Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 14	November 16 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Across Mt. Wati

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

Article about a film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass certain specific criteria to qualify for articles. But this just states that the film exists, which is not automatically enough in the absence of sufficient reliable source coverage about the film to pass WP:GNG.
Two of the three footnotes here, however, are just tangential verification of geographic facts about a mountain that features in this film's plot, which are not about this film for the purposes of helping to establish the notability of this film —and while there is one footnote that is about this film, that isn't enough all by itself, and we would need to see several sources about the film before it passed GNG. (It also warrants note that even the one footnote that is about this film was one I had to search for and recover as it initially just redirected me to the publication's front page due to an error in its URL — but for an article that's barely a week old because the film premiered a matter of days ago, that's not so much a "sometimes newspapers move their content to new URLs after the fact" issue as it is a WP:CIR issue.)
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when the film has more sourcing, and I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much deeper knowledge of where to find good Ugandan sourcing than I've got can find more coverage to salvage it with, but a film's mere existence isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have more than just one hit of coverage about it. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Uganda. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, do not delete, but allow improvement of article since other editors are willing to add content in addition to my own contributions. I created it for the Wikipedia Africa Project... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aikolugbara (talk • contribs)

Firstly, new comments go at the bottom of this discussion, not the top.

Secondly, all pages on Wikipedia are available for other editors to "add content". But you still have to ensure that there's a certain minimum standard of sourcing present in the article right away, because articles have to meet a certain minimum standard of sourcing just to be allowed to even exist in the first place. And that minimum standard of sourcing requires more than one source about the film. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NFILM. Can’t find a possible ATD. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. We can't build an article off of a single source.4meter4 (talk) 01:02, 16 November 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 11:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Manning (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on 1 primary source. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is some coverage in google books if one searches "Mick Manning" "darts". It's not particularly in-depth but he does get passing mentions in secondary sources.4meter4 (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Indeed, found mentions, but these mentions are not sufficient substantial coverages to establish WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:51, 22 November 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 11:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reg Harding

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. No indepth coverage found. LibStar (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:50, 22 November 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 Fundación Vía Libre. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Heinz

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

I don't think this passes WP: N. I found one book that makes several mentions of Heinz (by Anita Say Chan), but everything else I could find is either not independent of the subject or references the subject in passing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here are some secondary sources with coverage. [1], [2], [3], [4], Whether this amounts to WP:SIGCOV is up for debate. To me it is borderline.4meter4 (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found [1] when doing a WP: BEFORE. [2] looks like a trivial mention. No comment about [3] and [4] as they are in a language I cannot read (though other people are more than welcome to translate those passages and make comments about them here). HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion either way on this one. A possible WP:ATD would be redirecting to Fundación Vía Libre.4meter4 (talk) 04:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm comfortable with your proposed ATD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fundación Vía Libre: as a considerable ATD per above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Frew

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

Former professional lacrosse player. All I found were passing mentions such as 1 and 2. JTtheOG (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Maryland, and North Carolina. JTtheOG (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am not aware of any specific notability guidelines for lacrosse players, but this fails WP:SPORTCRIT either way. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough independent coverage. Toadspike [Talk] 08:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV on this player. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC. A possible WP:ATD would be a redirect to 2004 Major League Lacrosse collegiate draft. 4meter4 (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Palfreyman

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another single primary source creation by JRRobinson. A search turned up nothing of significance on which to base this article, outside of primary sources and bare results. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on deletion for the same reason as Hammersoft. No major news coverage outside of professional darts organizations. Urchincrawler (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:SPORTCRIT indeed. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are some passing mentions in Nigel Boeg's dart tournament books, but nothing that could be considered WP:SIGCOV. Otherwise I couldn't find anything worth sharing. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC. Possible WP:ATDs would be redirecting to either World Masters (darts) or List of darts players who have switched organisation; although I'm not sure this latter list would pass an AFD. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Palfreyman

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on primary sources and fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Aside databases, could not find the substantial coverage required to establish WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could find no independent coverage on Joey Palfreyman. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where The Robots Grow

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

You know how sometimes it's hard to tell if a subject is barely notable and low profile (for now, anyways) or not notable at all? That's the problem with this article. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is absolutely no better than the hundreds of Vyond/GoAnimate grounding video or MS Paint masterpiece articles that have hit the AfD/speedy bin over the years, except an adult is proud of typing in a few things into a box and calling it a movie. At least you can say children are more creative than this (I tried to watch it but it made me ill from the uncanny valley framerate). Nate • (chatter)
Comment: There's a full-length Forbes article about the film. I'm not ready to vote Keep yet, but that's a good start. Toughpigs (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Content written by Forbes contributors is deemed generally unreliable (WP:FORBESCON), so that particular article can't be used for establishing notability. toweli (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Being the first AI generated animated film seems like an important milestone. It looks like the film was created more as a way to show what the production company can do as opposed to releasing a real film. More coverage may emerge over the next week or two to prove WP:SIGCOV. I say move it to draft and require that it go through draft review before coming back to mainspace. If better sources don't emerge it will time out in draft.4meter4 (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 I thought of that, but this is a situation where a draft was technically objected to. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the advantage of an WP:ATD at AFD. We can force an article to undergo a draft review.4meter4 (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 My thought exactly.

Deletion, redirect, draftify, significant improvement...anything other than "the article existing as is" is good, to be honest. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way too soon - this film is only a month old. Short announcements pop up in AI/SciFi informal web sites, but that's all. IF (big if?) this eventually becomes a film that has had an impact, an article can be created then. I don't even think there is enough here to warrant draftify. Lamona (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The film doesn't pass notability guidelines at this point in time. The only usable source is the one from Deadline, which isn't enough on its own to pass notability guidelines. As far as the claim of it being the first AI assisted film goes, there are two issues with this. The first is that this is only going to be noteworthy if it's covered in-depth by independent, secondary reliable sources. The second is that well, we can't guarantee that this is actually the first AI animated film. A search for the term "first AI animated film" brings up more films than Where the Robots Grow (WTRG) - I found people making the same claim for this film and this one, as well as this cartoon series for example. I do see a lot of info for WTRG, but this could be a result of the company being fairly liberal with their marketing campaign. Basically, we can't guarantee that this is the first one so we can't use that as a sign of notability - especially as there are people out there who have made the same claim and at an earlier point in time than the production company for WTRG. It's why coverage is so important and why even with an abundance of coverage we would have to specifically state that the film "claims to be the first AI animated film".

If someone wants to draftify this in their userspace, that's fine, but at this point in time the film just doesn't pass notability guidelines. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:20, 20 November 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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Country Horns

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

Article has been unsourced since it was created in 2006. This group fails WP:BAND, no significant coverage found in reliable sources. None of the members are notable, they haven't released any albums, or won any awards. Their initial claim to fame is based on them playing with Phish during a 1991 summer tour. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. See the following [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 4meter4’s sourcing. WilsonP NYC (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Perhaps the article needs a lot of cleanup, but per the sources identified by 4meter4; it definitely has wp:sigcov. Kaizenify (talk) 09:45, 22 November 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 Regular expression. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^txt2regex$

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

Fails WP: N. I can't find any credible secondary sources that would establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything other than passing mentions. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ditto about passing mentions. I was somewhat surprised to find that this code, originating in 2001, has had some recent (2-4 years) updates. Possibly a useful utility, but not notable. Lamona (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Useful tool, but not notable. ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 09:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Redirect and add to Regular expression as an example.VectorVoyager (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per VectorVoyager. This page is linked linked over a dozen times onwiki and probably many more times offwiki since its creation in 2006. It would be highly irresponsible to delete this without a redirect target. I strongly encourage the closer to choose this ATD. Toadspike [Talk] 08:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike: I intend to close it as redirect, but just FYI most admins closing AFDs these days use the XFD closer script, which can semi-automatically unlink those backlinks in the event of a deletion. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As nominator, I don't have any preference between redirecting and deleting the article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:03, 22 November 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Wind Symphony's Percussion Ensemble

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

Subgroup of an ensemble that currently does not have a page. The Singapore Wind Symphony may be notable from my research, but the percussion ensemble is not. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Singapore. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete no evidence of notability. --Altenmann >talk 18:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sounds interesting, but there aren’t enough sources to make even a stub. Bearian (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Drum: A History (2012, Scarecrow Press) gives it a brief mention as a notable ensemble on page 186. It's not in-depth, but a fact that the ensemble even gets a nod in an academic book about the history of the drum is a clue that the ensemble may be notable. This is an article about the group winning an international percussion competition. This is an interesting article promoting a Berlin concert; although it clearly wouldn't be considered independent. It's possible foreign language sources exist about the group given they have toured to Europe as well as in Asia. Perhaps something in the Berlin press for example? 4meter4 (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I couldn't find anything beyond 4meter4's sources. I've checked those, and while the mention in the book on drums is impressive, they don't meet the GNG. Perhaps in a few years this ensemble will be notable. Toadspike [Talk] 17:03, 22 November 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Goldie (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notable achievements nor coverage of any significance ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 13:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only a primary source provided. LibStar (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a few passing mentions in books by Nigel Boeg but otherwise no secondary coverage I could find. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC. A possible WP:ATD would be a redirect to List of players with a 2018 PDC Tour Card. 4meter4 (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanun Pyriadi

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this previously-unreferenced BLP about an academic and chemist, and have added one reference. I cannot find other coverage, however, and on the basis of what I can find, cannot see that notability is demonstrated. I accept I may be missing coverage in Arabic. Please see the commented-out section headed "Additional contributions by professor Thanun Pyriadi since 2006 up till now": I do not think that anything listed there pushes the article into notability (and it is unreferenced anyway), though would be pleased if other editors can demonstrate otherwise. I do not think there is an obvious redirect target. Tacyarg (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Iraq, United States of America, and Massachusetts. Tacyarg (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There certainly are a lot of claims of notability, but a lack of reliable sourcing verifying those claims. No prejudice against recreation should such sources appear in the future, but we cannot sustain the article as is. Ravenswing 23:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I cannot find anything that would qualify for WP:NPROF, his citation numbers are quite weak and I see no major awards. There is nothing else that might qualify him for a different class of notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NPROF. I found some passing mentions in the Journal of Chemical Education and the Journal of the American Oil Chemists Society. If there is WP:RS on this man its likely not in English, and likely not online given his age. This is one of those people where the potential for notability is there and there is a possibility sources may exist, but it would be very difficult for most wikipedians to ever access those materials if they indeed are out there.4meter4 (talk) 15:52, 22 November 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. (non-admin closure) Kaizenify (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Train simulator (disambiguation)

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

A disambiguation page is supposed to list unrelated topics with the same name. This does neither of those - the topics aren't unrelated (all being of the same class of video game) and aren't all called Train Simulator unadorned either. What this really is is a mistitled list of train simulators, which is wholly redundant to the longer list at Train simulator * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Disambiguations. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Train Simulator per WP:DIFFCAPS but keep; Microsoft Train Simulator appears to be called simply Train Simulator at times, so there are at least two potential primary topics. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I removed entries not titled "Train Simulator", it still leaves 3 entries. Microsoft Train Simulator is called in reviews just "Train Simulator", see this review for example: [12]. --Mika1h (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This still has the same problem. It's still a list of train simulators in disquise, and wholly redundant to the broad concept which already lists two of those games and could easily be modified to include the third. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this now makes sense due to the changes made by Mika1h. WilsonP NYC (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now that it's been cleaned up, it's just a normal disambiguation page for things called "train simulator". Yes, these are all video games. Yes, you could probably find them all on a list of train simulator video games. That is not a valid reason for deleting a dab page. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: valid dab page for things called "Train Simulator", even if they also all happen to be train simulators and mentioned [elsewhere as such. PamD 09:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I agree that these are all in the same genre, they are also all still referred to as "Train Simulator," and there is no primary topic here. This disambig has a valid use case, and is fine to be kept. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:56, 17 November 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. (non-admin closure) Kaizenify (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ash-Shatat

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

Based nearly entirely on unreliable sources, with no lasting significance or impact. nableezy - 17:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Lebanon. nableezy - 17:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article currently based on poor sources but there seem to be better ones out there.

[13][14][15][16][17][18] BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this far out news reports are primary sources. One of those seems fine though. nableezy - 13:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, media reviews/commentary are secondary regardless of temporal distance (which is mentioned at WP:PRIMARYNEWS). Sources above are good. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren’t media reviews, they are news stories. nableezy - 14:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are commentary on the program and its existence, they're not merely "this program aired" they discuss it and its context. So I think it counts. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There also seem to be a decent amount of mentions of this program in academic books, but most aren't very long admittedly, not passing but not extensive. However there are quite a few. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in addition to the sources Bob mentioned, which are indeed secondary, there's significant coverage in books, articles, and government reports, mostly under "al-Shatat" rather than "ash-Shatat". A lot of it I don't have access to, but some public ones are [19] [20] [21] [22]. So I think it meets WP:GNG, the article certainly needs work though. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 23:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per xDanielx Andre🚐 01:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Thank you. The sources presented seem to allow to improve the page (which badly needs it) and show it's notable enough. Some contain only a brief amount of coverage on the fiction and a lot of context but all in all, I find there's enough, so opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 03:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, History, Politics, Judaism, and Middle East. -Mushy Yank. 03:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:The sources seem good enough to keep as a stub and to allow more work on this article to improve it rather than deleting. The subject is important and Wikipedia should try whenever possible to include articles that show the deeply ingrained antisemitism in the Arab world, as opposed to covering it up as if it doesn't exist. DaringDonna (talk) 20:46, 20 November 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation of Lazistan Sanjak

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

As some ISBN numbers seem to be invalid I am not sure this is notable enough to be a separate article. No objection to merging into Lazistan Sanjak or elsewhere as an alternative to deletion Chidgk1 (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with all the other spurious creations by this editor. Unverifiable is about the politest thing you can say about it. Mccapra (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mccapra. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I fixed the ISBN number for the one ref. The Benninghaus source is the weird one for me. I can find no evidence the book even exists.4meter4 (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm getting a sense I am missing something on the background here (was there a behavioral issue such as falsifying referencing?). Is there a reason we are assuming the author misrepresented the cited offline materials and they don't contain WP:SIGCOV? Has anyone looked at these book sources?4meter4 (talk) 16:23, 22 November 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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Elmalıca

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

Not enough reliable sources (Greek City Times is unreliable) Chidgk1 (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with all the other spurious creations by this editor. Unverifiable is about the politest thing you can say about it. Mccapra (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mccapra. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom and Mccapra. Kaizenify (talk) 09:14, 22 November 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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lazistan campaign

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

Although the journal exists I cannot find the journal article

https://osmanliarastirmalari.isam.org.tr/dergi/search/index?query=Rebellion and Resistance in Ottoman Anatolia&dateFromYear=&dateFromMonth=&dateFromDay=&dateToYear=&dateToMonth=&dateToDay=&authors=

Skudaslazuri - did you use an LLM? If so please could you explain how you used it - for example what was your prompt?

If anything is worth keeping from this article I have no objection to it being moved to Laz rebellion (1832–1834) Chidgk1 (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with all the other spurious creations by this editor. Unverifiable is about the politest thing you can say about it. Mccapra (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mccapra. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A wp:before didnt show anything. Kaizenify (talk) 09:13, 22 November 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 per G4. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

GP Records (Indonesian record label)

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

Fails WP:GNG as there doesn't seem to be any coverage outside of discography listings and user generated content/social media sites. The one extant source does not mention the subject, and there are no additional sources on the subject's page on the Indonesian language Wikipedia. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 15 November 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 Flag of Lebanon. No separable notability. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maronite flag

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

This article is most likely based on original research. There are no reliable sources about a distinct "Maronite flag." The white flag with a cedar is simply an earlier version of the Flag of Lebanon. Syphax98 (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The page has multiple sources. Request is just being done by user who does negationist edits to anything Maronite. [23] Red Phoenician (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, user failed to notify me of the proposal. Red Phoenician (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't talk about a distinct "Maronite flag". --Syphax98 (talk) 10:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And please just talk about the sources and don't try to label me. I could do the same thing by pointing out the nature of your contributions (we are discussing it here), which are clearly associated with ethnonationalist ideas, deprecated here on Wikipedia. I am active on the Italian-language Wikipedia, not here. Here on the English-language Wikipedia I am limiting myself to these topics, because I was surprised by how much certain users have imposed certain clearly POV ideas in recent years. --Syphax98 (talk) 11:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the sources distinctly talk about a Maronite flag. Please review all the sources before making claims. Red Phoenician (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The crwflags website couldn't be considered a reliable source. The Lebanese Armed Forces website does not refer to any "Maronite flag" and calls this version "العلم اللبناني في الفترة الانتقالية (1918-1920)" ("The Lebanese flag in the transitional period (1918-1920)"). The Minbladeh website (also non reliable anyway) makes no reference to a "Maronite flag" and defines this as the "Flag of the region of Lebanon after the fall of the Ottoman Empire (1918-1920)". Some sources refer to the fact that this version was used widely by the Maronite community (which was the main religious community in favor of the formation of an independent Lebanon"), but sources rarely refer to it as the "Maronite flag". The article itself refers to the fact that this flag was designed by Shukri El Khoury and Naoum Labaki, active in the Mahjar (an Arab cultural association); the activity of these two intellectuals was never aimed at creating a separate Maronite identity, but rather an Arab and Lebanese identity that transcended religious boundaries. --Syphax98 (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is not the "Maronite flag", it is simply the first version of the Lebanese flag, in use between 1918 and 1920. Some sources refer to the fact that this version was used by many Maronites who were campaigning for independence of Lebanon (being the community most favorable to independence, unlike for example the Sunnis who wanted union with Syria) and this can be written in the article relating to the flag of Lebanon. There is no trace of the use of this flag after 1920. --Syphax98 (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, you shouldn't "vote" in this AfD. Your nomination already counts as a "vote" to delete. The closer will simply evaluate this as another comment. Toadspike [Talk] 16:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flag of Lebanon: possibly adding the few sourced statements to the target. Owen× ☎ 14:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flag of Lebanon. I am having trouble verifying some of the sources, including the French pdf archive and the Academia.edu link. However, assuming good faith on the quotes provided, I see two reliable sources that mention a Maronite flag. This isn't enough to establish notability, and it's even less adequate to justify a separate page from the Flag of Lebanon article, which is basically the same topic. Any reliably sourced information here can be merged there if the creator, Red Phoenician, desires. Toadspike [Talk] 16:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flag of Lebanon per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 17:03, 22 November 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 Time Lord#Regeneration. asilvering (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regeneration (Doctor Who)

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

This article reads like a FANDOM page in its entirety. It fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE as it does not explain why this specific plot element is encyclopedic and is almost entirely plot summary. It is also already heavily detailed in Time Lord#Regeneration, rendering an article length treatment unnecessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~/Speedy Keep~~/Redirect: It very much does not fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it explains how the process came about out-of-universe, and how it has changed. It could be way better, and needs better referencing too, which would need a separate article, so the topic does not its own article. Also, this AfD is doubly strange, because even if failed the above parameters, it would still be a redirect and not deleted; and that the latter section is sourced mostly by primary sources and is way too overly detailed (and needs heavy editing to be encyclopedic). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Altering my !vote- There are sources, as McYeee has shown, and therefore should be kept. But a redirect would be fine too, as this article needs heavy editing. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Time Lord#Regeneration per WP:NOPAGE. As a sub-topic of the concept of Time Lords as a whole, it should (and already is at great length) be covered as part of that article rather than split out. When you take away the massive amounts of overly detailed, in-universe plot information, then there is no need for this to be split out from the parent article, and that parent article already covers the concept of Regeneration in great detail. Rorshacma (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Time Lord#Regeneration. There is some material in "Conceptual history" that should be included at Time Lord. The Regeneration (Doctor Who) article is long and well-developed (over 10,000 words), but there are entire sections with no inline citations to secondary sources. The material in sections like "River Song's regenerations" is backed up only by the in-text citations to the episodes of Doctor Who, which are all fictional primary sources. Those sections can't pass WP:NOTPLOT without original research. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least portions of that section could be sourced to [24] and [25]. McYeee (talk) 05:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Concerns of original research should be raised on the talk page, and clear original research should be boldly removed from the article, but that would still leave us with a substantial article. The topic has gotten sigcov. See A Brief History of 'Doctor Who's Regeneration, Doctor Who is now immortal, reveals the BBC, The day Doctor Who changed face – and transformed TV for ever. McYeee (talk) 05:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The actual process of regeneration is discussed less there than the significance of Doctor Who becoming a shapeshifting entity, thus making things largely about The Doctor. I am not convinced this indicates notability for the regeneration process itself, as reincarnation as a plot mechanic surely was not invented with Doctor Who. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By "Doctor Who becoming a shapeshifting entity", do you mean "regeneration being introduced as a power the Doctor has"? If so isn't that coverage of both the character and the plot device? Why should we see such coverage more primarily about the character?

Reincarnation as a plot mechanism certainly predates Doctor Who, but the particular use of it "was very much uncharted territory. Up to this point, most changes of actor had either been simply ignored on-screen, or been done by hastily bringing in new characters to cover for an absence" (ibid). The LA Times makes the point that regeneration is different from what we see in other media as well: " Can you imagine if James Gandolfini had been replaced as Tony Soprano every few seasons?"[26].

If your objection is that every source that's about regeneration is also about the Doctor, then doesn't this mean that divergence should be deleted because ever source about it is also about fields (i.e., scalar fields, vector fields and, more generally, tensor fields), that rigor mortis should be deleted because every source about rigor mortis is about death, and that presidency of Abraham Lincoln should be deleted because every source about it is about him? I suspect that your answer is "no" for at least one of those, I can't see what makes this case different. McYeee (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. While this might be notable, SIGCOV and OR are major issues. I can see this, much shortened, as a section of the Time Lords or such, but right now this is fancrufty trivia that begs for WP:TNT treatment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DRAFTIFY WP:NOTCLEANUP bad shape but still workable Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Rorshacma. This is a WP:NOPAGE situation where the topic is already covered somewhere else, with better sources and more context. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Redirect to the redirect given in the nomination statement. This subject is something I feel would 100% be notable given its influence on the show as a whole (To the point it's easily one of the most recognizable factors of it) but the sources just aren't there to back that up. I found several books discussing Regeneration, but these sources were all entirely focused on the character of The Doctor and how regeneration affected their character. None of it was inherently independent of any other element of the show, and thus I feel it's better off being redirected until higher quality independent sourcing can be found. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per McYeee's sourcing. I don't find arguments that this only exists as an element of The Doctor consistent with others suggesting that it be merged to Time Lord, which I agree is the most compelling merge target, should a merge be needed, which I don't believe it is. Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's consistent in the sense that Time Lord makes more sense as a target for readers wanting to actually know what Regeneration is. The sources discussing Regeneration's impact on the Doctor can be added to that article separately as they focus more on the character on than on the process. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 14:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Trabzon (1834)

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

Trabzon is a city so there ought to be more sources for such a relatively recent event Chidgk1 (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more battlebollox from a user with a record of creating articles full of unverifiable content. Mccapra (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly a hoax. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination rationale. Mekomo (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, It only refers to the Laz Rebellion, no result on Google Scholar -

𓆩♡𓆪𝘚𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘢𓆩♡𓆪 ・︶꒦꒷ 💬・✏️ ꒷꒦︶ 03:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Possible hoax. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 14:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Değirmendere

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

No page numbers despite my request. So even if someone has the books cited it would be hard to check.

There is a mention of a place with that name in https://ttk.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/10-Mevlut-Ing.pdf but no mention of a battle Chidgk1 (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I am unable to find sources in Turkish. The creator has a record of creating battle-related article with unverifiable sourcing which get deleted at AfD. Mccapra (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:GNG: The article seems to have been generated using an LLM judging by the fact that the majority of the sources appear to be fabricated when looking for them. A search for sources turns up nothing and most of the information seems unverifiable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:46, 17 November 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 per WP:G5 Fathoms Below (talk) 05:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barsaat Aa Gayi

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

Zero indication of notability, zero independent sources, apparently created for the purpose of promoting Reflection Pictures Studio (part of a walled garden of drafts and articles promoting that company – they are not mentioned in any source, so it is anybody's guess where the claim comes from that they were involved in the production.) bonadea contributions talk 13:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 13:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 14:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kelleher

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

No independent coverage of this individual that I could find (some interviews, but interviews are primary sources and fail WP:SECONDARY, and self-published coverage). Article has been tagged as unsourced since January 2024. Jaguarnik (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Poetry. Jaguarnik (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sourcing found for a poet with this name, an obituary and stories about a drowning. I don't see critical reviews of any of the works listed either. Otherwise, article is all primary sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can prove to myself that his books exist (looking up in libraries), but that is about all. I can find issues of the Yale Review that list him as "michael kelleher is director of the Windham-Campbell Prizes". It turns out that is a position in the Beinecke library. But I find no biographical information about him. Lamona (talk) 02:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's possible he may pass WP:NAUTHOR. I did find one solid book review in google scholar. See: [27]. There is also some WP:SIGCOV in this journal article. This gets us partway there. He does teach English at Yale, and I have found a descent number of publications, but nothing that would make me think he could pass WP:NACADEMIC. He does oversee a pretty major poetry prize whose recipients are awarded a $175,000 grant (completely unrestricted which means the recipient can spend it however they want). That is the biggest prize money I know of attached to a poetry award. He's clearly a well known figure in the poetry world.4meter4 (talk) 05:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find that he teaches english. His page on the Yale site lists him only as being in the Beinecke library, and the page for the English department doesn't list him. I found listings for some (all?) of his books of poetry in the Yale Library, but the few I found in WorldCat showed up in very few libraries - <50. In scholar, he has writings but almost no cites. I don't think he meets either NACADEMIC nor NAUTH. Lamona (talk) 07:22, 22 November 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 P&G-based support for deletion beyond the nomination. Owen× ☎ 14:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ela Giorgi

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

Fails WP:GNG and more specifically WP:WEB. Unremarkable video that became a meme in one country, not notable enough for inclusion. A BEFORE search just gave me very few relavant hits due to the common nature of the title, so if there's anyone (particularly any Greek editors) who can find anything to improve this then fantastic, but otherwise I don't think it should stay.

The article itself is minimal, with the photo used in the article not actually at all relevant and merely a photo of a church in a town near where the video was filmed, for example. CoconutOctopus talk 11:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture, Internet, and Greece. CoconutOctopus talk 11:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is cited by two independent sources, as the policy of General Notability clearly states. If your before search gave you even a few relevant hits, I don't see why it shouldn't be notable. These hits are still "relevant". The fact that it is "a meme in one country" doesn't stop it from been notable in the English Wiki. After all, the English Wiki is more "global" due to the fact that almost anyone speaks English in our modern, globalized world. To be frank, I can assure you that the Greek wiki is somewhat "conservative" to articles editor percieve as "non-notable". The Greek version was flagged with speedy deletion while it could have just noted as PROD. Thankfully, even the fact that it is just nominated for PROD gives me the opportunity to engage in conversation and defend the article. Thank you, and yes, I mean it😉Μητσίκας (talk) 12:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia not a comic book. This is not a significant event that should have an entry in this encyclopedia. Fails all notability rules. Mekomo (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It suceeds all notability rules. Also I doubt you understand what a comic book is🤔Μητσίκας (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA. No need for rudeness. CoconutOctopus talk 17:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. There is actually quite a lot of news coverage on this topic if you search using the Greek language in google news and then run it through google translate. You can see those hits here: [28]. A caution to the nominator, while I don't think you intended your nomination to come across as perpetuating WP:BIAS it did. Especially in context to WP:GLOBAL. Also given the existence of Anti-Greek sentiment in the world, arguments that boil down to "it happened in Greece so who cares?" is probably not a good idea to express anywhere on wikipedia. What matters here is the sourcing and not a specific country or culture. Best.4meter4 (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the keep votes above. Subject passes wp:basic especially on Greek news with several significant coverages. Kaizenify (talk) 09:06, 22 November 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 12:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zompa

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

Not listed on http://www.malatya.gov.tr/arapgir#:~:text=Bağlı Mahalleler : Düzce, Meşeli,,, Sinikli, Göz, Berenge, Has it been renamed or did it never exist? Might be hoax. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no mention of this place anywhere in searches and impossible to verify. This might be a hoax given that it was created by an editor with only 18 edit count since 2007. Mekomo (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find obituaries with this name, nothing about a place with this name. Poor sourcing doesn't help either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google Maps seems to show it as somethign like "Yilliz" but I can't fine anything. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May be hoax. Might not be, but without sources it fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A before didnt bring anything out. Kaizenify (talk) 09:03, 22 November 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 01:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MoEngage

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Trivial coverage WP:ORGTRIV. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cited to routine coveragesand run of the mill pieces. Nothing to establish WP:ORGCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:19, 15 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 11:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sourcing here is only about funding, I can only see items about them redesigning their logo. None of which prove notability. PR items don't count. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 15 November 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 per WP:SNOW‎. (non-admin closure) JuniperChill (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jarosław Bako

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

I am not sure about the notability of this person despite being one of the Polish football goalkeepers with the most clean-sheets in Poland national football team. This is no longer considered free pass and Bako must meet WP:GNG only to have an article. I have checked corresponding articles on other languages, especially the Polish one, but none of them provide any significant coverage of him. I was told that the Polish Wikipedia is still inclusionist when it comes to sportspeople, but not sure about football players even if they have not participated in major tournaments. Regarding secondary sources, all I found were interviews as well as news of manager appointment. Onet might be the exception I found, but after translation, it was Bako saying about himself; GNG requires news coverage of someone else talking about the subject instead.

I wonder how long this article survived in mainspace without significant, major updates for 17 years, seeing that none of the previous revisions had any sufficient source either. Although it is quite possible that offline sources exist, given the generation of this former footballer, we can't assume that to be the case. If we can't find any decent source at all, a redirect to Poland national football team#Most clean sheets would be alternative to deletion.

⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Poland. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Not a great nomination. Jarosław Bako made a whopping 35 appearances for the Poland national team and spent time abroad in the first tiers of Israel and Turkey including a two-year spell at one of the major Turkish clubs, Beşiktaş. This vita itself indicates notability. I didn't dig through newspaper archives or search for offline sources which are sure to exist for a player who mostly played in the 1980s and 1999s but I found online articles at laczynaspilka and wmzpn.pl. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Agree this is a really poor nomination. Subject is clearly notable. Giant Snowman 08:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robby.is.on and @GiantSnowman: Laczy Nas Pilka is part of Polish Football Association while WMZPN is a governing body of football association, neither of these count towards WP:SIRS. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per above. Svartner (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clariniie's nomination pattern is a bit of a conundrum, alternating between total unknowns and very notable players who happen to have bad sources at the time. This case is in the latter category. Geschichte (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A GNG-supporting source must be added to this article for it to be kept, but no one has identified anything yet. Unless such a source is uncovered a redirect to the suggested target is the only option consistent with our guidelines. JoelleJay (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – More sources that I found [29], [30], [31], [32]. There are also two sources on the Wayback Machine in the article on pl.wiki. Svartner (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First two sources have already been posted, third is an interview and the fourth is on the website of one of his former clubs making it non independent of him. The pl.wiki sources are brief mentions. Dougal18 (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartner, as Clariniie noted, the first two sources are from his club/governing org N. The third source is written by him N. The fourth is from his club N. None of those count toward GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Hi there, to provide context as to why it might be difficult to find sources that meet all of WP:SIRS criteria - while Bako is a notable figure in Polish football history, he represented Poland during a dull and unsuccessful period (except for the 1992 Summer Olympics, which he took no part in), was seemingly not a controversial figure on or off the pitch, and focused on coaching post-retirement, rather than going into management/punditry/politics - all of these reasons might make him seem not as remarkable as his predecessors or successors in Poland's goal, possibly resulting in less interest from the media to write extensive pieces about him.
The closest I've found would be these two articles - gol24.pl and TVP Sport. Secondary, independent and reliable, but, unfortunately, brief.
Per Robby.is.on's suggestion, I'll try looking through newspaper archives for more, however I'm not experienced with them much, due to poor (or lack of) results when using them in the past.
I wanted to inquire further about Łączy Nas Pilka's coverage of Bako's career. Given that Bako has not been involved with PZPN in decades, I'd wager ŁNP is detached enough from Bako to consider it independent from him. ŁNP's series of players' profiles are well-written chronicles, and don't stray from mentioning less-than-perfect parts of players' biographies, such as disputes on or off the pitch, issues with the law, etc. While I can't recall authors analysing moments from players' biographies in-depth, and I can't decisively call ŁNP objective, including such facts can be seen as being critical. KibolLP (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KibolLP, coverage from a player's current or former leagues, clubs, etc. is explicitly discounted from consideration as they do not reflect independent attention from the world at large, regardless of whether they're ostensibly neutral. SPORTCRIT requires a truly independent, secondary, reliable source with SIGCOV to be cited in the article in addition to the subject meeting GNG. Without such a source the article cannot stay in mainspace. JoelleJay (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the gol24.pl piece states its source is the club itself -- it's not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a difficult situation. All of the online coverage of Bako is from periods long after he retired from playing. Most of it doesn't appear to qualify as SIRS, but it appears to suggest he was notable enough for his play during the 1980s and 1990s that news organizations are still interested in his career decades later. The Przegląd Sportowy article cited above, while primarily a first-person interview, demonstrates lasting media interest in his career. There is a similar article covering his Israeli league career at One (website) that is included in the Hebrew-language article. BeIN Sports published a brief recap of his Turkish career (without a byline, so I can't be sure its SIRS). Hürriyet has an amusing blurb about Stomil suspending Bako for appearing in a league match while drunk in 1999 (not significant, but shows a former Turkish league player still had the media's attention years later). Milliyet has an article about Beşiktaş manager Gordon Milne which makes brief note of Bako (the club apparently signed him while Milne was on holiday). Overall, this article comes up short, but I think there's enough here to suggest SIRS is likely available if we had access to Polish-, Turkish- and Hebrew-language sources from the 1980s and 1990s. Jogurney (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seeing a majority favoring "keep" here is surprising, as none of the cited references offer a thorough discussion of the subject's impact or significance within the sport. Moreover, there are no significant, independent secondary sources that provide an in-depth analysis of his career to justify a "keep" vote. Unless more comprehensive secondary sources are identified, offering significant coverage of Bako’s career and contributions, the subject fails GNG.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Weak sources above, but nonetheless they are sources, there is a reason why he was selected for the Polish squad. That's a pretty impressive accomplishment really. There will probably be Hebrew and Polish sources out there. I can understand why the article has been sent to AfD, but the depth of football played, and we know he played by other databases showing those statistics and what we have online. This to me is a clear case for WP:OFFLINESOURCES. There is a poster for sale on eBay of him from a magazine, [33], who knows, maybe he did an interview with the magazine also. Again to do the proper research you need to dig deep, and some people do. However this delete culture just because the page is a stub annoys me. It was created as a stub for a reason. It's suppose to be a collective effort to build wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm hugely concerned if people are actually calling for this article to be deleted, because that indicates there's a huge problem somewhere. Not only is notability obvious based on his accomplishments, my biggest concern is a WP:BEFORE search is very, very easy to do and we have multiple editors arguing otherwise. I found these in less than a minute by changing language to Polish, and I do not speak Polish: [34] [35] [36] [37] SportingFlyer T·C 18:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is ridiculous. His notability is extremely obvious, per very significant accomplishments (e.g. WMZPN identified him as "The best goalkeeper in the history of football in Warmia and Mazury.") and coverage presented which is sufficient for a topic like this, given that no search has been done in either Polish, Turkish or Hebrew newspaper archives (which is where the best coverage would be). I mean come on, Onet ran a story titled "In Poland, they called him the executioner. In Turkey, he is a legend" (don't know what all of it means but it seems to translate: "In Turkey, he is remembered as the national champion and one of the best goalkeepers in the history of Besiktas. In Poland, during his time with the Black Shirts team, he was labeled the 'executioner', who, at the request of Józef Wojciechowski, tormented players in the infamous 'Coconut Club'. In 1989, while playing for the Polish national team, he stopped the English.") and ZMIEDZI also wrote a story that starts "Jarosław Bako is a football legend." He made several hundred top-tier appearances (412 according to [38]) and is one of the top goalkeepers in the history of the Polish national team – which is of decent prominence and receives a good deal of coverage. His notability is 100% clear in my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close per WP:SNOW. Clearly passes WP:SPORTSBASIC per sources provided in this discussion by others above.4meter4 (talk) 04:46, 22 November 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 12:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jun Yanagisawa

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

Footballer who played very few games in the J League, 14 of them and not full games either. It would need good, significant coverage to meet WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. No usable sources in ja:wiki. Geschichte (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 10:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Japanese football transfers winter 2009–10 per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be highly unusual to redirect a footballer to a transfer list. LibStar (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:FOOTYN. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:19, 22 November 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 2013 FIFA U-17 World Cup squads#Mexico. Sandstein 12:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Hernández (footballer, born 1996)

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

When 18 games in Mexico's second league is all he has done, the article would need good, significant coverage to meet WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Without it, deletion is the outcome. The problematic creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 10:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Playing just 18 matches is a weak claim to notability. This is one of the most common birth names in Spanish-speaking countries, so it's possible to find namesakes while searching on Google, failing WP:V too. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2013 FIFA U-17 World Cup squads#Mexico – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2013 FIFA U-17 World Cup squads#Mexico.4meter4 (talk) 04:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2013 FIFA U-17 World Cup squads#Mexico: A redirect to target would suffice as an ATD. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:20, 22 November 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. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kalaignar Centenary Super Specialty Hospital

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

Non-notable hospital. No sources with significant coverage, and I found none online. (all are about the stabbing, which would make the event notable, but not the hospital itself) '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Tamil Nadu. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:HEY. There are enough independent sources to pass GNG. I have added a lot more apart from the stabbing event and there are more incidents that have occurred since its inauguration that aren't added yet. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly meets WP:GNG. ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 09:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:HEY. Article has been significantly improved and passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 04:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The proposed sources have remained uncontested. Sandstein 12:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Access Entertainment

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

Notability isn't inherited, fails WP:NCORP. The redirect was removed twice, so putting it up here for discussion. Suggest restoring the redirect and protecting the page from re-creation. - The9Man ^Talk 09:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Companies. - The9Man ^Talk 09:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. This company seems obviously notable at first glance, but the article doesn’t cite any real sources. Disagree with protecting this page as it looks like notability is likely to exist and further coverage will be found. WilsonP NYC (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily passes WP:NCORP. Here are some sources that can be used to improve the article: [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49] Best.4meter4 (talk)
Keep: At a cursory search, there's a clear case of WP:ORGCRIT pass. This just needs to be improved or expanded with the sources found, mostly mentioned already by 4meter4 above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surcingle belt

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

This article has absolutely no references and through my online searches I cannot find any reliable ones to add. The page has been abandoned for ten years and I think the subject is niche enough to not warrant its own page. Jolielover (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you found the links as said here?

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 15:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: there are a few potential sources here for example, but I’m not sure if there’s significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 9 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!} 07:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could only find the one reliable source. Bearian (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 National Register of Historic Places listings in Washington, D.C.. I went with the least specific in the hopes this bothers the fewest people. asilvering (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boulder Bridge and Ross Drive Bridge

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

Boulder Bridge exists, as does Ross Drive Bridge; I see no reason why we should have a one-line stub simply because these are listed on the NRHP together; even if expanded out this would still be a content fork of the two sub-articles. Hog Farm _Talk 05:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Washington, D.C.. Hog Farm _Talk 05:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect fine. FINE. I'm still shaking my head at this. Pointless. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, pointless. Athel cb (talk) 09:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the 2007 article Boulder Bridge which encompasses both as a U.S. National Register of Historic Places listing. The author who created this one in 2015 probably didn't notice the NRHP article was already in place. — Maile (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is here in case someone is searching using the formal NRHP name. Normally it would be a redirect, but as the nominator points out, there are two separate articles for Boulder Bridge and Ross Drive Bridge, and it's not clear where a redirect should point. (I had split the articles in 2015 since the two bridges are unrelated other than both being built in Rock Creek Park in the same decade; they carry different roads over different creeks.) It may be better to treat it as a disambiguation page. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Would redirecting to National Register of Historic Places listings in Washington, D.C. be better? The fact that this is a listing combining two separate things is mentioned there in a note. Hog Farm _Talk 21:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's actually a pretty good idea. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a possible solution.

(1) - Keep the article named simply Boulder Bridge created by West Virginian 10-22-2007 It is technically correct in content and sourcing. And it's formatted correctly.

(2) - The article named Boulder Bridge and Ross Drive Bridge was created by Antony-22 10-22-2015. It is named correctly, but only contains one sentence and no sourcing.

(3) Need tech advice on how to do this, if it can be done.

Might be a good idea to first delete Boulder Bridge and Ross Drive Bridge.

Move Boulder Bridge to the title Boulder Bridge and Ross Drive Bridge, while keeping its editing history.

Since I've never performed such a article swap before, we need help from an admin who can perform this swap. — Maile (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the two bridges are fairly unrelated and it wouldn't be appropriate to cover them in a single article. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National Register of Historic Places listings in the upper NW Quadrant of Washington, D.C. and fix the links there. This should not be its own page, and after a brief search that is clearly the best page to redirect to. SportingFlyer T·C 20:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Register of Historic Places listings in western Washington, D.C.. Ross Drive Bridge is west of Rock Creek, while Boulder Bridge straddles it. The NHRP listing is thus in both list articles, but the western one is the more appropriate redirect target. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. SportingFlyer T·C 04:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification for everyone on how these two came to be listed as one. Please see NRHP Nomination Form. It was listed that way by the National Register of Historic Places. — Maile (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have 3 different Redirect target articles being suggested here, can we agree on one that is the most appropriate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National Register of Historic Places listings in the upper NW Quadrant of Washington, D.C.. This article is obviously not encyclopedic but the title itself is a reasonable search term. Esolo5002 (talk) 08:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to the NW Quadrant article. This could still be a search term if you look at the NRHP data. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. FINE. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Register of Historic Places listings in Washington, D.C.. I would have supported redirecting this to National Register of Historic Places listings in the upper NW Quadrant of Washington, D.C., but 3/4 of the bridge pairing is in western Washington, D.C., compared to only 1/4 of the pairing within the upper NW quadrant. National Register of Historic Places listings in western Washington, D.C. would have been a suitable redirect target as well if it weren't in two separate lists. The point stands, however, that there do not need to be three articles on what are essentially only two topics. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:03, 16 November 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. Closing as keep per consensus developed after last relisting and the sources found, which can be incorporated into the article. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luther Stickell

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

I don't think that this character is notable. This article has 10 sources, of all are not reliable and passing mentions. It was recently tagged for notability and there is no help at all. My WP:BEFORE failed to show anything about him. If he isn't fixed, i recommend a redirect to List of Mission: Impossible characters or at worse, Ving Rhames.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Toby2023(talk) 11:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Fictional characters. Toby2023(talk) 11:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mission: Impossible (film series) as an WP:ATD. The List of Mission: Impossible characters is for characters from the original TV series; it omits the late-80s revival let alone the film series. The film series article is a better redirect target. oknazevad (talk) 03:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear a few more opinions on this article. By the way, the nominator didn't sign their statement but it was Toby2023.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 8 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!} 05:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doing my usual source hunt. This article on ScreenRant seems to address Luther Sticknell specifically. [50] (Maybe this one in CBR too: [51]) Allowing WP:NOTCRYSTAL, there may be more interest and more sources after this movie comes out if they do kill the character off. So if we convert to redirect, which preserves the previous history of the article, we should prepare for a revert in that event. Now to hit Google Scholar... On first blush, there seems to be plenty of material here: [52]. If someone with a JSTOR subscription or university access can get past these paywalls, it may be possible to add enough critical analysis of this character to establish notability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. In addition to the sources provided by Darkfrog, there is also some character analysis in [53], [54], [55], [56]. Collectively I think this passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to sources provided by the users above which show GNG and SIGCOV. Alternatively, it could be draftified whilst it is being improved. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:48, 22 November 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 05:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second Grade Municipalities

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

Functionally unsourced, and failed a WP:BEFORE search. Already draftified and moved back. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (1) It would be better to cover this minor administrative detail at Tamil Nadu#Adminsitration and politics. I'd suggest a merge to there except that nothing in the current article is sourced and some of it is the sort of stuff that is potentially dependent on when the article was written - and I'm not sure the subject is important enough to merge without messing up the balance of the target article. (2) In any case, this sort of generic title, attached to an article covering one state of one country, is never appropriate. It may well be that other states and countries have second grade municipalities too, so the article would have to be moved to Second grade municipality (Tamil Nadu) were it kept. For this reason, a redirect would also be inappropriate. Elemimele (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. I couldn't find any secondary sources covering this topic. The only sourcing for this kind of content is within WP:PRIMARY materials that I can find. Fundamentally, I think this fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This is an entirely bureaucratic designation that appears to only be utilized within one of India's 36 states. While it may be relevant to governance in India for people working in that field in Tamil Nadu, it doesn't appear to be encyclopedic.4meter4 (talk) 02:38, 22 November 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!} 08:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First Grade Municipalitie

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

Functionally unsourced, and failed a WP:BEFORE search. Was already draftified and then moved back. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, my comments about Second Grade Municipalitie apply equally; (1) It would be better to cover this minor administrative detail at Tamil Nadu#Adminsitration and politics. I'd suggest a merge to there except that nothing in the current article is sourced and some of it is the sort of stuff that is potentially dependent on when the article was written - and I'm not sure the subject is important enough to merge without messing up the balance of the target article. (2) In any case, this sort of generic title, attached to an article covering one state of one country, is never appropriate. It may well be that other states and countries have first/second grade municipalities too, so the article would have to be moved to First grade municipality (Tamil Nadu) were it kept. For this reason, a redirect would also be inappropriate. Elemimele (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. I couldn't find any secondary sources covering this topic. The only sourcing for this kind of content is within WP:PRIMARY materials that I can find. Fundamentally, I think this fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This is an entirely bureaucratic designation that appears to only be utilized within one of India's 36 states. While it may be relevant to governance in India for people working in that field in Tamil Nadu, it doesn't appear to encyclopedic.4meter4 (talk) 02:36, 22 November 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 Council for Education in World Citizenship (after making it an article rather than a disambiguation page). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CEWC Northern Ireland

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

I could not find significant coverage when searching under short name or full name. The 2nd source is a 1 line mention in a book.

~~Also nominating CEWC-Cymru for similar reasons.~~ Both articles fail WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Northern Ireland, and Wales. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are two different nominations here. And my own recommendations are slightly different for both. Neither especially cut/dried. In terms of the:

CEWC-Cymru title, I think this should just be merged and redirected. To Welsh Centre for International Affairs. As, per the text and (granted primary) reference, the former charity now forms part of that organisation. And hence is a reasonable WP:ATD-R.
CEWC Northern Ireland title, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that this should also be merged and redirected. To Council for Education in World Citizenship. Also as WP:ATD-R. Where the target would be updated so it is no longer a DAB page. But an article covering the "parent" org. I propose this because while, per nom, I do not see that the "CEWC Northern Ireland" org has/had independent notability, the "parent" org perhaps does. Much of the content at the Northern Ireland article could be merged to Council for Education in World Citizenship. With that title (no longer DAB) expanded to cover the concept as a whole. That org being the subject of significant coverage (as the primary topic) in at least one book and several journal articles. Indicating possible notability. There's certainly enough coverage for more than a stub (covering the English, Welsh and Northern Ireland "branches" of the org)...

My 2x cents anyway... Guliolopez (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:LibStar, this is not a proper bundled nomination, you might have tagged CEWC-Cymru but this nomination isn't formatted properly. If you wish it to be included, please review WP:AFD instructions for multiple page nominations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will nominate CEWC-Cymru separately now. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Guliolopez, a new AfD is set up here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CEWC-Cymru, you may wish to copy your comment across. LibStar (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for the ping @LibStar:. I've struck and moved my !vote on what to do with the Welsh charity title (CEWC Cymru) to the new AfD. In terms of the Northern Irish charity title (CEWC Northern Ireland), and for clarity, my recommendation remains to merge/redirect to Council for Education in World Citizenship. Guliolopez (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There has been discussion but the only outcomes proposed are Deletion and Merge/Redirect with a consensus for neither. Here's hoping that a few more days might bring some more opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Council for Education in World Citizenship per WP:ATD as described by Guliolopez. There is possibly an entry on the organization in the Dictionary of British Education (2003, Woburn Press) on page 52. It is not viewable online (google books ends at page 32) to my knowledge, so unless the nominator has dug up a physical copy of the book and checked inside it, I don't think it can be credibly dismissed as a single sentence mention as snippet views are not reliable. That said, I do see the CEWC get mentioned in snippet views on pages 54-55 which makes me think this is likely a fairly lengthy entry extending across several pages (but again not provable). This falls under specialized encyclopedias at WP:5P1. When a specialized encyclopedia covers a topic we should too per the first pillar. That said, I think it likely that the encyclopedia entry is on the broader CEWC and not the one specific to Norther Island. It's probably better covered in the parent article. 4meter4 (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sizwe Nxasana

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

Unsourced BLP article, edited by possible COI editors and IPs LR.127 (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Education, and South Africa. LR.127 (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A WP:BEFORE search didn't find many useful sources, aside from his resignation at NSFAS. Article also reads like a resume. Procyon117 (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. high profile South African businessperson. Passes WP:GNG with sustained coverage in multiple WP:RS. Former CEO of Firstrand bank and Telkom. These are some of South Africa's largest and best known companies (WP:WORLDWIDE) and he received a lot of direct coverage because of this. Article is not in great shape but WP:NOTCLEANUP. Coverage in WP:RS [57][58][59] (South Africa's highest paid banking CEO). Also includes negative coverage: [60][61][62]. More: [63][64][][65][66][67][68][69] ("Nxasana, who has been CEO since April 1998, has seen the company through a number of challenges, including the successful initial public offering on the JSE Securities Exchange, South Africa, and the New York Stock Exchange.").[70][71][72] His opinions were viewed as important by mainstream papers [73][74][75][76]. Here's some coverage by Harvard Business School, so he gets the Anglosphere tick: [77]. I can find more references if needed. Park3r (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Park3r. However, the article is in bad shape, voting keep without improving the article won't take us anywhere since someone might AfD it again tomorrow. dxneo (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A more comprehensive analysis of the sources provided would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Park3r. Many of those references are coverage of him in his role at a high-profile company; but they are all more than trivial mentions of him. Needs more cleanup. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the sources provided by Park3r.4meter4 (talk) 00:30, 22 November 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 and redirect. Given the history of edit warring over previous redirect, consensus appears to be to prevent further reversion. Thus, a new redirect without the history is necessary. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conquests of Inal the Great

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

This article is an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK of Inal the Great. There is insufficient sourcing for Inal's conquests to warrant a standalone page. The sources are all passing mentions of Inal himself (here, here, here), don't even mention him or describe him as a legendary figure), with the one exception of a self-published Circassian nationalist blog. The article was created by a sockmaster and a redirect preferred by multiple editors is being repeatedly reverted by a likely WP:LOUTSOCK. I am seeking consensus for restoration of a stable redirect to Inal the Great. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Georgia (country). Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Inal the Great per WP:ATD. I agree that this is an unnecessary content fork. There is some material in this article not included in the parent article that might be worth merging. I'm not a subject matter expert though, and whoever does this should probably check the referencing to make sure it is accurate. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Inal the Great: Per nom. The current fork is unnecessary and if anyone wants to expand the target, the history is preserved under the redirect too. — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:51, 22 November 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. The source analysis, and the lack of a rebuttal to it, determined that the references are insufficient to satisfy notability guidelines. ✗plicit 02:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omspace

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG - The9Man ^Talk 18:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Spaceflight, and Gujarat. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 19:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. May you explicate why you believe that this article fails WP:ORG? In the article alone I see three sources (1,2,4) that I believe to satisfy significance, reliability, and secondary.Arguably, the sources are quite recent, but I believe that aged sources are only the requirement for events (WP:EVENT). Pygos (talk) 04:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is a blog article, the second is an interview that isn’t about the company, and the 4th is also not a reliable news source - it's a blog masquerading as a news website. None of these sources come close to fulfilling the requirements of WP:ORG. - The9Man ^Talk 11:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The9Man The fourth source is not a blog. It's news website for TV9 Telugu, a mainstream TV network in India. It's absolutely a legitimate news source made by professional journalists.4meter4 (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There are a couple of solid sources, but overall there isn't enough here to pass WP:ORGCRIT. It's a young company. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I do not see a pass of WP:ORGCRIT, not from here, not from a cursory search. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:35, 15 November 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 Metroway#Stations. ✗plicit 02:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

East Glebe & Potomac station

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

Page devoted to a bus stop with no detectable notability or reliable secondary source coverage. Propose that articles be deleted in favor of a consolidated route map on the Metroway page. Each bus stop does not warrant its own page, though, especially considering most of them are simply a small standard bus shelter or sidewalk sign.

I am also nominating the following articles on non-notable bus stops on the same bus line under the same nomination:

nf utvol (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transport and Virginia. Kpg jhp jm 02:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Metroway#Stations. Amount of infrastructure does not determine notability - availability of sources does - but I can't find any sources discussing these in any detail. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Metroway#Stations. The character of these stops (no real infrastructure, just a location that a bus stops at) and lack of independent RS coverage supports this relegation. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Metroway#Stations. Not seeing any content worth merging in the articles, and a redirect seems like the best outcome per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 00:23, 22 November 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, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrdad Mehryar

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

Fails notability. he never played for the national team. looks like he played for some European clubs but they are not top clubs, mostly in lower divisions. if you google his name you rarely can find anything. Sports2021 (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find anything supporting notability through WP:SPORTSBASIC. nf utvol (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The provided references do mention the subject, but most are related to local sports coverage, player signings, or match reports, without providing in-depth coverage of his career, achievements, or impact in the sport. Thats said, fails WP:SIGCOV and so WP:GNG.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find any sources witch prove notability. In the article is written that he played in Switzerland for TV Endingen. I have access to the database of the Swiss handball federation and I couldn't find him and no Source which mentioned him that he played in Switzerland. I think this fact with Switzerland is made up. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 18:34, 15 November 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. ✗plicit 02:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Wylie-Kellermann

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Christianity, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His books have been reviewed in major publications. He is also well known as an activist. See coverage in this article in the Guardian: No water for poor people: the nine Americans who risked jail to seek justice Thriley (talk) 17:06, 10 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!} 00:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. In addition to the sources in the article, here are a couple book reviews from SAGE: [78] and [79]. Best.4meter4 (talk)
Keep: Would seem to pass AUTHOR with the reviews given above, needs a bit of a rewrite though. Oaktree b (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per the arguments above. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:16, 20 November 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.