Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 2

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< December 01 December 03 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Feinswog

edit
Lee Feinswog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete – article has no substantive references, and my WP:BEFORE turned up no decent independent secondary sources to establish or support the subject’s notability with respect to WP:JOURNALIST or WP:AUTHOR. He does run https://volleyballmag.com/ which is cited in some 50 Wikipedia articles, and if that is sufficient for notability, I would happily rescind my recommendation to delete. SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:55, 18 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! 20:13, 25 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! 23:24, 2 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. Please note that this does not preclude a possible merge discussion down the line.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indra Rajya Laxmi Pragya Puraskar

edit
Indra Rajya Laxmi Pragya Puraskar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of notability under GNG or SNG. Appears to be some type of award but there are no sources which really cover it much less GNG sources. North8000 (talk) 18:36, 18 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! 20:17, 25 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! 23:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge: From [2] page 49 (reflected in the Himalayan Times article[3]), this award was the fourth -- and least important -- of the New Years' arts awards from the Royal Nepal Academy. I'm ok with a keep for now (in the interests of a close), but believe that a subsequent merge to Royal Nepal Academy leaving cats intact would be preferable given the minimal detail (inclusion of awards with limited coverage at their issuing organisation's article is fairly common). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 05:37, 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 redirect‎ to Sky Sport (Italy)#Sky Sport Arena. Liz Read! Talk! 04:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Sport Arena

edit
Sky Sport Arena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Not only are there no GNG sources, it really doesn't any sources. One is their own website and the other are some type of listing. It's not a television stattion. It appears that it is some type of content which is available for streaming. North8000 (talk) 21:03, 25 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 23:21, 2 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 Sky Sport (Italy)#Sky Sport MotoGP. Liz Read! Talk! 06:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Sport MotoGP

edit
Sky Sport MotoGP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Not only are there no GNG sources, it really doesn't any sources. Two are their own website and the other is some type of program listing. Tagged by others since Sept 2024. North8000 (talk) 21:05, 25 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 23:21, 2 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 Sky Sport (Italy)#Sky Sport MotoGP. Liz Read! Talk! 06:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Sport Uno

edit
Sky Sport Uno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Not only are there no GNG sources, it really doesn't any sources. One is their own website and the others are some type of listing. (It's not broadcast television channel.) Tagged by others for sourcing issues since march North8000 (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 2 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! 23:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nurida Gadirova Ateshi

edit
Nurida Gadirova Ateshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:GNG. REFBOMB and promotional concerns…All of the sources are not adequate for notability. Kadı Message 21:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to give this discussion a little bit more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 2 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judas Prada

edit
Judas Prada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub about a basketball coach. I took a crack at looking for material but came up short. Best I could add is that he did one year as an assistant coach in the NBA. I could flesh it out with more lower level teams he was associated with, but I found nothing but database entries and mentions in passing of his short stints at colleges and a Chinese team, so it does nto seem worth it. No in depth sources about him, so no evidence he passes WP:SPORTBASIC. No evidence he ever played in NBA so fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Don't see this meeting WP:NBIO Meters (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that there was an unsourced (and undone) edit last year that claimed that as of 2023 he was a middle school basketball coach [4]. Meters (talk) 23:39, 25 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! 23:14, 2 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! 23:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sheida Mohammadi

edit
Sheida Mohammadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability, never won anything in senior level. never even competed. based on the article she won a bronze in Gymnasiade which is far from being notable. Sports2021 (talk) 22:39, 2 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! 23:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samudra Gupta (poet)

edit
Samudra Gupta (poet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. A single source sited couldn't help in establishing notability. Nothing to be found upon searching through Edward Betts. Garudam Talk! 22:16, 2 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! 23:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invade Agro Limited

edit
Invade Agro Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. Sources seem insufficient to pass WP:NCOMPANY. COI issues are also somewhat evident, and author keeps removing maintenance templates for no reason. Page was previously deleted under WP:G11 but it was immediately recreated by the author. CycloneYoris talk! 21:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing but promo. Can't find anything that would establish notability. Procyon117 (talk) 18:14, 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 speedy keep‎. It looks like the nominator is withdrawing their nomination by voting Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kym Illman

edit
Kym Illman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This photographer does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:PHOTOGRAPHER. I've actually come across Illman's YouTube channel before, but I'm just not seeing the sourcing to establish notability. The most solid source I found is this profile from Nine.com.au. I found some other sources like this and this this that quote Illman's social media posts and cover some of the associated drama, but to me this doesn't feel like significant coverage of Illman or his work. Most other sources I came across were passing mentions or just Illman's name in photo credits. I don't think we have enough coverage to meet GNG, but I'm open to discussion with other editors. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:24, 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! 20:58, 2 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! 23:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid Wanja Brune Olsen

edit
Astrid Wanja Brune Olsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - based on my reading of WP:NTENNIS, I don't think that the subject meets the bar for notability, based on the various stats sites I came across, and the article in its current incarnation. There are several pages published by Tennis Norge that have more coverage, but this seems limited to the subject's participation in the national team fielded at the Fed Cup. That does not seem sufficient to me, but I would happily defer to WP:TENNIS. SunloungerFrog (talk) 20:57, 2 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Rogovë

edit
Battle of Rogovë (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is WP:NOT, does not meet the criteria for a wikipedia article as it is not in-depth and neither are the sources. It has no information on the fighting during the battle, only giving a "basic layout" of the battle (e.x the casualties,date,result etc...).This battle also had its own article a couple of months ago but it got deleted, this current article is just an attempt to bring back the deleted one, however it does not meet wikipedias guidelines.(And also im not saying that the battle never happened, it just doesnt deserve its own article).Peja mapping (talk) 17:30, 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! 20:57, 2 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. No consensus to delete. There appears to be a consensus to refactor the article to better reflect the sources.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of terrorist incidents in North Macedonia

edit
List of terrorist incidents in North Macedonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The whole article is originally researched and violates MOS:TERRORIST. The sources are not conclusive about whether any of these events can be designated as "terrorist". StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no originally research here nor MOS:TERRORIST violation. In fact, there are no resources in this article and barely any explanation besides "North Macedonia is a landlocked country in Southeast Europe. It shares land borders with Kosovo to the northwest, Serbia to the north, Bulgaria to the east, Greece to the south, and Albania to the west. Below is an incomplete list of terrorist incidents that occurred in North Macedonia" and a list of Wikipedia topics of attacks and conflicts. IdanST (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the originally researched part. There are no reliable sources that classify these incidents as "terrorist". StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All sources are listed in their respective Wikipedia articles, and from an initial review and checking some, they appear to be reliable. IdanST (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited those articles. Articles themselves are not considered reliable. List articles are also subject to WP:V, so citing sources is required on such articles too.
Even if we go by the articles, we'll see that on its respective article, the 2001 insurgency is not classified as a terrorist incident. Neither are the Vejce massacre, Kondovo crisis and the 2014 government attack (unresolved case), nor have I encountered sources who classify them as such. The attack at Gošince has been classified as such by the government but the case is unresolved. The Smilkovci Lake killings have also been classified as such by the government and some experts (before the convictions), and there were also terrorism convictions. The Kumanovo clashes have also been classified as such by the government and there were terrorism convictions. All three occurred when there were ethnic tensions and a political crisis, so their status is controversial. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it's WP:V violation. I've added RS to all listed attacks. However, I don't know how 2001 insurgency in Macedonia is related to this list. IdanST (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename - at least three of these incidents were carried out by or claimed by the National Liberation Army. I think it's useful to group them and show how the situation has evolved or progressed over time and how other instances of ethnic-driven violence have occurred but it might be helpful to be specific in the claims of the list. Other countries (Saudi Arabia, the Philippines, etc.) have much long lists but are not always linked to an article. There are many ways to rework this but I think it's worth keeping around. Kazamzam (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any title(s) in mind? My view has not changed so far but a name change can be considered. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@StephenMacky1 - a comparable article might be List of attacks in Lebanon (broad, less of a POV statement than "terrorist") with a similar description. Alternatively, narrowing the article's focus so that it's only attacks carried out by the NLA ('List of terrorist attacks linked to the NLA'), but that would probably be a short list...so perhaps it could be expanded beyond North Macedonia. Many ways to skin this cat, although at some point there's a question of if it's just easier to scrap the article and start fresh with a clear purpose. Kazamzam (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will support renaming it as "List of attacks in North Macedonia". The other title will make the topic more narrow, plus all of the attacks after 2001 were not committed by NLA but by groups claiming to be the NLA. The organization was disbanded. There are other bombings and attacks that can be listed here too. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:01, 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! 20:55, 2 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Silva

edit
George Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - I could not find decent sources with significant coverage of the subject. Nothing that added flesh to the bones of various listings and stats sites. I therefore submit that the subject does not meet WP:NSPORTS, and I note that the article has been unsourced and out-of-date for some time. It is possible that better sources exist in Portuguese that I haven't found, in which case I would be happy to withdraw my nomination. SunloungerFrog (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Also could not find any sources. The article itself only essentially says "He's a footballer (team, position)" Mrfoogles (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article about former footballer who appears to have primarily played as a semi-pro (not at the highest levels of Brazilian football). His biggest achievement was probably being a squad member in Remo's 2007 Campeonato Paraense-winning side (although I found this match preview which strongly suggests he was only a fringe player during the competition). He played one season in the 2009 Campeonato Paulista A1 with Noroeste, but only appeared in 11 matches as the club finished dead last, and he briefly appeared in the 2011 Campeonato Brasileiro Serie D as Operário failed to advance beyond the initial group phase. Overall, a non-notable career, and I can't find anything that suggests WP:GNG could be met. Jogurney (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Easy call. Fails every measure of notability. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources found. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:23, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 20:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Torres (footballer, born 1992)

edit
Luis Torres (footballer, born 1992) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A very brief career with no significant coverage per WP:SPORTBASIC. All I can find are trivial mentions like this and this. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:51, 2 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. Article sourcing has improved through the period of nomination to where there is now a consensus to Keep. The AFD nominator is also encouraged to consult specific notability guidelines like WP:NACTOR which can help explain Keep arguments for some types of articles. Liz Read! Talk! 20:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Bennett

edit
Zachary Bennett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only secondary source in the article is just a passing mention, and I cannot find any other secondary sources for this person. Somatochlora (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He does have a valid notability claim, but simply listing the roles he's had isn't what gets him over the bar. Notability as an actor doesn't vest in the list of roles that he's had, it vests in the quality of the reliable sourcing about him and his performances that can be shown to support the article with. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article does need improvement, but it's completely missing his actual strongest notability claims — namely, the fact that he's had Emmy Award, Genie Award and Gemini Award nominations for his work in film and television, which are the kind of top-level national acting awards that automatically nail permanent notability to the wall even if there are problems with the existing sourcing. And for a person whose strongest notability claims came 20 to 30 years ago, improved sourcing for that will have to be retrieved from archive databases like ProQuest and newspapers.com, and would not be expected to be sitting out on the google. Ergo, I've stripped all the bad referencing, and added several much better citations and the awards. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for doing the legwork and yes clearly a keep with those resources!Somatochlora (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep with the recommended changes and article improvements. The process worked here. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:19, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Félix Rodríguez (Mexican footballer)

edit
Félix Rodríguez (Mexican footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Had a brief career in the second tier of Mexico but searches yield nothing that could even come close to counting towards WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine how many more of these stubs we'd have to deal with if they were not blocked when they were. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:17, 2 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! 19:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonh González

edit
Jonh González (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Played 44 mins of professional football but no other claim to notability. All I can find is trivial stuff like El Orbe. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:41, 2 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! 19:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yogasana at the 2022 National Games of India

edit
Yogasana at the 2022 National Games of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. This is one of 4 near-identical articles in the NPP que. I took on to AFD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogasana at the 2023 National Games of India and asked for a thorough discussion as possible guidance for the others and other similar articles. I am AFD'ing the three remaining articles which are are Mallakhamba at the 2023 National Games of India , Archery at the 2023 National Games of India , and Yogasana at the 2022 National Games of India. This would require meeting GNG, i.e. GNG sources on the topic and not only are there not GNG sources, there are no sources except for stats database and as a result the article is stats-only. North8000 (talk) 19:32, 2 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! 19:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mallakhamba at the 2023 National Games of India

edit
Mallakhamba at the 2023 National Games of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. This is one of 4 near-identical articles in the NPP que. I took on to AFD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogasana at the 2023 National Games of India and asked for a thorough discussion as possible guidance for the others and other similar articles. I am AFD'ing the three remaining articles which are are Mallakhamba at the 2023 National Games of India , Archery at the 2023 National Games of India , and Yogasana at the 2022 National Games of India. This would require meeting GNG, i.e. GNG sources on the topic and not only are there not GNG sources, there are no sources except for stats database and as a result the article is stats-only. North8000 (talk) 19:31, 2 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 P. G. Wodehouse locations. Liz Read! Talk! 19:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malvern House Preparatory School

edit
Malvern House Preparatory School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:N. Unsourced or cited to passing mentions, or cited to unreliable / affiliated sources. WP:SIGCOV requires reliable, independent sources that address the subject in direct detail. At best, this could be redirected to an article about the author's life. Jontesta (talk) 19:24, 2 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. Substantial sources have been located to support notability claims. Liz Read! Talk! 19:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drones Club

edit
Drones Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:N. A lot of this is unsourced, or cited to passing mentions, or cited to unreliable / fan / affiliated sources. WP:SIGCOV requires reliable, independent sources that address the subject in direct detail. Jontesta (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these are paywalled, but the clearly demonstrate that the Drones Club is discussed in studies of Wodehouse on sex and gender roles. Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In the book In Search of Blandings by N.T.P. Murphy (Penguin Books, 1986), there is a chapter on the Drones Club called "London Clubs — Which was the Drones?" analyzing the relationship between the fictional Drones Club and real gentlemen's clubs around the turn of the 20th century. Toughpigs (talk) 15:14, 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. Ordinarily, I opt for ATD when appropriate but it sounds like article content has already been mentioned at several other articles. Liz Read! Talk! 19:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Holland's Lip Sync Battle performance of "Umbrella"

edit
Tom Holland's Lip Sync Battle performance of "Umbrella" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOPAGE. There is little needed context that is provided by creating a separate article for a single performance of an actor lipsyncing. The performance is worthy of a couple sentences at Tom Holland and Lip Sync Battle. Astaire (talk) 19:17, 2 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! 19:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dilovan Kovli

edit
Dilovan Kovli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD, which was removed by a user with only 15 edits (and who's likely a sock of the author). Reliable sources are clearly lacking, and notability still needs to be established for this subject. CycloneYoris talk! 18:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't verify any of the things he is said to have accomplished; this would be A7able if it weren't for the fabricated claims of notability. Passengerpigeon (talk) 04:10, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Digital break

edit
Digital break (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is a contested draftification, so taking to AfD for review per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. The article appears to focus on a recent law that was passed in France – my search for "digital break" and "digital pause" on Google News mostly turns up coverage of the French law like the sources already cited. Although there are a number of sources, my instinct is that there isn't enough sustained coverage to warrant a standalone article. I think it would make more sense to redirect to Mobile phone use in schools, where debates about restricting mobile phone use in classrooms are already covered comprehensively. Creating a "digital break" section might make sense if it is a widely used phrase in different countries. I'm open to discussion on what the best course of action would be. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:05, 2 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! 19:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Playmox

edit
Playmox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources contribute to Playmox passing the general notability guideline, and a search shows no sources other than ones that don't pass the GNG. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:41, 2 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. But not as a biography, rather, as an article about the notable legal case, Bailey v Stonewall, Garden Court Chambers and others. Sandstein 18:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Bailey

edit
Allison Bailey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems like a pretty clear case of WP:BLP1E. The entire article is basically about WP:ONEEVENT which itself doesn't have an article as it's questionable if the event itself is itself would pass WP:EVENTCRIT (enduring significance seems questionable). The person doesn't appear otherwise notable on its own. Suggest deletion as the only other part in this article are actually just about LGB Alliance, not the person, so they are mere sidenotes that don't justify the BLP article. Raladic (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Rename to "Bailey v Stonewall, Garden Court Chambers and others" and rework it into an article about that case, which is independently notable, and which the court of appeal will hear it again next year I believe.Void if removed (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BLP1E says :We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met
1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
2. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.
1. There is biographical information in this article which is properly sourced.
2. Bailey has been mentioned in the media other than in connection with the discrimination case.
3. The event is significant, and her role in it was significant. If she wins her current appeal, this will be even more significant.
Alternatively, rename per Void if removed.Sweet6970 (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's WP:CRYSTAL because she has not, as of now, won her appeal - if she wins her appeal then its still a single event - the appeal of her ongoing litigation against Stonewall being part of said ongoing litigation - and, as for her media mentions, are any of them not about her anti-trans activism with LGBA or the lawsuit? Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the extract from WP:BLP1E which I quoted above: for WP:BLP1E to apply, then all 3 conditions have to be met. Since the legal case is significant, and her role in it is also (obviously) significant, this case does not come under WP:BLP1E. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The significance of the legal case is highly questionable being honest. Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The case is clearly significant. There have been several successful employment claims since the Forstater and Bailey rulings where Bailey has been cited (eg. Meade vs Westminster City Council), as it goes a little beyond Forstater in providing examples of what is to be considered protected speech. It also establishes and protects slightly wider beliefs than Forstater.
It also, most significantly IMO, wanders into the area of inducement to discriminate under s111 of the EA, which Bailey lost at the EAT, but will now be heard by the court of appeal on the grounds that:
The grounds have a real prospect of success but, in any event, raise issues of some general importance which should be considered by this Court. In particular, an issue arises as to the correct interpretation of section 111 of the Equality Act 2010 which does not seem to be the subject of previous authority. There is therefore a compelling reason to grant permission to appeal.
So this will set significant precedent.
So it has been subject to significant coverage in popular mainstream media, is cited in other cases which have also received significant coverage, and although we cannot use a WP:CRYSTALBALL, when it reaches the court of appeal, whatever the outcome it will also establish precedent in an important area of equality law. Void if removed (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This will set significant precedent" is WP:CRYSTAL though. You cannot know that ahead of the fact. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't convinced when I first saw this but, after thinking about it, I think I do agree that something should be done. It doesn't feel like BLP1E, because the 1E has dragged on for far too long, but it probably is 1E nonetheless. Of the two options, I think making an article about the case might have a slight edge over merging it to the LGBA article. It isn't the LGBA's case, at least not directly, and handling it as a case encourages us to cover it like we would other cases, with a focus on the claims, laws and judgements rather than personalities, sideshows and fundraising. It might help to attract other editors who have experience covering legal matters. The case is quite complicated. I wasn't even aware that there was a further appeal. I thought that the last unsuccessful one was the end of it. Most people who have heard about it have heard very one-sided reporting. (I dare say that a fair few people must be confused as to why she was/is appealing a case that she had spent ages telling everybody that she had "won".) It would be good to detail it correctly so that readers can understand what the various parts of the case are, which bit she won and which bits she lost. I don't outright oppose the merge idea but renaming the article and bringing it up to standard as a legal article seems the better option. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The appeal is mentioned on her website [5], but as far as I am aware, it has not yet been mentioned in the media. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think turning the article into a rendition of the case is the best compromise, it is the most significant ruling in this area alongside Forstater v CGDE, and although it's not been covered in the media, the grounds on which the court of appeal have agreed to hear it are significant. Void if removed (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Far too much weight is being given to speculation about what might happen in the appeal case here. Simonm223 (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, speculation about a potential future violates WP:CRYSTALBALL, either the event is already right now significant and if the article was renamed to focus on the court case, the case needs to pass WP:EVENTCRIT, in particular Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes.... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.
So aside from suggestion the article be moved to be about the case, the editors arguing for it, also need to actually provide evidence that it passes the eventcrit. Raladic (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A legal case that has been covered by many of the UK's largest newspapers isn't a routine news event, and no crimes have been alleged here. Astaire (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I said it already is notable, with reasons (extensive ongoing media coverage and analysis, and citations in other cases). Once it is ruled on in the court of appeal it will be even more notable. Deleting the article of an already notable case that is certain to become more notable is unjustifiable. Void if removed (talk) 09:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is WP:crystaball. There is no certainty on future increases in notability, please stop pretending there is. LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said it already is notable
This is the important part of what I said. I don't need a crystal ball. Its already notable and there's no grounds to delete it. Void if removed (talk) 10:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The strange obsession of the UK press toward trans people does not confer notability to a routine court case. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Simonm223 (talk) 11:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing WP:CRYSTALBALL about a case which is going to the Court of Appeal. The result will be legally notable, whichever way it goes. A case which goes to the Court of Appeal is, by definition, not a ‘routine case’. And there is no ‘strange obsession of the UK press toward trans people’ - the case is not ‘about trans people’ it is about discrimination. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or alternatively rename to focus on the legal case, per Sweet6970. The case has been widely covered in UK press, with The Guardian calling it a microcosm of the wider debate about transgender rights [6]. Oppose merge or delete. Astaire (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the article is primarily about the case. The case is not "significant" enough for BLP1E to not apply; there is some dispute regarding whether an article about the case would be deleted. There is no evidence of other coverage of her. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to LGB Alliance; she's only notable for activism as a part of that. The court case, which alleged that she was discriminated against for her position in that group, is downstream of that. --Aquillion (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or alternatively rename to focus on the legal case. The case has been widely covered in UK press and Bailey is cited as a campaigner for lesbian women's rights in bringing her case. It was her as much as the case which made it notable, I think. Melissa Highton (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely. I don't think I would be opposed to renaming it as has been suggested but the article is clearly significant in terms of litigation that involves Stonewall and Garden Court Chambers and without this article, the twists and turns of this somewhat complex and long-running case would be lost. Zeno27 (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: and rename to focus on the legal case per those above. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:19, 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 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! 20:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roy LaGrone

edit
Roy LaGrone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has no actual independent sources, and there is not much beyond routine coverage of this artist. He seems to be more notable for being a Tuskegee airman than an artist. (Update: that appears to be a different Roy LaGrone). Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:26, 2 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. The nominator has changed their opinion to Keep which is an unofficial way of withdrawing their nomination. As there are no arguments for Delete, I'm closing this as a Speedy Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keikan Ri

edit
Keikan Ri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to Boxing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Welterweight Keep, see comment below. - no significant coverage in any sources apart from listings type sites, and the corresponding jawiki is similarly unsourced. Subject finished 17th in class in the 1936 Olympics. I therefore submit that the article does not meet WP:NSPORT in its own right, but a redirect to the competition page is appropriate. SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some sources and it looks like he had a career after the Olympics that was, at minimum, interesting. I think with more research we could have a good article here. ScribblingTiresias (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment ScribblingTiresias you had accidentally switched one of the sources in the reference to the Meiji Shrine Games, so I altered that. I am not averse to keeping the article, but I would not say that the sources represent WP:SIGCOV - they are all stats / listings sources apart from the journal article (nice find!), which only gives him a somewhat passing mention. I am a bit surprised that there appears to be nothing on kowiki, though my Korean is by no means good enough to be absolutely certain about that. SunloungerFrog (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the olympics Biography source is correct he won the Japanese national title to be chosen to represent Japan at the games. The different names are throwing my searches off a bit, but it’s hard to believe that an athlete who won a national title, and represented their country at the Olympics doesn’t have enough sources SOMEWHERE in whatever language to establish notability - and since the standard is “sources exist” not “sources are currently cited in the article as written”… And given how far pre-internet he was, finding sources which somehow got digitised is always going to be tricky. I don’t have a strong enough opinion to vote one way or the other, but it seems a shame to delete such an interesting character / piece of history for no really strong reason like obvious false information / lack of achievement…
Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the kowiki page has another printed source. It is all in Korean, but available on archive.org. From memory and a rather dodgy Google Translate, it's "90 years of Korean sport", or some such. That is the reference for the national competition that he won, so in aggregate I would now say that there are just about sufficient sources, especially for a shortish article, so I am more inclined to keep now. And I agree Absurdum4242 that it would be rather a pity to lose the article at this stage. SunloungerFrog (talk) 17:58, 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 redirect‎ to Best of Luck Nikki. Props to Icecreamchuger for looking for and citing sources, but rough consensus is that they provide only superficial coverage and/or are not reliable (including IMDb and anything user-generated). Sandstein 18:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Nair

edit
Akash Nair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced biography of a child actor, created in 2015 as a redirect to the sitcom Best of Luck Nikki, but which has had several unsourced article creation attempts made since then, which have been WP:BLAR'd each time. Nair had a named minor role in that series, and in the film Bhoot and Friends, so I would have expected to find more coverage of him in RS, but in English and Hindi (आकाश नायर) I can find only passing mentions. The rest is the usual social media, Fandom, etc. I propose to restore the redirect. Wikishovel (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Maharashtra. Wikishovel (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Best of Luck Nikki: I am unable to find any reliable sources that provide significant coverage or even minimal details about the subject. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG, and since it is not listed in the cast of any notable film, it also fails to meet WP:NACTOR. I suggest redirecting this article as it was before and protecting it indefinitely to only allow edits from autoconfirmed or extended-confirmed users. GrabUp - Talk 15:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: as suggested seems fine, I don't see much outside of the show about this performer. Oaktree b (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, I’m new to Wikipedia, and I’m still learning how everything works. From what I’ve gathered, an article needs to have coverage from reliable sources to be considered notable. I’ve found a few sources that mention Akash Nair, and I think they could be enough to meet the notability guidelines, but I’m open to feedback and understand if it doesn't meet the criteria.
    Sources:
    1. IMDb Profile - This profile shows Akash Nair’s acting career, including his role in Best of Luck Nikki and Bhoot and Friends.
    2. MouthShut Review - There are some user reviews of Best of Luck Nikki that talk about Akash’s role as Sunny Singh.
    3. TellyChakkar Article - This article talks about the cast of Best of Luck Nikki and mentions Akash Nair as part of the team.
    4. Bollywood Hungama Article - This site has a short overview of Akash’s career, including his roles in TV and films.
    5. NETTV4V Article - This site has a short overview of Akash’s career, including his roles in TV and films.
    Personal Life Segment:
    I also included a bit about Akash Nair’s personal life from his LinkedIn profile to show that he’s done work outside of acting too, like in editing and media. I thought this might help paint a fuller picture of who he is.
    LinkedIn Profile
    I know these sources might not be very long or detailed, but I believe they show that Akash Nair has made a significant impact with his roles. Icecreamchuger (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Best of Luck Nikki. No significant coverage. Fails WP:NACTOR. RangersRus (talk) 22:07, 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. Sandstein 18:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Gornto

edit
Mitchell Gornto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGYMNAST. Subject's page has false accomplishments listed throughout (actual 2012 US National Championship results here and 2013 here). Subject has never been named to a US Senior or Junior national team and was not a member of the 2014 Pacific Rim team (results here). Aside from being a gymnast at Michigan, which is not inherently notable, the entire profile is fake. GauchoDude (talk) 15:21, 2 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. Complex/Rational 17:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vincenzo Patrick Guglielmelli

edit
Vincenzo Patrick Guglielmelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - I could find no significant coverage whatsoever in any source, reliable or otherwise. Plenty of listings and stats sites, all of which are fairly scanty. Career highlight seems to have been one season at Ascoli when they were a Serie A club, during which the subject did not appear to have played any matches. I therefore submit that WP:NSPORT is not met, and note that the article has been practically unsourced since its inception. SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:16, 2 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! 04:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quick and the dead

edit
The quick and the dead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article consists of a dictionary definition, an etymology, and some mentions of its usage, pretty much all of which is original research. If there's any indication that this even counts as a standard phrase, it would do better as a Wiktionary entry. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 14:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Appears to be approaching a consensus that this is a notable topic, but that the current article is filled with original research. A little more participation might make clear whether this is the case.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - as with this nominator's other items recently at AfD, this is a topic that is certainly notable and not remotely a WP:DICDEF or WP:OR, as shown by sources out there in the world, which is the criterion. While the article looks poorly cited, it actually cites the King James Bible, Shakespeare, and the Prayer Book, somewhere between implicitly and explicitly (mainly without blue-numbered refs): but again, that isn't the AfD criterion. I'll have a go at tidying the article and citing it a bit better, as it deserves. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added an image, a section on the idiom's use in fiction, and a lot of citations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Procyon117 (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This archaic idiom is definitely encyclopedic and it's also notable. As for the referencing, Wikipedia allows the use of biblical sources so I don't see a problem there.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:50, 2 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. No consensus exists to delete at this time. No discussion of the sources has occurred in two relistings, and thus I do not believe a third relist is warranted.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArkTS

edit
ArkTS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Rainsday (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found sourcing to show that the subject meets WP: GNG. The subject receives in-depth coverage in two papers, published by separate groups of authors at Chinese universities. These papers appeared in ASE 2024, meaning that they are peer-reviewed and thus credible. Here are the papers: [1] [2] I do think this article has several issues, but they can be fixed without deleting the article, so I am inclined to keep it. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally linked to the same paper twice. Here is the link to the other paper. Sorry about that. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I couldn't find two independent sources satisfying GNG. (updated) there's a few sources likely passing GNG, but it's weak. User:HyperAccelerated - is that are those sources independent? There's not wide coverage yet, may be WP:TOOSOON. Nothing against draftifying. Widefox; talk 22:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC) Widefox; talk 21:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes -- do you have reason to believe they aren't? One paper is from a team of researchers at Southern University of Science and Technology and another from a team at Beihang University. There isn't anything in the Acknowledgement sections to indicate they got funding from Huawei (who developed ArkTS), and if there was substantial collaboration with Huawei I'd expect someone from Huawei to be on the author list. I suspect there's more coverage in Chinese, but I think that these papers are sufficient to establish notability anyway. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, corrected and updated my summary. Widefox; talk 21:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Two books, [1] is an introduction to the syntax of ArkTS, and [2] covers ArkTS on HarmonyOS 3.1. 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ 刘玥; 张荣超 (2024-07-01). 鸿蒙原生应用开发：ArkTS语言快速上手 [Developing Native Applications on HarmonyOS: A Quick Start with ArkTS Language]. 人民邮电出版社. ISBN 9787115642509.
  2. ^ Way Lau. 鸿蒙HarmonyOS应用开发入门 [Getting Started with HarmonyOS Application Development]. Tsinghua University Press. ISBN 9787115642509.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would appreciate a bit more discussion of the new sources before closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:46, 2 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 delete‎. G5'd. asilvering (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Kishtwar encounter

edit
2024 Kishtwar encounter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As described here at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Akhnoor attack TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:42, 2 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 delete‎. G5'd. asilvering (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Bandipora attack

edit
2024 Bandipora attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As described here at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Akhnoor attack TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:41, 2 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! 07:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of world champions in NJPW born outside Japan

edit
List of world champions in NJPW born outside Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this grouping of characteristics meets WP:LISTN and has received significant attention as a group. Fram (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete while being a gaijin in Japan is notable (for example, Omega was the first gaijin to win the G1 Climax.), the list looks like a trivia for a Sporcle quizz. Sources are just Cagematch, no focusing on the article (World champions outside Japan). Also, the use of other criteria looks random. List of male wrestlers outside USA in WWE, Female world champions outside Japan in NJPW... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:32, 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 speedy delete‎. CSD G5 Liz Read! Talk! 07:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Akhnoor attack

edit
2024 Akhnoor attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Kashmir is often described as a warzone, with routine news events frequently occurring (#4). Events lacking historical significance (#1) and substantial national and international reactions (#2) are generally presumed non-notable under WP:EVENT. Also, article lacks WP:CASESTUDY. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:39, 2 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. CSD G5 Liz Read! Talk! 07:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Botapathri ambush

edit
2024 Botapathri ambush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Kashmir is often described as a warzone, with routine news events frequently occurring (#4). Events lacking historical significance (#1) and substantial national and international reactions (#2) are generally presumed non-notable under WP:EVENT. Also, article lacks WP:CASESTUDY. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:38, 2 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 delete‎. CSD G5 Liz Read! Talk! 07:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Baramulla attack

edit
2024 Baramulla attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Kashmir is often described as a warzone, with routine news events frequently occurring (#4). Events lacking historical significance (#1) and substantial national and international reactions (#2) are generally presumed non-notable under WP:EVENT. Also, article lacks WP:CASESTUDY. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:37, 2 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 delete‎. CSD G5 Liz Read! Talk! 07:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Ganderbal attack

edit
2024 Ganderbal attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Kashmir is often described as a warzone, with routine news events frequently occurring (#4). Events lacking historical significance (#1) and substantial national and international reactions (#2) are generally presumed non-notable under WP:EVENT. Also, article lacks WP:CASESTUDY. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:36, 2 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 delete‎. CSD G5 Liz Read! Talk! 07:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Srinagar grenade attack

edit
2024 Srinagar grenade attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Kashmir is often described as a warzone, with routine news events frequently occurring (#4). Events lacking historical significance (#1) and substantial national and international reactions (#2) are generally presumed non-notable under WP:EVENT. Also, article lacks WP:CASESTUDY. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd typically recommend adding this to the respective List of terrorist incidents in [country] article and redirecting, but it's... Kashmir, so unsure of how well that would work. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also can you please bundle AfDs using the same exact rationale next time? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently learned about it[10] and will follow the same procedure going forward. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:01, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kimberella. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberellomorpha

edit
Kimberellomorpha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Solza may just be a taphonomic variation of Kimberella, all others are from McMenamin and therefore are likely unfounded. Therefore, it’s a monotypic taxon. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kimberella, seems the grouping itself is accepted by some of researchers as looking on Google Scholar, but it is mostly monotypic. As I see it is not known when this grouping was established, probably need information for that. In the talk page article creator commented that they used ChatGPT to write the article, and current status is terrible. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be in full support of a merge. It seems to be an invention purely supported by McMenamin. The Morrison Man (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No matter what it is not an McMenamin taxon,look it up although McMenamin does mention the order rarely , but McMenamin did not describe this order. 2010.1126/science.1206375 DOI 10.1126/science.1206375Zhenghecaris (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't you even properly link to the paper?[11] You are definitely new to editing and should learn more about how to edit Wikipedia. Anyway, seeing from Scholar, this paper appears to be the earliest mention of "Kimberellomorpha", but there is no discussion of what kind of taxonomic group it is, so this seems to be just a loose grouping like "roachoid" without clear scientific classification. So simply mentioning Kimberella article will suffice for this. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, no reason for Wikipedia to support this dubious bit of taxonomy. As for ChatGPT's editing and writing abilities, don't throw away your fountain pens any time soon, editors. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t use ChatGPT. Zhenghecaris (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The unneeded "1." shown in synonyms in that article makes it the doubt that is copied from something outputted by ChatGPT. In any case, this article has a number of problems, including unnecessary spaces, spaces that aren't where they should be, and incorrect use of bold and italics. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“ChatGPT says the next subdivision is Kimberellida” Hmm, it sure sounds like you’re at least using ChatGPT to help write some of the article… IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 08:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment The idea of including this taxon was already rejected in Kimberella by Donald Albury and IC1101-Capinatator, who called it a "dubious taxon". And an earlier conclusion was that work by MAS McMenamin had to be verified by secondary references, before inclusion in Wikipedia. However this term Kimberallmorph/s/a seems to have been used by others, but not as a properly defined taxon. I would suggest that we just have the term as a redirect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:30, 2 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 13:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christophe Naudin

edit
Christophe Naudin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:1E, WP:GNG, reads like a CV or like it's been edited by someone closely associated with the subject (theses men? no mention of prison sentence which is arguably the most important thing about him?). Toffeenix (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTRESUME. Aside from 2016-17, nothing of note. Other than that, only other mention of name is this, which is of a different person. Procyon117 (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only significant coverage of this person I could find is from his implication in the so called Air Cocaine Scandal, and subsequent legal problems. See these: [12], [13] and [14].However, I don't think that is enough to meet notability standards. --Alan Islas (talk) 13:49, 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. ✗plicit 13:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of rugby union matches between Italy and Georgia

edit
History of rugby union matches between Italy and Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable rivalry or pairing Fram (talk) 12:38, 2 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. Sandstein 18:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson's Cave

edit
Wilson's Cave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Links in ref's are broken, and all the info is sourced from the one referenced book. That book list many, many caves, and inclusion does not make this one notable. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 09:25, 25 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) 11:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very Weak Keep - I turned this one over and over, but the description in the first article is WP:SIGCOV. The second possibly less so, since it's in the correspondence section of the RE Journal, albeit from an expert. Confusion over the name of the topic (the correspondence says it's now called Gorham's Cave, but that's a different article) weakens this even more, but its seems likely there's been archaeological research there which would mean further academic coverage, so WP:NEXIST applies. FOARP (talk) 20:35, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cinemas in Estonia

edit
List of cinemas in Estonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced and fails WP:NLIST. The Estonian language version of this article has more entries but also poorly sourced. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with LibStar and Mangoe, fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIR. If it had more links and sources, then it might be passable, but it is not acceptable under it's current condition.
Aknip (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Poorly sourced, yes: cleanup issue. Fails NLIST? no, meets NLIST as the topic as a set has received coverage. (Thomson, C. (2007). Estonia - Culture Smart! The Essential Guide to Customs & Culture. Kuperard. for example or Noble, J., Williams, N., Gauldie, R. (1997). Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania(Keeling): Lonely Planet, p. 147, for a start) At least a redirect and merge to Cinema of Estonia seems warranted to preserve history. The topic would seem to be perfectly encyclopaedic, though.... Mushy Yank (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    and how precisely and exactly is that list supposed to fall under NOTDIR? Mushy Yank (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears that the list topic has been discussed as a set in RS. That is all we need to prove WP:NLIST. Further, I don't think this list falls under any of the six criteria of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and those saying it does haven't actually discussed or connected the list to any one of the six standards for making that judgement. It's not a convincing argument as the list has a clearly defined scope that is relevant to the Cinema of Estonia. It's not a simple listing because of the RS coverage, and given that Estonian language films get played pretty much only in theaters in Estonia and the small geographic area its reasonable to list theaters in a single page for topical reasons. It's therefore not a "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" or a "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization", or a "A resource for conducting business", or a "Genealogical entry", or an "Electronic program guides".4meter4 (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Cinema of Estonia: The sources provided to "pass WP:NLIST" in my eyes are far from that, and are in fact WP:ROUTINE. Noble, J., Williams, N., Gauldie, R. (1997). Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania (Keeling): Lonely Planet, p. 147 is a paragraph giving phone numbers, email addresses and addresses of some cinemas, with no meaningful analysis or commentary on the set (7 words!) or even claim of exhaustivity. I don't have access to the other source identified, but the same author three years prior wrote a guide book for Tallinn (note the later book was for Estonia as a whole) Thomson, C. (2004). Tallinn (Footprint), p.177 which is similarly not discussing cinemas in Estonia as a set (or in Tallinn). There is a very brief recap of cinema in Estonia, then a paragraph explicitly claiming to only list the main 3 locations and one arthouse cinema, with a fair share of the paragraph being used for the cinemas' names, address, phone number and location on the map provided with the book. If the content in her later book is significantly different, I feel the onus is on the people claiming it meets NLIST to explain how so at this point.
    Other "List of X in (Country)" articles have been kept when they are useful to help with navigating pages which pass GNG on their own (e.g., List of golf courses in Canada) but generally only when they need to be separated from the main topic due to length. Cinema of Estonia is not at that point, and having a short list at some point in the article of notable cinemas would be relevant (I see that the article is already illustrated by a photo of an Estonian cinema!). Shazback (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:05, 2 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 Gornje Kolibe. Consensus is against having an article, but not for deletion. It's up to editors what if anything they want to merge from the history. Sandstein 18:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battles for Gornje Kolibe

edit
Battles for Gornje Kolibe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This skirmish was a very small part of Operation Corridor 92, for which we already have a Good Article which doesn't even mention this event due to its very minor nature. The village of Gornje Kolibe is mentioned once in the second volume of the comprehensive CIA history of the 90s wars in the Balkans, "Balkan Battlegrounds", but only briefly in the context of Operation Corridor 92, and none of the detail of this fighting is even mentioned. Non-notable firefight, appears to have been created effectively as a memorial page to those who fought there. Events from 30 years ago in this war have been examined in considerable detail in academic standard publications, so I have deleted the various local/town/regional news portals, many of which are dubious and/or biased and have no real editorial process (and therefore not reliable), and what is left (cited) is pretty much nothing. One of numerous highly marginally notable articles recently created by a series of now blocked socks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should say that the other (none news portal) sources I removed were writings of former VRS officers, including at least two whom were directly involved in Operation Corridor 92, so hardly independent of the subject. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or redirect? If yes, what target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • to me, given this is about the fighting, the most obvious merge target is Operation Corridor 92 rather than the village article (although a mention of the fighting in the village article would be appropriate. Only a very small amount of the content is eligible to be merged, as it wouldn't be appropriate to merge uncited content to a Good Article, and the reliable sources barely mention this fighting in passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This looks like a case very similar to the recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Smoluća (2nd nomination). As a very minor skirmish this may not warrant an own article and then may also be removed from the campaignbox. It may, as had been suggested in the case of Smoluća, be mentioned briefly in some broader article like, in this case, the one on Operation Corridor 92. We should beware, though, not to overburden those broader articles by including each and every fight over some local village as there must be hundreds of them. --Proofreader (talk) 19:52, 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. asilvering (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Gursimran Kaur

edit
Death of Gursimran Kaur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A sad story, but has no evidence of WP:SUSTAINED notability (one local follow-up story after the initial wider range of news reports). Fails WP:NOTNEWS. Fram (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It's disturbing this is even being debated. Nation-wide story in Canada. Reported on by CNN. That's enough for notability. It's also hard for "significant reform" to be forced if Wikipedia erases its entry on said nation-wide and international story. Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Times Of India is following this as well. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/nri/us-canada-news/no-foul-play-in-death-of-gursimran-kaur-walmart-employee-found-in-oven-canadian-police/articleshow/115433459.cms - why do you suppose this story about an Indo-Canadian might have been of interest to people in India? Saying the story is not notable suggests certain groups of people are not notable for their interest in the story. (Trying to say that with as much assumption of good will as possible.)
People also picked up the story. https://people.com/walmart-employees-family-traumatized-after-body-mysteriously-found-in-walk-in-oven-8737147 Being in that magazine is usually considered a slam dunk for what's considered "notable". Why not in this case?
There's also an indication that South Asian immigrants in Canada continue to follow the story - a news story from two days ago says the family is retaining legal representation and that the Maritime Sikh Society is "deeply upset" by the recent police findings. https://desibuzzcanada.com/post/police-say-no-foul-play-suspected-in-indo-canadian-woman-who-died-in-walmart-oven

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Yes the event got coverage in Canada, it's basically an industrial accident. Other than passing away, there isn't much more to be said about the individual. The event isn't terribly notable either; workplace deaths are rare but not unheard of... Could be re-created if it's found to cause changes in labour/safety laws. I hate to use the ROUTINE, but this was just a non-notable person that passed away in a workplace incident. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To put this in perspective, there were 220 deaths in the workplace, in Ontario, in 2022. [17]. Industrial accidents happen and most are not notable. This event happened in another province, but it's one in a list of many. Oaktree b (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:EVENTCRIT: Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. An article would be justified if e.g. the tragedy led to workplace safety reforms, if it had broader effects for the Indian community in Canada, etc. - but not currently. Astaire (talk) 20:02, 2 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 Pandit Deendayal Energy University. (non-admin closure) Aydoh8[contribs] 10:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

School of Petroleum Technology

edit
School of Petroleum Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

University department and/or constitute college of Pandit Deendayal Energy University. Has been renamed to School of Energy Technology in line with the university's renaming since 2021. Not notable enough online nor offline for a separate article. CptViraj (talk) 09:31, 2 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 withdrawn by nominator‎. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gupi

edit
AfDs for this article:
Gupi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Most sources also only link to the artist's own website or Apple Music EDIT: PLEASE DELETE. JUST SAW I ALREADY NOMINATED THIS ONCE. --FMSky (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above request was about an accidental repeat in the transclusion process, which has been fixed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the first deletion nomination was back in 2007 for a toy of the same name. The second and third (this one) are for the entertainer. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:49, 2 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! 08:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chef RPG

edit
Chef RPG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Referenced only two primary sources from YouTube and a web store. Before search did not present anything that makes this game notable for an entry here Mekomo (talk) 08:09, 2 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 23:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Up Above Records

edit
Up Above Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nn music records label --Altenmann >talk 15:59, 25 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! 07:46, 2 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! 08:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Altruist

edit
The Altruist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:NFILM. No wide release; page for Mick McCleery was successfully AfD'd in January 2019. Previously PROD'd by Another Believer but was dePROD'd on grounds of WP:NEXIST. Having done a search, I don't believe they do. Kazamzam (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I found some local coverage, which is nice but not really the strongest possible source since local papers are more likely to cover local people. There's mention of it screening at a film festival in 2011 and winning an award, but it's not really a major film festival from what I can see so that's not really usable either. Finally, it looks like there are two critic reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, but I'm not sure how usable either really are. One of them doesn't seem to be running anymore, as when I click on the link on RT it takes me to a spam site. It's overall pretty weak sauce at best. This very technically meets notability guidelines by way of the film festivals and smattering of coverage, but in my opinion it also fails it pretty solidly at the same time. I would say that it would be good to identify what film festivals would qualify under NFILM, but that would be kind of hard to pin down. For example, one could argue that we only use notable film festivals - however that would exclude those screenings and mini-festivals held by very notable and major institutions. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:38, 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! 07:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Bitman, Terry (2004-11-02). "Not 'The Twilight Zone,' but a S. Jersey thriller". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2024-12-03. Retrieved 2024-12-03.

      The article notes: "Here's the chilling plot: There are terminally ill people who would like someone to end their suffering, and there are people who like the thrill of killing. Why not match them up?The story may sound like something out of the old Twilight Zone, but in fact it is from a low-budget independent film called The Altruist, shot in Camden County.It is the latest production of writer-producer Mick McCleery, 34, a full-time teacher at the Gloucester County Institute of Technology, who has been writing screenplays since he was a child. The Altruist—which McCleery calls a "dark thriller"—is scheduled to premiere tomorrow at the Ritz Sixteen in Voorhees."

    2. Shryock, Bob (2004-11-02). "Teacher premiers new independent feature film". Gloucester County Times. Archived from the original on 2024-12-03. Retrieved 2024-12-03 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "County Institute of Technology (GCIT), will attend premiers of his new independent feature film, "The Altruist," twice in the next five days. That translates to two showings on two continents, from the Ritz 16 in Voorhees Wednesday to sold-out Clapham Picture House in London, England Sunday, 88 hours and 3,500 miles apart. ... The 104-minute film, which McCleery describes "a match-making service" for the country's 30,000 annual murders and 60,000 annual suicides, is a low-budget ($10,000 to $15,000) flick shot almost exclusively in South Jersey and largely in Deptford. Some cast members and technicians are Gloucester County products ..."

    3. Longsdorf, Amy (2004-10-29). "Haddon Heights native's project makes it to big screen". Courier-Post. Archived from the original on 2024-12-03. Retrieved 2024-12-03 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "From that notion sprung The Altruist, a drama about a Kevorkian Inc.-style business called Terminal Assist. For his cast, McCleery turned to actors he'd worked with before, including childhood pal and fellow Haddon Heights native John Innocenzo, Innocenzo's wife Bobbi Ashton, Mike McLaughlin, Nick Cammarano and a half-dozen of McCleery's fellow teachers from Gloucester County."

    4. Ralph, Matthew (2004-11-11). "Friends' lives come together to create film" (pages 1 and 2). Gloucester County Times. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2024-12-03. Retrieved 2024-12-03 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "When lifelong friends Mick McCleery and John Innocenzo spent a semester studying in London, neither dreamed they'd be returning to the city to premiere a film 14 years later. On Sunday, McCleery, 35, of Haddon Heights, who teaches full-time video production at Glouceste County Institute of Technology, and Innocenzo, who appeared in McCleery's first film in grade school, revisited the city they both spent a semester of college in to premiere McCleery's low-budget feature length film "The Altruist." While it was filmed exclusively in Gloucester and Camden counties, its star Billy Franks lives in London and arranged the screenin at the brick Clapham Picture House on a narrow side street in the southwest London village of Clapham."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Altruist to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cunard - I really appreciate you finding these sources and I will add them to the article shortly. That being said, I don't believe that these suffice for WP:NFOE. The mentions are rather short and don't really review the film in full. If anything, I would argue that they support the notability of the director, whose page was previously deleted. Kazamzam (talk) 17:19, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upper All's Well Cave

edit
Upper All's Well Cave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly nonotable. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content and image are worth keeping if minimal; I think these should be merged to some larger article in my opinion. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What should be the merge target?
Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 09:25, 25 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! 07:43, 2 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 Beverly Wilshire Homes Association. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 04:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Plotkin

edit
Diana Plotkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Refs are either blank or passing mentions.No indication of significance. Been on the cat:nn list for 10 years. scope_creepTalk 07:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a also a WP:BLP, and there is no sufficient secondary coverge to pass WP:SIGCOV which was the primary reason it was on the cat:nn list. All these references are passing mentions and not really about her. Any BLP needs high quality WP:SECONDARY source to establish notability, not passing mentions. It states it in the open line of the policy "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources". Even for a small merge, there must be something. scope_creepTalk 07:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing significant to merge, anyway. AusLondonder (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She has already mentioned quite heavily already in that article. Plotkin seems to have been the president since the 1980's, so the name isn't going to be lost. Possibly a redirect and merge the last sentence since the rest seem to be mentioned already? I notice that sentence is detailed already in the destination article. In fact, the whole article is there. scope_creepTalk 13:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any policy reason why we can't have a redirect for Plotkin to Beverly Wilshire Homes Association and use any distinct sources provided for Plotkin to improve the Beverly Wilshire Homes Association article. Basically that is what I meant by merge. Perhaps I should have said "slim merge" to indicate this more clearly. I think the only thing we are disagreeing on is whether to retain the redirect, and I see no policy reason not to. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any objection to a Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 2 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! 04:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Luke's Boys' High School

edit
St. Luke's Boys' High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

the article has no live references and has been lacking citations since 2016.

I could only find some facebook groups and UK charity webpage about the school. 1keyhole (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If you could only find Facebook groups and a charity webpage, then you didn't click the {{find sources AFD}} links at the top of this AFD page. Also, the school changed names a few years ago, so you have to search again under the old name, e.g., this link to Google News, which will give you news articles saying things like MP Didmus Wekesa Barasa is an alumnus[18] and another saying who the school's (current? recent?) principal is.[19]. A building burned down.[20] It is officially designated as an extra county school (formerly, 'provincial'), which is an important thing in Kenya but not something that I'd expect an American to know about.[21] There are more, but I think this suffices to show that there nom's WP:BEFORE search was inadequate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 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! 07:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (weakly) - The page needs cleanup of course, but that is outside the remit of AfD. The sourcing I have found is mostly news sources and writing articles from primary news reporting is problematic, and, indeed, such sources do not meet GNG, so there is an element of IAR about this !vote. However it is clear that it is a well established and somewhat prestigious school that generates sustained interest. There is enough information to significantly improve what we have, and to verify much detail. What is lacking is a good history of the school, but there is a systematic bias in Wikipedia towards schools in locales such as the US, where sourcing is more readily available online. Proceeding with caution from the news reporting is possible here. Note that in addition to the other names, multiple sources call the school St. Luke's Kimilili Boy's High School. E.g [22] and [23], although their YouTube channel favours St Luke's Boy's High School-Kimilili [24]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: On November 27, InternetArchiveBot (talk · contribs) rescued 3 sources in this article. If references in an article are broken, it is always a good idea to run InternetArchiveBot to try to rescue the broken links. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:17, 2 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! 07:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sumarr and Vetr

edit
Sumarr and Vetr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article cites five sources. Four of them are just different translations of the Edda (the primary source work that the two beings come from), which the article SYNTHs together into a loose historiography. The fifth is a dictionary that the article uses to translate the article title to "Summer and Winter". I can't access foreign-language sources, but I don't see anything that could reasonably count as SIGCOV in a secondary independent source, so... seems like a GNG fail to me as written. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • No and learn the basics before even nominating something like this. This is just obnoxious. First of all, this article discusses two items, the Prose Edda and the Poetic Edda, which are themselves compilations of earlier traditional works. They are not at all the same sources. The dictionary, Orchard's, is a handbook, not a list of words and definitions. There's nothing even approaching WP:SYNTH on this article. Second, as with just about anything in the eddic corpus, there's a mountain of secondary and tertiary discussion about these figures. There's a lot to do on Wikipedia and attempting to delete well-sourced and well-written articles on topics you clearly don't understand the first thing about isn't one of them. Yeesh. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging regulars in this area to comment, @Yngvadottir:, @Berig:, @Alarichall:, @Haukurth:, @Ingwina:, @Obenritter:. Feel free to ping others. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so what you're saying is that the article is various recaps of the Poetic Edda and Prose Edda, cited to various translations of the Poetic Edda and Prose Edda. There's only one sentence that isn't just story summary, at the bottom of the Poetic Edda section. Doesn't sound like "a mountain of secondary or tertiary discussion" to me. Are there any secondary sources that meaningfully discuss Sumarr and Vetr at length? If there are, I would love for the article to be expanded with useful content. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you'd be wise to become familiar with even the basic of fundamentals with a topic before injecting yourself into a discussion regarding it. These aren't "story summaries", which you'd know if you read the article you're trying to delete. We have a section discussing the historic record and then its scholastic reception, which is typical for accurate presentation of the Old Norse myth record, like in the handbooks of Simek, Orchard, and Lindow. This drive to delete well-sourced material useful for readers over actually working to improve Wikipedia is absurd. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit at a loss for words. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can provide plenty for you. Here are a few: Spend less time on pages like this and more time actually reading about these subjects before wasting your time and the time of others, or maybe even spend that time attempting to improve the project in some way. What you're up to here is essentially Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent quite a bit of time improving the project, and I also tend to feel crappy on the occasion or two my article shows up at AfD. I'm sure you're proud of your content contributions as well, so I do understand if you're frustrated. I'm glad you've taken a look at your article and decided it could use some improvement, though! At least there's some good secondary discussion in there now. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link above is WP:OR and this article does not contain a single sentence of WP:OR. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every single citation is to a primary source translation. That is purely OR. Mangoe (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seasons in the Literatures of the Medieval North, p. 39-42 seems to have quite a bit to say on those. Forecast - A Diary of the Lost Seasons, p. 79, is much shorter but seems non-trivial with its observation that Old Norse only recognized two seasons, sumarr and vetr, associated with life and death. Die Symbolik der Himmelsrichtungen, Jahreszeiten und Jahresfeste, p. 136, 155, has pretty similar content than both and falls inbetween lengthwise. With the limited preview there I don't quite get where the extended quotations(?) on the subject come from, though. Daranios (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first one seems like a good GNG-passing source. Anywhere we could find another one? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Leeky, look down. Králová, Kristýna (2020) Fast Goes the Fleeting Time: The Miscellaneous Concepts of Time in Different Old Norse Genres, 91–. There's probably more, but there's the second you requested. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, @Yngvadottir! Appreciate you pitching in to help find sources – this looks pretty good to me :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. The article needs to make clear that the ancient Norse year was divided into two halves, vetr and sumarr, and that both are also found personified. We cite Simek's Dictionary of Northern Mythology (1996 English translation of his 1984 Lexikon der germanischen Mythologie—our article wording "In the late 1900s" is deceptively ambiguous) for his opinion that the personifications were literary. The article should be rebalanced, starting with the intro, to not present them as primarily mythological figures, although they are such in the Prose Edda and elsewhere (I'm not saying that should be removed from the article!). And it should definitely note that vetr is used for counting years—so many "winters" old, so many "winters" between events. From the summary we now have, Grimm was being silly. Ár is etymologically a "year" word but was used to refer to the year's harvest (and agricultural plenty in general). We are probably misrepresenting his position a bit; but the battle between winter and summer is a superannuated theory in Germanic mythology. Normally I would have rewritten the article a bit before responding here (thanks for the ping, bloodofox); however. I am typing this laboriously in a hospital (sorry for typos) without access to my books. Google Books won't show me Simek and I decided to leave checking Grimm for others. I did check Daranios' link to Harry Eilenstein's Die Symbolik der Himmelsrichtungen, Jahreszeiten und Jahresfeste (this is my search result, with p. 136 looking most likely). However, the snippets of text I can see and the publication information—volume 54 in the series Die Götter der Germanen, published on demand by Norderstedt—suggest to me that the book is too fringey to be citeable. And I doubt it has much of use to say since it's focussed on religious symbolism. This (Kristýna Králová, Fast Goes the Fleeting Time: The Miscellaneous Concepts of Time in Different Old Norse Genres, 2020, Münchner nordistische Studien; passage starts on p. 91) seems to me to be a good source for explaining the uses of the two words for the seasons, as well as suggesting that Snorri's personification is a later development. (And it's in English, and has a reference or two on the 4-fold division of the year being introduced with the Julian calendar.) I'm afraid I have to stop here and hope the trackpad hasn't destroyed this !vote (and the linguists may want to correct me). Yngvadottir (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems fine. The mythological figures are minor but the article relays what the primary sources say about them and has a bit of scholarly analysis as well. It all checks out and meets our requirements. Haukur (talk) 07:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This can be improved for sure but that is not because it can't be. We already have so much we're working on getting up to scratch and we shouldn't throw all of this away just to have someone start it again. I can add a bit when I get the time but it seems completely sufficient to me to stand as it is as a page, even if it can be fleshed out more. --Ingwina (talk) 08:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the present found sources establishing notability and the reasoning by Yngvadottir. Thanks for the detailed analysis and all the best for your health. Daranios (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Berig (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the above. The article properly describes the situation from the primary sources, and supplements that with an analysis section. The topic is certainly of encyclopedic interest, and more remains to be done from the other sources available, but notability is not in doubt. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My sentiments echo those of both bloodofox and Yngvadottir. There really is no reason to outright eliminate this article. It could stand some work as already mentioned, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. --Obenritter (talk) 20:46, 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 redirect‎ to Avengers: The Initiative. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Avengers: The Initiative characters

edit
List of Avengers: The Initiative characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTPLOT lacking any sources besides primary ones. A pure plot summary list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Rorschacma. An unneeded split off the main article, but it has a valid target in a broader article that better covers this information. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:20, 2 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 11:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trucks and Bus Company

edit
AfDs for this article:
Trucks and Bus Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. I noticed this was nominated over 10 years ago with a decision to keep. However those sources fail WP:SIRS as they are not in-depth. The criteria for companies are much more stringent now. Imcdc Contact 06:00, 25 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 06:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks WP:SIGCOV and lacks inherent notability as per WP:ORGSIG. Beachweak (talk) 10:24, 2 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 06:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seonghwa

edit
Seonghwa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, WP:NSINGER, and WP:BANDMEMBER showing lack of significant coverage from independent reliable sources for individual notability other than passing mention for Ateez-related reportings and/or mentioned in conjuction with Ateez. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:54, 2 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. Sockpuppet nominator Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steffen Gebhardt

edit
Steffen Gebhardt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable. A ton of bricks 05:50, 2 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 06:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mathangi Ajithkumar

edit
Mathangi Ajithkumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This playback singer fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NMUSIC. Coverage is unreliable non-bylined WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources (example), trivial mentions (example), and/or tabloid coverage disallowed for notability per WP:SBST (example). Nothing qualifying turned up in WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:12, 2 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 Tropical cyclone scales#Alternative scales. Liz Read! Talk! 07:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Severity Index

edit
Hurricane Severity Index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a scale that has only been proposed and used by one private company to compete with the indexes that the National Weather Service uses. It is not significantly covered by the National Weather Service, any of its subsidiaries, nor any major, reliable sources that are independent of the subject, failing WP:GNG. Additionally, the sources which are cited in providing information for the index have not been updated since 2008, and were created by the company that developed the scale. Since the subject of this article has such limited coverage and only sources from the developers of the scales are cited, I believe that this article should be deleted. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 03:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I have also started a related deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_December_2#Template:Most_intense_landfalling_Atlantic_hurricanes_(HSI). ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 04:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tropical cyclone scales: I've searched Google Books, Google Scholars, and Google and have been unable to find significant coverage. But, it does appear to be regularly mentioned in reliable sources when listing recent attempts at finding better methods of hurricane classification. See:
Absent more thorough coverage Wikipedia should probably cover this scale similarly to how reliable sources do. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:51, 2 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 12:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas, Indiana

edit
Douglas, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another rail point/post office elevated to a village by Baker. The facts on the ground and on maps aren't as ironclad on this one, but there is a lack of positive evidence beyond Baker's statement. Mangoe (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm pretty sceptical when the only evidence that this place was ever a community is the single word "village" used in a one-paragraph description. Particularly when no incorporation ever happened, to be platted means that plans for a town at the location were filed, but that does not mean those plans were ever necessarily realised. The fact that the two names for this place (Maxams, Douglas) were simply the name of the post master during their period strongly suggests that this was only ever a post office - that is, not a community, but a single building or store. If an ATD is needed a redirect/merge to Center Township, Gibson County, Indiana can be done, but the reality is the only verifiable information that can be merged there is the name of the post master, which is surely not WP:DUE. FOARP (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging or redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:48, 2 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 National Premier Soccer League teams. ✗plicit 03:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Spirit

edit
Alabama Spirit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to List of National Premier Soccer League teams as I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 03:04, 2 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 02:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Browns Mill, Virginia

edit
Browns Mill, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insignificant locality in Fairfax County, Virginia. WP:BEFORE yields only SEO junk and results for the eponymous road. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:01, 2 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 undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 02:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colchester Hunt, Virginia

edit
Colchester Hunt, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article for an insignificant residential subdivision in Fairfax County, Virginia. WP:BEFORE yields nothing aside from real estate websites and local Facebook group on Google and nothing useful at all from ["Colchester Hunt, Virginia" site:newspapers.com searching Newspapers.com].

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reasons, being that they are insignificant residential subdivisions:

Westhampton, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rainbow, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All three seem to be residential subdivisions with no existence as communities pre-suburbanization or significant coverage. I tried slightly looser newspapers.com searches without turning up anything further. Choess (talk) 06:09, 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 merge‎ to List of political parties in Namibia. Liz Read! Talk! 00:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Action Democratic Movement Party (Namibia)

edit
Action Democratic Movement Party (Namibia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable political party. I was able to find very little independent sources online, and headlines like this aren't exactly promising. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 00:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a possible Merge or Redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:50, 2 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! 00:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Plooy

edit
Michael Plooy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. Based on a primary source. A search for sources yielded non-independent darts media. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with deletion, just based on DartsDatabase JamesVilla44 (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have not found a reliable source on this person, sourcing too weak SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 15:46, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_December_2&oldid=1262196923"