlatham96 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have done nothing to explain how this article has adequate sourcing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 1169

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

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, and Asia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki No sources. Alexlatham96 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 855

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

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout, besides maybe one trivial mention in a book. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, Bulgaria, North Macedonia, and Serbia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ ~~Has enough sources, and is a well-established code page.~~ Transwiki or Merge, because this is a search term, but not notable enough to have its own article. Alexlatham96 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have done nothing to explain how this article has adequate sourcing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One new source showing date of creation: here.Alexlatham96 (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a trivial mention, which doesn't meet WP: SIGCOV. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 852

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

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ ~~Has enough sources, and is a well-established code page.~~ Transwiki or Merge, because this is a search term, but does not appear to be notable enough to have its own article. Alexlatham96 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have done nothing to explain how this article has adequate sourcing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found 2 sources showing date of creation: here and here. Do these solve the problem?Alexlatham96 (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. We generally don't consider blogs to be authoritative sources, and the other page looks like a bunch of documentation that defines the contents of code pages but provides little information beyond that. Neither source establishes notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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!} 04:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Reza Mirzaei

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

Fails notability, never won a major medal. his achievements are in youth level or either in minor competitions. Sports2021 (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reporting of results does not constitute significant independent coverage, especially when none of the results are significant enough to show WP notability. Youth martial arts events have not been considered sufficient to show notability. He is not currently among the roughly 650 people ranked by the WKF in his division and I found no evidence he'd ever competed at an Asian or World championship event as an adult, despite the article's claims of him winning Iran's national team selection matches multiple times. I remain open to changing my vote if better coverage or more significant results are found, but this is my current view based on my research. Papaursa (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G4 speedy deleted‎. (non-admin closure) Procyon117 (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seyed Ali Mousavi Noor

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

Fails notability, it was deleted once recently after this discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seyed Ali Mousavi Nour but recreated again under a slightly different name to trick wikipedia. Sports2021 (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

to stay: Please refrain from deleting this article. This article is about one of the prominent karate champions from Iran and Asia, a member of Iran’s national karate team, who has achieved significant titles such as Asian Games champion and Asian champion. In interviews published by credible sources, this athlete has expressed their ambition to win an Olympic gold medal. A key strength of this article lies in its reliance on reputable and recognized sources, including Fars News Agency and Islamic Republic News Agency. These news agencies have independent articles on English Wikipedia, reflecting their credibility and notability on an international scale. Why this article meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia: Athletic Notability: This champion has earned major national and international titles, making them well-known in the world of sports. Credible References: The article is based on official and internationally recognized sources, which align with Wikipedia’s standards for reliable references. Compliance with Wikipedia Policies: The article adheres to all Wikipedia guidelines, including neutrality, use of reliable sources, and meeting the notability criteria. Historical and Sports Significance: This article documents a part of Iran’s sports history, and its deletion may lead to the loss of important information.

Given that the article fully complies with Wikipedia’s criteria and guidelines, it is recommended that the reviewing team carefully reassess its content and sources and avoid deleting an article about such a significant sports figure.Tirakhar (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SJK(C) Puay Chai 2

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

Contested draft. School doesn't appear to be notable enough for a standalone article, and currently fails WP:NSCHOOL. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and China. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The school does not meet NORG nor GNG. As the page creator moved it out of draft space after draftification, I suspect that the same would happen again if an ATD of draftify found consensus. Draftify would also imply that we thought sources might be found, but I am not seeing any evidence that will happen. Better, then, to just delete it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect primary schools to the local city/area per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I've looked neither at the article nor for sources and am only repeating the usual rule. If there is anything significant to be said about the school, it can be said in Petaling Jaya#Education. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it, I have believe that the article is not notable enough. Thank you. I have consented the allowance of deleting the article. PropPlays (talk) 08:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dice pool

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

Effectively unreferenced, outside few mentions of this in particular games. While my BEFORE confirms that the terms appear here and there, I cannot find any WP:SIGCOV of this. This seems to fail WP:V and WP:GNG. Not sure if redirecting this do dice is even warranted. Note that the article is also incorrect - it limits this concept to RPGs, but it also appears in board games (but it is really a very niche and minor part of all such games). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I sorted through about 8-10 hits in Google Scholar to come up with three that I believe appropriately demonstrate this mechanic is covered adequately in RS to meet GNG.
Liu, A. J. (2022). Icepool: Efficient Computation of Dice Pool Probabilities. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment, 18(1), 258-265. https://doi.org/10.1609/aiide.v18i1.21971 Wonderful paper, totally about dice pools, from the proceedings of a conference I've actually heard about.

Ovard, Caleb, "Your Mission, Should You Choose to Attempt it, is to Save the Mona Lisa! Gamification as a Method for Teaching Art" (2023). Theses and Dissertations. 10236. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/10236 Very detailed discussion with examples of dice pool mechanics. It's a master's thesis, not published elsewhere.

T. Mott, M. Higger, A. Bejarano and T. Williams, "Degrees of Freedom: A Storytelling Game that Supports Technology Literacy about Social Robots," 2024 33rd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN), Pasadena, CA, USA, 2024, pp. 2095-2102, doi: 10.1109/RO-MAN60168.2024.10731340. Could say more about the dice pool, really just describes its use and origin, but it's a journal from a very well respected professional society. Jclemens (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added one of the above sources as a definition of the term, and have referenced a game designer's article to explain why the dice pool is used in games. I think a lot of the other material in the article could be shortened or even removed, but as it stands, I believe the article now explains the term and is accurately sourced.Guinness323 (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everything found and added by Jclemens and Guinness323. BOZ (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Code page 851

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

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout, including the six currently in the article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki Alexlatham96 (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 720

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

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout, including the six currently in the article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Twinkle could not notify the article creator because they're indefinitely banned. If there's any users I should notify about this AfD, please let me know. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although a redirect to Code page#DOS code pages could work in theory, I seriously doubt the article has enough views to warrant an optimal redirect. Conyo14 (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 708

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

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 668

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

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Transwiki per @Davemc0.– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 20:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emote

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

The article as it currently stands is a pure WP:DICDEF. I was only able to find trivial mentions about emotes in sources, or sources over-specifically referring to a specific emote from a specific game (usually Fortnite). I feel this could become a disambiguation page pointing to acting and emoji among other things. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Computing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the current state of the article isn't great, I think we have enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG. I found academic sources that discuss the use of emotes on Twitch^[1]^[2] and there are other online sources that specifically discuss emotes (as distinct from emojis),^[3]^[4] so I don't think redirecting would be appropriate. There appears to be enough sourcing to maintain a separate article, but I'm open to input from other editors. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On further consideration, there is some overlap between how emotes and emojis are used (one paper describes emotes as "platform-specific emojis"),^[5] but I still think there is enough discussion of emotes as a distinct term to warrant a stand-alone article. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And can any of those be used to write a cohesive article on emotes in general, as opposed to an example farm?

Even if expanded, I foresee it becoming like:

"In one example, Twitch utilizes emotes. In another, Youtube uses emotes. In yet another, emotes are used in MMOs". And so on. Furthermore, in at least some of these cases, "emotes" is used in a sense that is synonymous with emoji rather than its own entity. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that emotes and emojis are sometimes used synonymously, but in some contexts they are clearly distinct. Video game emotes (i.e., character animations that players can trigger) is a clearly distinct usage for instance. One source I found discusses a copyright lawsuit against Epic Games regarding the source of their emote animations;^[6] another source discusses the differences in how players perceive emotes vs. actual facial expressions;^[7] and there were more sources I saw on Google Scholar that I'm too lazy to cite at the moment. To your point, it will definitely be difficult to create a cohesive article because of these diverging uses of the term. However, I'm seeing quite a few academic sources that discuss the use of emotes in video games and live chats, so I'm still inclined to keep an article in some form. I'm open to discussion on what the scope of the article should be, how to structure it, etc. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible the article could be rewritten as Emote (video games). However, I don't think it would be the primary topic regardless, so I believe that my deletion proposal of this particular article in its current form still stands. In the current article there is nothing that merits keeping; it requires a full rewrite 100%. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it requires a rewrite doesn't mean it should be deleted. AfD is not cleanup. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is also not in the business of keeping things that are totally unencyclopedic. As I said, if nothing can be salvaged, it is best to start over, and it would encourage people to only create something when they have the time to make it an actual full article. Regardless, it would require a change in scope as this article is also about textual chat emotes as well. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the Twitch emotes; depending on the severity of the coverage, would Twitch emotes not be a separate topic from emotes? Sort of similar to how Emoji has various other notable topics, like Eggplant emoji and Face with Tears of Joy emoji. I'm not sure it'd provide notability to the parent if it is an inherently separate, albeit notable topic.
I do second Zx in that emotes seem to be a very wide-reaching topic, and the sourcing for them as a whole doesn't seem to be there like what Emojis seem to have. There may be several notable subtopics, but attempting to cover all these subtopics as one topic would be messy and potentially problematic. I won't vote yet until more is discussed, but I felt it would be worthwhile to ask about the above and get some clarity on this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the issue seems to be that there are multiple topics this article could focus on. When it comes to emotes on livestreaming platforms, the sources seem to exclusively focus on Twitch emotes. I notice that Twitch emote already redirects to Twitch (service)#Emotes. Maybe it would make sense to rework this article to focus on emotes in video games and include a hatnote to Twitch (service)#Emotes where the platform-specific emotes are already covered? Like you, I'd like to get input from other editors on this, so I've struck my initial !vote pending further discussion. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, it might make more sense to convert Emote to a disambiguation page. I'll need to dig into the sources a bit more before making a firm claim on what the primary topic is. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lord Bolingbroke Good luck! Let me know how that goes. I'm partial to both of your responses, and I feel both could be feasible, but I'll need to see what sourcing is like before I make any significant judgement calls. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep probably. While this subject was biggest in the pre- and early-web days (BBS chat, IRC, etc.), emotes are still part of many current chat systems. Any of the many books about internet chat would have a bit about this. It's not an overlap with emoji, which are graphical emoticons, not emotes. It's possible there's not a whole lot to say about this, in which case a merge probably makes sense, but I'm not sure where to merge to. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any of the books on this on hand? Mostly asking because those sources would greatly help with covering this subject if they do exist. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. After returning to this, I would like to unstrike and reinforce my initial !vote above. In response to Pokelego999's query above about book sources, I found extensive discussion of emotes in Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication (De Gruyter, 2013).^[8] I have access to the book through my local library and can supply quotes if desired. There also appeared to be mentions in other books I didn't have access to. I also found multiple academic sources that discuss the origin of emotes in MMOs and older chat clients.^[9]^[10] I also came across multiple sources that discuss the differences between emotes and emojis in detail.^[11]^[12] On balance, this is a clear keep. Although it will be difficult to integrate all the sources cohesively, that itself is not a reason to delete the article. I believe the best course of action is to keep the article under its current title and include a hatnote for Twitch emote as I mentioned above. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lord Bolingbroke I trust in the sourcing quality above. Willing to Keep this article since at the bare minimum, this is enough coverage to show this is a distinct subject. This article will need work, and I'm happy to help if you need it.
Also, just a note, but the University of Toledo source is a thesis, which falls under Wikipedia:THESIS. Be wary about it since I'm not sure if it falls under our reliable source usage. Just pointing it out in case you were unaware; if you are and it's reliable, it's no biggie. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input Pokelego999. Yes, I'm aware of the University Toledo source being a thesis – probably not good to rely on it heavily, but it could still be useful for fleshing out a description of emotes in MMOs. I'm in the midst of finals this week, but I will try to expand the article a bit and integrate some of these sources later. I'll ping you on the talk page if I could use a second pair of eyes on something. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, but do be aware the thesis may be considered unreliable if you can't verify its reliability independently. Not a pressing concern since the other sources prove notability just fine but do be aware you'll have to take a look at that at some point in the future. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources cited in this AfD. McYeee (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Jaeheon Kim; Donghee Yvette Wohn; Meeyoung Cha (January 2022). "Understanding and identifying the use of emotes in toxic chat on Twitch". Online Social Networks and Media. 27. doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2021.100180.
^ Caleb Gierke; Sara Brady (30 July 2022). "The Effects of Context on the Understanding of Twitch Emotes". SSRN. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
^ "YouTube Introduces Twitch-Like 'YouTube Emotes' Feature: All Details". News18. 7 December 2022. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
^ Luke Winkie (3 January 2019). "The history of dance emotes in 15 gifs". PC Gamer. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
^ Fabian Haak. Emojis in Lexicon-Based Sentiment Analysis: Creating Emoji Sentiment Lexicons from Unlabeled Corpora (PDF). LWDA'21: Lernen, Wissen, Daten, Analysen. Munich, Germany. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
^ Callagy, Sean M (8 November 2023). "Hanagami V. Epic Games: The Ninth Circuit Clarifies The Standard For Infringement Of Choreographic Works". Mondaq Business Briefing.
^ Erik Pettersson; Veronica Sundstedt (8 November 2017). "A perceptual evaluation of social interaction with emotes and real-time facial motion capture". Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Motion in Games. doi:10.1145/3136457.3136461.
^ Susan Herring; Dieter Stein; Tuija Virtanen, eds. (2013). Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication. Vol. 9. De Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-021445-1.
^ Diaz, Leanna Marie (2018). Usage of Emotes and Emoticons in a Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game (Master of Arts). University of Toledo.
^ Jamie Purdon (2015). "Netspeak in an IRC Chatroom". Tokyo Woman's Christian University. Retrieved 2024-12-04.
^ Agnieszka Lyons (July 2018). "Multimodal expression in written digital discourse: The case of kineticons". Journal of Pragmatics. 131: 18–29. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2018.05.001. Kineticons can correspond to – or function alongside – other non-textual or non-verbal forms: emoticons, emojis, and emotes, which share some of their characteristics, but are either formally or functionally different ... Formally closest to kineticons, emotes are text entries that indicate an action taking place. In some chat clients, inserting a specific command replaces the command with the representation of an action and in online games with visible avatars, entering a specific command into the chat window will animate the avatar. Emotes are usually associated with online gaming and older chat clients, such as IRC.
^ Kelin Hull; Cory Pettit (Autumn 2021). "Making Community through the Utilization of Discord in a (Suddenly) Online Writing Center". The Peer Review. Retrieved 2024-12-04.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 03:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tomer Reznik

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

Inadequate sources for this young Israeli as of 2024 to meet GNG. Maybe in the future this could come back or could go to draft space in the meantime. I believe it should be deleted for now. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in the future if he attains a stronger notability claim and/or better sourcing. He has not to date held any role that would qualify as "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL, but two footnotes isn't enough to claim that he would pass WP:GNG as of today either. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Code page 778

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

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki this and the related LST 1590-4. Alexlatham96 (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Islands at the 2024 World Aquatics Championships

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. Basically the whole article is to say that they entered one person in that event and they lost. No GNG sources, just one database type source for that factoid. North8000 (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Qatar, and Oceania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This type of article/list has very little potential for growrth, and is at best appropriate for an overview along the lines of Solomon Islands at the World Aquatics Championships. It doesn't exist, so a merge isn't possible at the time. Geschichte (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Solomon Islands at the World Aquatics Championships and repurpose/expand the article under that broader topic per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 12:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Code page 775

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

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. Most of the sources describe what the code page layout is but don't provide any information beyond that. The remaining source(s) don't look reliable or don't give us significant information about the code page with which we could use to build an article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ ~~Has enough sources, and is a well-established code page.~~ Transwiki or Merge, because this is a search term, but does not appear to be notable enough to have its own article. Alexlatham96 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have done nothing to explain how this article has adequate sourcing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 777

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

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki Alexlatham96 (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 776

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

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki Alexlatham96 (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 773

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

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki Alexlatham96 (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 770

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

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. The creator of the article added one source that provides a trivial mention of the subject, then dePRODed the article. Without sufficient sourcing improvements, this article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good idea to dump this. Possibly the article listing code page numbers could add a word saying what language the page is designed for.

Please also try to get rid of the cruft added to actual influential code pages, such as code page 850 which have been padded with a number of obscure code pages that are "similar". Spitzak (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some of this.Alexlatham96 (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend to merge the deletion discussions and transwiki all, but ~~keep~~ redirect to the DOS code pages article the more well-known code pages (775, 852, 855, 857, and 860) ~~especially only if sources are found.~~ and link to the tables for now (but at some point start a discussion on which tables can be added in the DOS code pages article). ~~I want to keep 851 as well, but sourcing may be inadequate.~~ Others facing deletion are: Code page 708, Code page 720, Code page 773, Code page 775, Code page 776, Code page 777, Code page 778, Code page 851, Code page 852, Code page 853, Code page 855, Code page 856, Code page 857, Code page 3846, Code page 859, Code page 860, Code page 1169. Alexlatham96 (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTMANUAL, is there any reason to keep any of these CP articles as free-standing articles (rather than merely sections of a broad concept article, code page)? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this material to another wiki is functionally the same as a delete vote to me, because it indicates that the material does not belong on Wikipedia. I don't care what you do with any of this material after it's deleted as long as it's off Wikipedia. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having them in a central article about code pages is my preferred solution. DRMcCreedy (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how one article with many tables is any better than many articles with one table... HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having them default to collapsed would be at least a start. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think only the more well-known code pages should be listed in the article. The rest can transwiki. Of these, only code page 852 has more than 4 articles in other languages. What makes it unique? Alexlatham96 (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily disagree, but I'm primarily concerned with whether this content is appropriate to host on Wikipedia in the first place. At the end of the day, these pages just contain a massive amount of documentation, and we are not a website for hosting documentation. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see one article with many tables as better because a table is not a separate entity that is tracked, discussed, considered for deletion, etc. We're seeing a case of it right here. There are 20 AfD discussions going on because these are separate articles. One article could be dealt with much more efficiently in all ways. Many people might perceive the separate articles with a sense of cruft. Davemc0 (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These were nominated as separate articles because I have never done a bulk nomination. If I could go back in time and bulk nominate them, I would. There are some other code page articles that I have yet to nominate. Those will likely be done in bulk, because I do find managing this many nominations to be a bit of a mess. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we do not keep articles because we hope that there are good sources out there or because you claim they are "well-known". Hope does not establish notability: tangible, high-quality sources do. If a subject is as well known as you claim, you should have no issue finding such sources. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a source for Code page 852 here and a source here for DOS code pages, but I don't know if they pass guidelines. Maybe it is best to transwiki all of them, or at least the ones with no sources.Alexlatham96 (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Neither passes the guidelines -- we generally don't consider blogs to be authoritative sources, and the other page looks like a bunch of documentation that defines the contents of code pages but provides little information beyond that. I don't know how much time you spend in AfD, but the policy you're looking for is WP: SIGCOV. In the future, you should make sure that whatever sources you find meet all of the criteria there. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This content fits very nicely with the wikibook. I have not looked into which code pages are notable, but it seems to me that those that are not should be transwikied there. I'm more concerned that they are on some wiki rather than which wiki. I also think that these are all plausible search terms, and they should ideally redirect to something more specific than the lede of Code page. McYeee (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems like a nice solution to me. Davemc0 (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should be merged with other articles. Not deleted outright. GalaxyDoge72 (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above.Davemc0 (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Nance

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this American soccer player. Fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Michigan, Ohio, and Washington. JTtheOG (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure of WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV Demt1298 (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of works by Vincent van Gogh. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auvers size 30 canvases

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

Don't think this satisfies WP:NLIST. Have looked for sources discussing Auvers Van Gogh size 30 canvas paintings as a group and have been unable to find any in Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, etc.. One source is incompletely cited in the Refs section but even if it does discuss the paintings as a group, that's one source, and I am doubtful there is another given it seems difficult to group these paintings based just on the size of the canvas on which they are painted. There is already a list of paintings made at Auvers in List of works by Vincent van Gogh. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge/redirect Looks like the kind of thing you could have done a WP:BOLD merge of without an AFD. Reywas92^Talk 14:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of works by Vincent van Gogh, which already has a section "Paintings (Auvers-sur-Oise)" and a table that is sortable by size. Asparagusstar (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. While the arguments on the Delete side are stronger, P&G-wise, the arguments for retention cannot be discarded. I see no rough consensus either way. Owen× ☎ 20:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aslam Chowdhury

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Not meeting WP ANYBIOP and WP:POLITICIAN. Deleted 9 years ago per A7 美しい歌 (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

What is required to be included in this article for it to come out of the deletion process?

The individual is a high profile politician of Bangladesh Nationalist Party who has been arbitrarily imprisoned by a toppled regime for 8 years. Intlctzn (talk) 13:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of long media coverage regarding the individual which spans over a decade.

"Bangladeshi Dissident Aslam Chowdhury released from prison". Foreign Policy Blogs. 2024-08-27. Retrieved 2024-11-11."Morshed Khan, Afroza Abbas, Aslam Chowdhury round off BNP success on appeals". www.unb.com.bd. Retrieved 2024-11-11."BNP appoints three more members to Chairperson's Advisory Council"."Bangladesh politician arrested for 'Israel handshake'". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 2024-11-11."BNP leader Aslam Chowdhury walks out of jail after 8 yrs -". The Daily Observer. Retrieved 2024-11-11."Bangladeshi Opposition Official Arrested for Alleged Contacts With Mossad"."Bangladesh opposition official arrested over Israel meeting"."BNP's Aslam on seven-day remand | The Asian Age Online, Bangladesh". The Asian Age. Retrieved 2024-11-11.bdnews24.com. "Police claim BNP leader Aslam has given substantial information about plot with Israel". Police claim BNP leader Aslam has given substantial information about plot with Israel. Retrieved 2024-11-11."BNP leader Aslam Chy arrested over 'meeting' Mossad agent [ Tritiyo Matra News ]". www.tritiyomatra.com. Retrieved 2024-11-11.bdnews24.com. "BNP's Aslam arrested in Dhaka over 'Israel plot' to overthrow Hasina regime". BNP’s Aslam arrested in Dhaka over ‘Israel plot’ to overthrow Hasina regime. Retrieved 2024-11-11.bdnews24.com. "BNP's Hannan says RAW released Aslam's photo with Israel politician in Bangladesh media". BNP’s Hannan says RAW released Aslam’s photo with Israel politician in Bangladesh media. Retrieved 2024-11-11."Govt stages drama over Aslam's meeting with Israeli leader: BNP"."BNP leader Aslam Chowdhury gets HC bail". The Business Standard. 2021-05-30. Retrieved 2024-11-11."BNP leader Aslam Chy released on bail". daily-sun. Retrieved 2024-11-11. Intlctzn (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subsections all can be under controversy, A bio is not notable just for 1 event hence fail WP:Bio, You might choose to add any notable things he has done in the future. Tesleemah (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added more information. Intlctzn (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator for this deletion quotes WP:POLITICIAN to delete this article but per aforesaid guidelines, politicians who have held office^[1] or received significant press coverage (as politician^[2]^[3] / business head^[4]) are considered notable. Main article's political career section seems to fulfill this criteria.

(if) other concerns on quality of article can however be raised on main article page and improvements invited, this should not warrant a deletion though Nisingh.8 (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

Articles for people of identical position exists e.g. Ruhul Kabir Rizvi. 38.39.204.206 (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. We have deleted, in the past 10 years, thousands of articles about diplomats, political party officials, losing candidates, and activists, up to and including candidates for the United States Senate, for lack of significant coverage. Only members of parliament or the equivalent are automatically included here: not political party officials. It’s about as strong a consensus as you can imagine on Wikipedia. If you haven’t ever read Wikipedia, you might not know that, but that’s not our problem, because in 2024 everybody knows that. We are not Ballotpedia or Truth Social. Bearian (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The individual is an important candidate for upcoming Bangladesh general election. 38.39.204.206 (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While normally this politician would be deleted under WP:NPOL, there is international coverage of this particular politician's arrest and imprisonment. This clearly puts this particular person beyond the normal scope of someone in this type of post. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Advisor, chair, secretary... These are all functionary positions, not meeting political notability. I don't see notability, the sourcing isn't helping matters. Oaktree b (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm not terribly convinced by either "side". Looks like he doesn't meet WP:NPOL and the election that might qualify him for NPOL is unlikely to happen in the next six months: point for the deleters. But the deleters haven't really countered the keepers' assertions that there are enough sources for WP:GNG. So, which is it?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do agree that he does not meet the first bullet of of WP:NPOL, but the second bullet Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage is met. The sources (and the amount of) do tick every box of WP:GNG. DarmaniLink (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Plausible significant coverage presented and not refuted over the course of a week. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Lun Eve Lin

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

Contested draftification. Autobiography of a lesser known fashion designer. Clear COI issues, and a lack of notability is also evident. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fashion, and Taiwan. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe keep. Just looking in the external links she has been the feature in stories by the BBC and Elle. For a fashion designer those don't at all seem trivial. I don't doubt there may be COI issues, but the sourcing already in the article as a cited reference or in the external links seems to meet WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards re-draftification for now. Coverage might not be strong enough for WP:N.-KH-1 (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, or WP:TBT, or face my brutally honest editing / stubification. This is not only a COI, but a clearly unfinished piece. That’s acceptable on LinkedIn, but WP:NOTFB. Bearian (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC) I’m not saying that a new article has to be perfect, but come on. Bearian (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. "新銳強勢發聲 Fresh Voice of Now / Eve Lin 設計師：林鈺倫" [Fresh Voice of Now / Designer: Lin Yulun]. Elle (in Chinese). 2014-08-18. Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
  The article notes: "『Back to 18』承擔下秋冬主題，不同形式的「跨界」，以成熟心理反向叛逆，是18歲的任性加上30歲的理智。推開配合和妥協，經典的襯衫從此不再安安靜靜，迷上了摺紙藝術的Eve Lin，秋冬用雙手摺出喧譁的幾何圖形，送到印度刷印網版製印花，生產屬於自己的布絲、雪紡，不走數位印花如照片般的高解析，而是透過手工的粗實形成感情豐富的復古風味。"
  From Google Translate: ""Back to 18" takes on the theme of autumn and winter, with different forms of "cross-border" and rebellion with a mature psychology. It is the willfulness of an 18-year-old combined with the rationality of a 30-year-old. Pushing aside coordination and compromise, classic shirts are no longer quiet. Eve Lin is obsessed with the art of origami. In autumn and winter, she folds noisy geometric shapes with her hands and sends them to India for screen printing to produce her own fabrics. Silk and chiffon do not use high-resolution digital printing like photos, but create an emotional retro flavor through the roughness of handwork. Now she knows more accurately what the rules of the game are for her."
2. YenLin (2015-11-03). "設計新世代 Young Powers／林鈺倫女性主義的男裝結構" [Designing the New Generation: Young Powers / Yu Lun Eve Lin: The Feminist Structure of Menswear]. men's uno男人誌 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
  The article notes: "畢業自英國Central St. Martin的林鈺倫Eve Lin，2010年於英國倫敦自創同名品牌，受到英國男裝歷史文化以及製作技術的薰陶下，將極簡卻帶有女性優雅風格的想法，巧妙地套用在男裝的剪裁上，襯托出整個設計的質感以及她所追求的風格。"
  From Google Translate: "Eve Lin, who graduated from Central St. Martin in the UK, founded her own brand of the same name in London, UK in 2010. Influenced by the history, culture and production technology of British men's clothing, she skillfully applied the idea of minimalism but feminine elegance. The tailoring of men's clothing brings out the texture of the entire design and the style she pursues."
  The article notes that she was born in 1984 in Taiwan, received a master of fashion design at Central Saint Martins, was an intern at the Alexander McQueen studio in London, started a clothing brand called Eve Lin in 2009, and is a lecturer at Shih Chien University's department of fashion studies.
3. "台湾时装国际市场展风采" [Taiwan Fashion International Market Exhibition] (in Chinese). BBC. 2010-03-05. Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
  The article notes: "我最近在伦敦市中心的一个画廊（The Coningsby Gallery）就参观了来自台湾的女时装设计师林钰伦的时装展。来自台湾台中市的林钰伦从童年习画转而学习时装设计，去年取得在伦敦中央圣马丁设计艺术学院硕士学位，并成为该学院2009年唯一一位来自亚洲的女装硕士毕业生。早春之际，林钰伦受母校邀请，从台湾飞来伦敦参加新锐时装设计师秋冬女装作品展，她的时装展题为“All About Eve”。"
  From Google Translate: "I recently visited a fashion exhibition of Taiwanese fashion designer Lin Yu-lun at a gallery in central London (The Coningsby Gallery). Yu Lun Eve Lin, who is from Taichung, Taiwan, switched from painting to fashion design in her childhood. Last year, she obtained a master's degree from Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design in London and became the only Asian graduate of the college's women's fashion master's program in 2009. In early spring, Yu Lun Eve Lin was invited by her alma mater to fly from Taiwan to London to participate in the autumn and winter women's fashion exhibition of emerging fashion designers. Her fashion exhibition was titled "All About Eve"."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yu Lun Eve Lin (traditional Chinese: 林鈺倫; simplified Chinese: 林钰伦) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. Cunard (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Siarka Tarnobrzeg without prejudice against a merger. A week has passed since Star Mississippi reverted her close and relisted the AfD for further discussion, yet I don't see consensus among P&G-based views having shifted away from what we saw at the first close, namely, that existing sources--not just those cited in the article--fail to establish notability per NSTADIUM/GNG. That rough consensus holds even if we take into account views expressed on Star Mississippi's Talk page. Discussions have now been going on for over three weeks, so I see no point in dragging this on any longer. Persistent, belligerent attempts to revert the outcome of an AfD without discussion can be handled by any editor as disruptive edit-warring. Please alert me or any admin if a p-block or semi-protection is required. Owen× ☎ 14:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tarnobrzeg Municipal Stadium

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

Creator claims such small stadiums are inherently notable; I don't think that's true at all. Article was moved back into draft space by User:Mccapra, and creator moved it back to main space twice. Their argument? "The subject is encyclopedic, the article is well-sourced, and there is nothing in it beyond what is present in the Polish-language article." But the first thing is untrue and certainly questionable, the second is ridiculous (the link is to a user-generated database of stadiums), and the first is irrelevant on the English wiki. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of keeping the article. Tarnobrzeg Municipal Stadium may not stand out significantly from other stadiums, but it represents a typical example of local sports infrastructure, much like other stadiums already included in the encyclopedia. To provide context, I reviewed two randomly selected stadiums—Stjörnuvöllur and Akranesvöllur—and found them similarly modest in scale. Deleting Tarnobrzeg Municipal Stadium based on the argument presented here could set a precedent for removing numerous comparable entries, which doesn’t align with our established approach to such topics. While I understand the concerns raised, I believe the article is well-sourced and falls within the scope of what we consider encyclopedic. Paradygmaty (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep stadiums are generally notable. The article only has one source, though, that doesn't help with GNG, so we have to do a source search, not a blanket AfD. And what we see is that the stadium has been covered in secondary sources: [24] [25] (looks like the same story) [26] [27] (about hooligans who vandalized it.) Now those may not be a clear GNG pass, but they are all from the past month. It should be relatively easy to write a decent little article about this. SportingFlyer T·C 16:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again we're missing the point here - since the article was sent to AfD, there's been some expansion with some sources which I think are fine (some don't count like transfermarkt), but more importantly there's at least one site - stadiony.pl - which includes news about the stadium back to 2009, and while some of it is self published others appear to be copies of articles published about the stadium. Polish football is generally well documented and a search of "Stadion Siarki Tarnobrzeg" brings up even more material which clearly clears GNG. There's news going back to 2013 for instance [28]. SportingFlyer T·C 07:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ all sports stadiums are not notable, and small local stadiums generally aren’t. There is nothing architecturally, historically or culturally distinctive about this one as far as I can see. Most towns have a stadium like this, just like they have a police station and a post office. Mccapra (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The test isn't about whether they are "architecturally, historically or culturally distinctive." The test is whether they've been covered in secondary sources, and this one clearly has. SportingFlyer T·C 17:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SportingFlyer – notability is based on coverage in reliable secondary sources, not just architectural or cultural significance. I’ve also expanded the article to provide more context, which supports its notability. Paradygmaty (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or maybe better merge into Siarka Tarnobrzeg. Per WP:NSTADIUM, stadiums are not generally notable and has to meet WP:GNG criteria. WP:GNG says that "significant coverage is not a guarantee that a subject merits its own article". Currently used sources do not demonstrate notability, and the vandalism articles are not even "significant coverage". The vandalism is not a historical event and Wikipedia is not a newspaper to collect such events of local importance. So I suggest deleting this paragraph and moving the rest to the club as a section, which should satisfy everyone involved. FromCzech (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Siarka Tarnobrzeg as possible search term. Giant Snowman 10:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I maintain my stance for KEEP, especially since I have updated the article to include the fact that this stadium hosted Siarka Tarnobrzeg during their three seasons in the top Polish league. This clearly indicates that it is not just an insignificant stadium. Surely, we wouldn't delete the stadium of an Ekstraklasa club – following that logic, we should also consider removing Františka Kloze Stadium (in Czechia), which is also "just a building." I kindly ask you to reconsider your position. Paradygmaty (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above. Mccapra (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot vote twice. Paradygmaty (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t. I struck my original !vote. Mccapra (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To get it back on the log, longer note TK so I don't break the formatting in the template
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admin/Relist note, I had closed this as redirect to Siarka Tarnobrzeg. as a viable ATD where both fit together. History is preserved should there be a desire for a merger. however discussion arose at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tarnobrzeg_Municipal_Stadium and consensus was that a relist was likely more fruitful than DRV for an error in close and/or factors having changed. I leave this to the next closer as to whether this needs an additional seven days but given the ~ week since closure it's my personal opinion it should run a few days to ensure additional eyes for consensus (of whichever outcome that may be). Star Mississippi 01:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for relisting! I've added additional citations I found about the stadium renovation to the article to show this does indeed pass GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 01:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Siarka Tarnobrzeg as an appropriate WP:ATD. There are now 10 sources on the page but they are all primary sources, and most are not independent of the club. Two new ones have just been added. These are [29] and [30], which do at least speak about the stadium, but are news reports about the modernisation, and thus fall squarely in WP:PRIMARYNEWS. To consider that another way, the question is what makes the stadium notable for its own article and not as a piece of club news. The answer to that cannot be a news report about the progress of the club's modernisation of its stadium. It is, however, worth a mention on the club page, and would enhance that page, which is currently rather short. There are also news articles about fans damaging the stadium. This too is better located on the club page. It is not so much about the stadium itself as about an event in the club history and should not really be separated from that. The remaining sources are not independent, primary and do not speak to the stadium itself. What is missing is anything that a stadium article could be written from. We can't assemble this from club news - there has to be some kind of secondary treatment of the stadium, such as a history or an analysis of why it is notable. We don't have that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The new sources include both [31] and [32]. There are no press releases by the club in those articles, it's not the club promoting the stadium, and it even appears as if the municipality owns the stadium, not the club, which is common. I have no idea how you can say they're not independent of the club when the club isn't even mentioned in the articles. SportingFlyer T·C 23:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said they were primary sources. News reports (see PRIMARYNEWS). Sources need to be secondary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I respectfully disagree with @Sirfurboy. The Tarnobrzeg Municipal Stadium is a venue for the 2025 UEFA Women's Under-19 Championship, which alone demonstrates its notability. Secondary sources are already emerging, such as this article, showing its recognition beyond routine club matters. The stadium is described in more depth than many others, even down to details like pitch replacement. I’d also note that deletion discussions are not votes. The closing administrator should focus on policy-based arguments and the growing recognition of the stadium, which clearly supports its independent notability. Paradygmaty (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the additional source, but it is not a secondary source. It is a two paragraph article reporting the news that work has started to change the turf in the stadium. This is very firmly WP:PRIMARYNEWS and WP:MILL. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Sirfurboy, thank you for your thoughtful comments on the Tarnobrzeg Municipal Stadium discussion. However, I believe your interpretation of WP:PRIMARYNEWS and the notability criteria may be too restrictive in this case. Allow me to explain why the stadium meets the required threshold for its own article.

1. There are secondary sources present. Contrary to your assertion, the sources are not all primary. Many of them analyze or summarize information originating from primary sources, such as UEFA or MOSiR, thus qualifying as secondary sources. For instance: sources about the stadium’s modernization ([6], [7]) are independent news articles, not club press releases. These sources demonstrate coverage beyond routine club activities. The articles about the vandalism incident ([9], [10]) are also secondary, discussing significant events tied to the stadium itself, not solely the club.

2: Independent notability. The stadium is a confirmed venue for the 2025 UEFA Women's Under-19 Championship, which inherently establishes its significance on an international level. This is not a minor event or routine news. Few stadiums achieve recognition of this level, and its selection is a testament to its importance in Polish football infrastructure.

3. WP:PRIMARYNEWS does not render all news articles primary. It refers to news reports that merely document routine occurrences without broader context. Articles describing major renovations ([6], [7]) and detailed events such as vandalism ([9], [10]) clearly go beyond routine updates and provide meaningful context, making them secondary sources.

4. The stadium’s infrastructure, history, and upgrades have been covered in sufficient depth. This includes descriptions of the unique pitch orientation, renovations, and its role in international competitions. These are all indicators of notability separate from Siarka Tarnobrzeg. Paradygmaty (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you are telling me this [33] is a a secondary source. It is 4 paragraphs of news reporting. Paragraphs 1, 2 & 4 are about the team's preparations for the new season. Paragraph 3 tells us that the team are also preparing their stadium. They have prepare the pitch, cleaned the seats and put up a sign for their team. If you do not understand how this is news reporting and thus a primary source, then you have some reading to do. Not to mention that preparing the pitch, cleaning the seats, putting up a team sign and a camera is very much WP:MILL. What stadium would not do these things? This stadium is not notable. If it is not redirected, the page should be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:, still for keep, I respectfully disagree with your argument. The claim that the source is purely news reporting and thus a primary source oversimplifies the situation. It’s important to recognize that the source, while reporting on preparations, also provides context about the stadium's role as a venue for significant events, such as the UEFA Women's Under-19 Championship. This elevates the stadium’s notability beyond routine club matters. Your insistence on reducing it to a trivial, routine update on pitch maintenance ignores the broader significance of the venue’s involvement in an international tournament. Furthermore, this is not a vote, and your selective interpretation of facts to fit your position is problematic. The idea that the stadium's recognition by UEFA and its use in major tournaments would be disregarded in favor of a deletion is not only misguided but would also undermine the credibility of the project's commitment to objective standards of notability. Paradygmaty (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your insistence on reducing it to a trivial, routine update on pitch maintenance ignores... No, you keep telling me that the paragraph of trivial maintenance is a secondary source. It isn't. And neither is it SIGCOV. Now this is repetitive. I'll leave it there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your fixation on reducing the discussion to pitch maintenance is perplexing and oversimplifies the broader evidence of the stadium’s notability. This narrow focus detracts from a nuanced evaluation of the topic. Paradygmaty (talk) 06:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while not all sources are notable, there are multiple that are. Way more news coverage is also available within the simplest name search. Respublik (talk) 11:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Liminal space (aesthetic). I realize this is an unlikely search term but I'm closing it as a redirect as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liminal horror (genre)

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

An article for this already exists at "Liminal space (aesthetic)". I do not believe the subject of this article is unique enough for a standalone article. I propose deletion. However, if others believe this article could be merged or redirected to "Liminal space (aesthetic)" instead, then the consensus should be respected. (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 00:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Internet. (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 00:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The article's current sourcing is atrocious and it reads like an original essay. If it's kept, it probably needs to be nuked and started from scratch. I did find the following book: At the Edge of Existence: Liminality in Horror Cinema Since the 1970s, which is peer-reviewed and has "liminal horror" as its main topic. However, the only other sources I can find using this term are video game websites of dubious notability ([34] [35] and a college newspaper ([36]). Probably worth a mention at Liminal space (aesthetic), but not more than that for now. Astaire (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This topic seems rather duplicative of the information at Liminal space (aesthetic), with much of the information on the history of the phenomenon on the internet and things like the Backrooms already covered there. Currently there does not really seem to be a lot of distinction between the overarching topic of the liminal spaces aesthetic in general and the horror aspects in specific that would really necessitate it being split out. Further development should occur at the Liminal space (aesthetic) article first and, in the future, a separate article can be spun out if it ever become appropriate to do so. As mentioned above, the sources currently in the article are unacceptable, and there are a number of passages that appear to be WP:OR, so merging would not really be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect: to Liminal space (aesthetic) and add a section there about explicit horror, as I can see how the current page lacks explicit mentions of horror (though it alludes to it) Themoonisacheese (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Liminal space (aesthetic). I agree with what others have said; this should just be talked about within the liminal space article. In terms of sourcing, this article fails WP:GNG. Beachweak (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Liminal space (aesthetic). A section that talks about the horror aspect seems fine. The article on its own does not support the GNG necessary to carry the article's weight. Conyo14 (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Liminal space (aesthetic), probably can be expanded under the history section of that article. Procyon117 (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While a Redirect is relatively harmless (if not particularly useful as this is a pretty unlikely search term), I just want to go on record that I am very much opposed to a Merge of any kind. As I mentioned in my initial comments above, the only sources being used are not valid (a Reddit thread, two youtube videos, and two IMDB pages), and as such most of the content of this article appears to be complete WP:OR. Merging any of this would really not be ideal. This does not preclude the Liminal space (aesthetic) article from being expanded with more information on the horror aspects, using valid sources like the one mentioned by Astaire, but should not be done by merging from here. Rorshacma (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A merge doesn't necessarily take everything from one page to another. The merging editor can pick what pieces of content they can put into the target article. Conyo14 (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that there is nothing on this page that should be put into the target article, as it is only based on WP:OR and unusable sources. Rorshacma (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment would Astaire's sources be valid for coverage that could be included in the Liminal space article? I'm admittedly not sure how deep they are in terms of coverage, but I'd assume a sentence could probably be gotten out of it at minimum. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It likely could, though looking at the preview that is available indicates that it is defining liminal horror as something different than horror centered around the aesthetic of liminal spaces. But, as that book is not actually being used as a reference for any of the claims in the current article, Merging would not be needed in order to use it to expand the Liminal space (aesthetic) article a bit. Rorshacma (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rorshacma. I'm not convinced anything here should be preserved, given the amount of WP:OR and improperly sourced material. Even as far as redirects go, I'm not convinced there is a single best target, though Liminal space (aesthetic) would be one of several. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Northern Illinois vs. Notre Dame football game

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

No true sustained coverage. Upsets are common in College Football, though this was a significant one at the time. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, American football, Illinois, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't need a whole article every time there's an unexpected result. Most of this is fluff, and anything meaningful can be covered in the main season article. Reywas92^Talk 03:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Reywas. Individual games can and should be dealt with in the relevant team season articles. Every "big" game or upset doesn't warrant a stand-alone. I'd probably vote to delete 2024 Alabama vs. Vanderbilt football game for the same reasons. Cbl62 (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ROUTINE. Nothing in the article and nothing I've seen in news articles carry the weight of significant coverage necessary for single-game articles in this instance. Conyo14 (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there’s nothing to suggest it’s historic.38.122.245.52 (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the above replies, while this was significant, we are not going to make a page for every upset. When Marshall beat Notre Dame two years ago, that was arguably as significant as this, and there is no page for that game.

Red0ctober22 (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the sentiment expressed above, a game like Texas—Texas A&M is more significant than a game like this. It correctly has its own page as it was widely covered and hyped as a historic contest, while this is simply a (now flukey) upset by a group of 5 team.

MoMoChohan (talk) 8:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Georgia Tech vs. Miami football game

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

Clearly a case of WP:NOTNEWS. Certainly was a bad decision that cost Miami the game, and it got coverage afterwards, but no sustained coverage deserving of an article. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, American football, Florida, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a example of how people massively overdo things here, thinking that because other articles have a particular format, any other article must be fleshed out to fill that. None of the background is relevant. None of the game summary is relevant. None of the aftermath is relevant. There was a bad decision at the end of the game that got attention, but the idea this needs a whole article is absurd. They lost a winnable regular season game, big whoop. Reywas92^Talk 03:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Reywas92. Had the game had some sort of nickname or an incredible event that would have spanned just a single week's news coverage, I would have opted for more of a keep. This is not the case here as the news coverage has been primarily WP:ROUTINE. Conyo14 (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is not big whoop. Several [37]sources called it one of the worst coaching decisions in the history of football. It even got coverage from the Washington Post. And coverage of the event can be found on November 9, 2024. Oh and there are plenty of sources on the talk page.--38.122.245.52 (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like good content for 2023 Miami Hurricanes football team#Georgia Tech and Mario Cristobal#Miami, not a standalone article. Reywas92^Talk 14:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article doesn't contain sufficient content to justify its existence as a standalone page. A nickname could potentially add more depth to the subject. WikiGiancarloC2 (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ROUTINE coverage of a game that included what is viewed as a bad coaching decision, which can be covered in the general article on the 2023 Miami Hurricanes football team. A focused and concise paragraph there will provide readers with relevant insight about what happened (akin to the two sentences appearing in the Mario Cristobal article), rather than making them read through a very lengthy recap to get to the point. Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Reywas92, Dmoore PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don’t delete it, the call was so bad its historic in a way. TheGoldenGladesKid (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Desk_2024_u886-1] "Adani University inks MoU with VJoist Innovation". Deccan Chronicle. 27 February 2024. Retrieved 21 March 2024.

[Chhapia_2024_a342-2] Chhapia, Hemali (23 February 2024). "MOU to collaborate on academics and research". The Times of India. Retrieved 21 March 2024.

[The_Times_of_India_2022_a688-3] "Adani University Granted University Status By Assembly". The Times of India. 4 April 2022. Retrieved 21 March 2024.

[Standard_2022_n540-4] "Adani Group receives approval to set up university in Ahmedabad". Business Standard. 3 April 2022. Retrieved 21 March 2024.

[Bhaskar_2022_p._20-5] Bhaskar, R.N. (2022). Gautam Adani: Reimagining Business in India and the World. Penguin Random House India Private Limited. p. 20. ISBN 978-93-5492-763-8. Retrieved 22 March 2024.

[Anon._g662-6] "UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION Total No. of Universities in the Country as on 25.01.2023" (PDF). Retrieved 22 March 2024.

[7] "Adani University Holds First Convocation — Preeti Adani Emphasises Innovation, Research Focus". NDTV Profit. 5 October 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.

[8] ""Chairman's vision to create university of excellence", Priti Adani at Adani University's first convocation". ANI News. 5 October 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.

[9] "Adani University Felicitates Four Gold Medalists, 69 MBA, MTech Post Graduates At Inaugural Convocation". News24. 6 October 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.

[10] "Adani University inks pact with VJoist Innovation to transform Indian academic arena". Bizzbuzz. 5 March 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.

[11] "Adani University accorded status by Gujarat Legislative Assembly". Ahmedabad Mirror. 3 April 2022. Retrieved 26 November 2024.

[12] "Adani University Holds First Convocation; 69 Postgraduates Honored". G R Mukesh. Free Press Journal. 5 October 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.

[i743-13] "Chairman's vision is to create university of excellence, says Priti Adani at Adani University's first convocation". ETEducation.com. 7 October 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.

[u546-14] Focus, ABP Live (6 July 2022). "Adani University Hosts Global Education Forum". ABP Live. Retrieved 26 November 2024.

[a912-15] "Adani University committed to shape new India: Dr Priti Adani". The Hans India. 5 October 2024. Retrieved 26 November 2024.

[x493-16] Sharma, S. (2022). ProjectX India: 15th April 2022 edition. ProjectX India. Sandeep Sharma. p. 47. Retrieved 26 November 2024.

[17] Jaeheon Kim; Donghee Yvette Wohn; Meeyoung Cha (January 2022). "Understanding and identifying the use of emotes in toxic chat on Twitch". Online Social Networks and Media. 27. doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2021.100180.

[18] Caleb Gierke; Sara Brady (30 July 2022). "The Effects of Context on the Understanding of Twitch Emotes". SSRN. Retrieved 18 November 2024.

[19] "YouTube Introduces Twitch-Like 'YouTube Emotes' Feature: All Details". News18. 7 December 2022. Retrieved 18 November 2024.

[20] Luke Winkie (3 January 2019). "The history of dance emotes in 15 gifs". PC Gamer. Retrieved 18 November 2024.

[21] Fabian Haak. Emojis in Lexicon-Based Sentiment Analysis: Creating Emoji Sentiment Lexicons from Unlabeled Corpora (PDF). LWDA'21: Lernen, Wissen, Daten, Analysen. Munich, Germany. Retrieved 18 November 2024.

[22] Callagy, Sean M (8 November 2023). "Hanagami V. Epic Games: The Ninth Circuit Clarifies The Standard For Infringement Of Choreographic Works". Mondaq Business Briefing.

[23] Erik Pettersson; Veronica Sundstedt (8 November 2017). "A perceptual evaluation of social interaction with emotes and real-time facial motion capture". Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Motion in Games. doi:10.1145/3136457.3136461.

[24] Susan Herring; Dieter Stein; Tuija Virtanen, eds. (2013). Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication. Vol. 9. De Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-021445-1.

[25] Diaz, Leanna Marie (2018). Usage of Emotes and Emoticons in a Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game (Master of Arts). University of Toledo.

[26] Jamie Purdon (2015). "Netspeak in an IRC Chatroom". Tokyo Woman's Christian University. Retrieved 2024-12-04.

[27] Agnieszka Lyons (July 2018). "Multimodal expression in written digital discourse: The case of kineticons". Journal of Pragmatics. 131: 18–29. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2018.05.001. Kineticons can correspond to – or function alongside – other non-textual or non-verbal forms: emoticons, emojis, and emotes, which share some of their characteristics, but are either formally or functionally different ... Formally closest to kineticons, emotes are text entries that indicate an action taking place. In some chat clients, inserting a specific command replaces the command with the representation of an action and in online games with visible avatars, entering a specific command into the chat window will animate the avatar. Emotes are usually associated with online gaming and older chat clients, such as IRC.

[28] Kelin Hull; Cory Pettit (Autumn 2021). "Making Community through the Utilization of Discord in a (Suddenly) Online Writing Center". The Peer Review. Retrieved 2024-12-04.

[29] ttps://www.newagebd.net/post/politics/238360/bnp-appoints-three-more-members-to-chairpersons-advisory-council

[30] ttps://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bangladesh-minister-blames-murders-secular-bloggers-israeli-led-conspiracy-1563969

[31] ttps://baltimorejewishlife.com/news/print.php?ARTICLE_ID=74574

[32] ttps://today.thefinancialexpress.com.bd/politics-policies/trial-proceedings-against-bnp-leader-aslam-chy-to-continue-hc-1649010018

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]