Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

Guide to deletion

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ NegativeMP1 01:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pickle Wars

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

Article contains one reference and its a primary source download link. A few quick WP:BEFORE searches on WP:VG/SE and some skimming of the reference library showed nothing, meaning this game possibly fails WP:N. NegativeMP1 23:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. NegativeMP1 23:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reaches into the ancient archives and blows dust off a book - The game seems to have gotten a decent number of reviews such as This, this, this and this, which is already enough to demonstrate GNG is passed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Christ that was quick. Withdrawing and adding a sources exist tag to the article. NegativeMP1 01:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. Deleted as G3 by User:Bbb23. (non-admin closure) ~ A412 ^talk! 23:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Berualuam

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

I think this is a hoax. "Berualuam" gives zero search results (literally, zero). The given coordinates resolve to Oeno Island. ~ A412 ^talk! 23:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Islands. ~ A412 ^talk! 23:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WROB-LD

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

This is part of a trio of low-power television stations in Kansas that only carries national services and no real local content, along with KMJC-LD (already deleted at AfD) and KCKS-LD (currently also up for deletion). An overarching article for these identically programmed stations, TV25.tv, was redirected to KCKS-LD in a 2016 AfD. Even in the days of lax notability standards and even-laxer enforcement of them, I questioned in the TV25.tv AfD whether we really needed four articles related to that network of all-diginet LPTVs. Seven years later, we have reached the point where the correct number was/is/should be zero, and it has become more accepted that this simply isn't the type of station that gets the requisite significant coverage to meet the GNG — FCC records, directories, and network announcements of their new affiliate just won't do. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Here's the Reason: Per Nom and my response on KCKS-LD's article of deletion which was Delete. Also, a little note, I don't understand why WROB-LD callsign starts with a W instead of a K as per rules with most Kansas stations follow (in Topeka, most follow, besides, WIBW (580 AM, 94.5 FM, and Channel 13) which makes sense as it was created in Logansport, Indiana in 1925 and moved permanently to Topeka, Kansas around 1927-1928. In a nutshell, Delete. Mer764Wiki (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda forgot, there was/is no sources on the television stations. Mer764Wiki (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG based on the given sources - two of the resources strike me as press releases, which are inadmissible. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV. Sources are all press releases or FCC records, which aren't secondary. User:Let'srun 19:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as well. Sources indicate not much WP:SIGCOV (if any at all); a quick search on my own turned up nothing of note. Xnyarla (talk) 04:19, 2 January 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 Latham United Methodist Church. Daniel (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latham, Alabama

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

This case is similar to that of Swift, Alabama in that the surviving trace of whatever was here is a church, in this case listed on the NRHP, but again, there's nothing much here, and the labelled spot is a house somewhat south of the church. The NRHP forms suggest that, again, the church was built to serve a locale rather than as part of a distinct settlement; what I'm seeing suggests this was just a post office. Mangoe (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two are the same place.The creek is still named Red Hill, notice. The GNIS record has Red Hill as a post office in the same record.
And pretty much all of this information is in the second source of Latham United Methodist Church.
Uncle G (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Geography, and Alabama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Baldwin County, Alabama. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd imagine the name was changed because Red_Hill,_Alabama already had a post office at that time..., That Red Hill is in Marshall County Alabama, I've many ancestors from there.James.folsom (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Let's see if there is any more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I concur on the merge, as all the policies seem to indicate that merger is the best option for non-notable articles that are verifiable. The county is a good place for it. I'm willing to do the merge if you remind me when it's time.James.folsom (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say rather to Latham United Methodist Church for the very simple and pragmatic reason that if that article were fully expanded from the sources that it already has, it would cover this topic at least as well if not better than this article at hand does. Uncle G (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Apologies, I was imprecise in my language, I support merge to where ever is suitable. And agree with your assessment. James.folsom (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus to Delete.

But my personal opinion is that commenters here did not pay enough attention to improvements to the article since its nomination and the assault was just two sentences in the Personal life section while the Career section was the bulk of the article. But I'm here to enact the consensus of editors in a AFD discussion. Forgive me this lapse of decorum to share my view. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Jabbari

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

This is a semi-procedural nomination. This person is only really notable for the relationship and subsequent assault trial of Jonathan Majors, which makes this a WP:BLP1E. I'm not comfortable about a redirect because of privacy concerns. I declined an WP:A7 tag because it's blatantly the wrong criteria, although WP:IAR / WP:BLPCRIME might apply, I'd rather have a discussion about it first. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Her role in the criminal proceeding is relevant. She has a whole career ahead of her and may become even more notable in the future. If this discussion concludes in deletion, the content should be downloaded or something for when her article could be re-published. Kirby777 (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and England. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: First ref in the Independent is fine, but it's brief. [1] talks about her, but it's in regards to the trial and conviction. I'm not sure being assaulted makes you notable, she wasn't noticed as a dancer before the fact, judging by the lack coverage before the event. Would be a routine dancer had the assault not happened. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: to brief of a mention. If anything, it is too soon for a page.

Wikisteveb4 (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This stub for a subject who is not notable in her own regard does not meet the WP:GNG, especially for WP:BLPs and is focused more on her involvement with Majors and does not pertain a significant coverage of the subject herself. In response to Kirby's concerns, any potential future endeavors of hers are irrelevant here and of a speculatory nature. This stub can be moved to the draftspace, per WP:DRAFTIFY, where editors can work on it until such a time it is deemed to be notable and qualify for the mainspace, and the current article title can easily redirect to Majors' article. WP:RECENTISM applies here.Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Clearly BLP1E, hits on Google shows recent news coverage of Majors' assault and trial. As above, just mentions on reliable sources. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 07:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jonathan Majors. What privacy concerns? Her name is very clearly out there in the public domain. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at the article now it's certainly much better than it was last night when I had to remove 'only known for her relationship' garbage; it's been appropriately expanded, now meets GNG, and is much more balanced to describe her career for the vast majority of the article with the RECENTISM reduced appropriately to the bare minimum. A major credit to @Isi96: for their proper sourcing and balancing of BLP to address the concerns that were raised above. Nate • (chatter) 00:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2600:1702:8C0:E650:C4A:DEFE:2FDF:E01D (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems like she's only largely known for her relation to Jonathan Majors and his trail. Doesn't seem like she was that notable in her own right prior. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Unless an article is created on Majors' trial, redirect to that. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, she doesnt meet WP:NACTOR and notability isnt WP:INHERITED LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has clearly received significant coverage in reliable sources. Recent edits by Isi96 have drastically improved the article from where it was when this AfD was opened. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no redirect, BLP1E. Andre🚐 00:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lady Lotus and Oaktree b, and also per BLP1E/BLPCRIME as outlined by the nominator. Daniel (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP1E, notability isnt WP:INHERITED. Fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found showing this has WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 07:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. Daniel (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oleh Palchyk

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:PHOTOGRAPHER, WP:GNG. The sources are just news which contain photos made by him, I doubt that it is sufficient for the notability. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Photography, Military, and Ukraine. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Over time, appropriate sources will appear. He is a promising photographer. Максим Огородник (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Максим Огородник: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 08:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then, that would be a case of WP:TOOSOON, no? Belichickoverbrady (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once there are appropiate sources, the article can be written.

EmilySarah99 (talk) 11:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as an WP:ATD, and to give the creator time to find suitable sources. Currently the subject does not seem to meet WP:NBIO. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hackett, Kansas

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

Another short-lived post office, with no trace of it on any map I can find and a deleted GNIS entry. We need some real evidence of a settlement, not just name drops in a local newspaper, and at present all we have are entries in listings. Mangoe (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page has been included in a bundle discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bowling Green, Kansas. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article itself says the post office was only there for three years. What possibly could have happened in three years? James.folsom (talk) 08:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Commnet: Hackett Kansas has been removed from the national maps database, so ref 1 is a broken link now. I'm removing that reference.James.folsom (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The USGS no longer has a record of this site, so we only have a list of post offices and user provided coords for the place. I've looked for an hour+ in the Wikipedia libray and my own resources and can find no additional sources. It's not legally recognized so it's not presumed notable, an it only had a post office for 3 years so it's not a long lasting place. It simply cannot meet WP:NRV.James.folsom (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Anglophone Crisis. There is a consensus below not to retain the article, but with a variety of 'delete' and other ATD options presented. Choosing this one using administrative discretion as it feels like the best fit for the comments that went before it. Daniel (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the Anglophone Crisis (2024)

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and unsourced. Seawolf35 ^T--C 19:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems pretty obvious, could have even been a possible candidate for WP:Speedy. Concur with Seawolf35. Tooncool64 (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Africa, and Cameroon. Seawolf35 ^T--C 19:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify/delete – despite unsourced, the article have useful prose and can be incubated. Otherwise, it may appear that the events should appear first on the main article until it is too much enough to merit an article. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 06:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- From a purely policy perspective, delete is the only option. However, this is a case of an article created a few weeks too early. The odds of that conflict magically resolving itself in the next eleven days is rather slim. CRYSTAL or not, there will be 2024 developments pretty quickly with appropriate sourcing. Is it honestly worth the time and attention to slog through an AfD when it's pretty certain that the article will be back mere days after the process closes? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- There are similar annual articles for preceding years since 2017, covering conflict between anglo- and franco-phone communities in Cameroon. I am not prepared to say whether they should or should not exist, as being too detailed for WP, but this is no more than a week premature now, so that it might be kept. If this is to be deleted, we should be deleting (or merging) all the timelines of this series, not just 2024. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anglophone Crisis: yes, the target is on the large side, but there's no point to spinning off an empty article. And if portions do end up getting spun off, it should be done based on major developments, not by calendar year. The seven existing annual timeline pages are unwieldy and unencyclopedic. Owen× ☎ 22:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheon Seong-hoon

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The only two references are database type entries on web sites. The is reflected in article content which is "stats only" plus one sentence which says he plays and who for. North8000 (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Best source I can find is this - there should be something in Korean... Giant Snowman 22:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources below which show (AGFing) notability. Giant Snowman 11:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Agree that the article is quite new and crude, but not hopeless. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @GiantSnowman:, @Suitskvarts:, I found [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], among many more Korean sources. Young player witj pngping career with fully pro appearances and played for Bundesliga club. Article needs improvement, not deletiom. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Player with an ongoing career, played for relevant clubs, youth national team, passes on the WP:GNG criteria. Svartner (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - thanks to the sources found by Das osmnezz which show a clear GNG pass. JTtheOG (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Unica Corporation. Daniel (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unica NetTracker

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

Doesn't meet WP:NSOFT, because there are no reliable independent sources that indicate the notability of this application. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: does anyone have a copy of Kevin Roebuck's 2011 Web Analytics: High-impact Strategies - What You Need to Know Definitions, Adoptions, Impact, Benefits, Maturity, Vendors (ISBN 978-1-74304-640-1)? Apparently, the tracker received some coverage there. The textbook itself is included in the esteemed ACM digital library. Owen× ☎ 01:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Unica Corporation. Abandoned stub about a minor utility that was abandoned over a decade ago. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Unica Corporation: sounds like a good AtD. Owen× ☎ 21:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Information theory. Daniel (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fungible information

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

Shouldn't require a dedicated article, suggest merging with Information theory. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 23:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 23:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: sounds like a great idea! You don't need an AfD consensus for a merge. Just go ahead and do it after you withdraw this nomination, if you want. If anyone opposes this, the discussion can continue on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 01:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, with Information theory, per nom. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:29, 1 January 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. given the recent expansion of the article and sources located. I think the improvement is self-evident and doesn't require an additional relisting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nami Kurokawa

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

Does not appear to meet either the WP:GNG or WP:PEOPLE. Of the two sources listed here, the subject is only mentioned once as part of a list. On the Japanese Wiki article, the sources appear to be mostly agency-written profiles. After looking on the internet, I found no reliable sources in English. After a look through available online Japanese-language sources, most sources appear to be either user generated, basic press releases, or, again, basic, agency-supplied profiles. (An editor fluent in Japanese might want to double there's nothing else). Most of the works she is listed as acting in redirect to manga, or do not seem to mention her character. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NACTOR#1 for voicing major characters Leica Crusade in Demonbane, Flora Koiwai in Nanatsuiro Drops, Sayaka Hozumi in Yoake Mae yori Ruriiro na, and Takako Kakuzawa in Gakuen Utopia Manabi Straight!, and has a partial pass of WP:NMUSIC#10 for being one of three singers of an ending song for the Koihime Musō anime. ミラP@Miraclepine 19:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Miraclepine who has already substantially improved the article, which had almost no content at the time of the nomination. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please do not delete the article okay Lovemuhcko (talk) 03:18, 2 January 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. Note this wasn't a bundled nomination, as none of the other pages had an AfD template linking to this discussion (some had an AfD template, but it linked to different discussions). On this basis, this deletion consensus only applies to Bowling Green. Daniel (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling Green, Kansas

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

As stated in the lead, this appears to be a ghost town. There is a source saying there was a post office that closed in 1870. Otherwise, I can't find any evidence of this town existing. See also: Hackett, Kansas; McCandless, Kansas; Pansy, Kansas; Shermansville, Kansas; Dennison, Kansas; Forrest Home, Kansas; Pleasant Hill, Kansas; Garlington, Kansas; Coburn, Kansas; and Greenwood, Kansas. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kansas. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respectively:
Garlington, Kansas
Village, per Gannett 1898, p. 93, which only gives gazetteer details, however.
Pleasant Hill, Kansas
Hamlet, per Blackmar 1912, p. 482 which gives a few facts.
Pansy, Kansas
Hamlet, per Blackmar 1912, p. 441 which gives a few facts.
Bowling Green, Kansas
Documented rural post office. It's in Dallas 1880, p. 258. The source does not state that it is anything more than a post office.
Shermansville, Kansas
Documented rural post office. It's in Dallas 1880, p. 257. The source does not state that it is anything more than a post office.
Coburn, Kansas
Foster Dwight Coburn is notable. But this is a largely undocumented claimed rural post office. Zero sources found indicating any sort of population centre, or a connection to Foster Dwight.
Hackett, Kansas
Largely undocumented claimed rural post office. Zero sources found indicating any sort of population centre. Reuben Hackett is notable. This is not the site of the Hackett farm, however.
Dennison, Kansas
Largely undocumented claimed rural post office. Zero sources found indicating any sort of population centre. The Woodlief post office synthesis is not supported by the source in the article, and I've found no connection to the probably notable William H. Woodlief whom I found biographies of in two history books from two different centuries.
McCandless, Kansas
Largely undocumented claimed rural post office. Zero sources found indicating any sort of population centre.
Forrest Home, Kansas
Largely undocumented claimed rural post office. Zero sources found indicating any sort of population centre.
- Dallas, E. J. (1880-03-29). Kansas Postal History. Collections of the Kansas State Historical Society. Vol. 2. Topeka: George W. Martin.
- Blackmar, Frank Wilson (1912). Kansas: A Cyclopedia of State History. Vol. 2. Standard publishing Company.
- Gannett, Henry (1898). A Gazetteer of Kansas. Bulletin. Vol. 154. Washington: United States Geological Survey.
Uncle G (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're my hero today, Uncle G. Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No suitable sources to write an article is failing WP:NRVJames.folsom (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bowling Green. The only remaining source states it was a postal site for less than two years, and my research has been fruitless. No evidence of a community here.

The remaining places "bundled" here probably shouldn't be bundled, as the Wikipedia community has previously rejected mass-bundling of geographical sites at AFD. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:43, 1 January 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. Daniel (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PivotX

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

Doesn't meet WP:NSOFT, I wasn't able to find any reliable independent sources indicating its notability. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I, too, couldn't find any independent RS about this. I'll gladly change my !vote if someone else finds something. Owen× ☎ 01:28, 20 December 2023 (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, Daniel (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above - this fails on a lack of reliable sources. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - adding agreement with above. WP:RS StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Macmillan

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

I couldn't find sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG and I don't think his acting credits are significant enough to pass WP:NACTOR. WP:BEFORE search wasn't helped with how common is name is but also searched with his middle names and that didn't bring up much either. Suonii180 (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, United Kingdom, and Scotland. Suonii180 (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article qualifies for deletion as being an unsourced BLP alone, regardless of notability. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as mentioned above. Skt34 (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC) sock strike. Daniel (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think that an being an unsourced BLP is a speedy deletion criteria. If so, Speedy Delete Industrial Insect (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Theatre, and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added a couple of references about his theatre credits. Clearly, this should not be speedy deleted. The question is, did his TV roles make him notable? There does not seem to be a lot about him on Google, but most of his acting career was in the 1960s, so someone needs to look back at newspaper archives and other non-Google sources of the decade and also of the 1990s, when he returned in older roles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers: I don't think the additional sources show sufficient notability. They both relate to the Importance of Being Earnest but the first source focuses on shows that have been held at the Chichester Theatre and mentions in passing that he was in the production while the second source has a bio for the subject but only details his appearance in the Importance of Being Earnest and doesn't go into detail about him or his other work. Through my WP:BEFORE search while nominating him I looked at newspapers.com and focused my search on the 60s. This didn't bring up anything which I thought passed GNG. I've searched again to include his work from the 1990s as I can't remember if I included this in my original search. His work is mostly character acting and I haven't found newspaper sources which go into the same depth of detail as they would for someone who had bigger roles. Suonii180 (talk) 01:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To review sources added during this discussion and whether they demonstrate notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. It looks like this article has been remade since its nomination and I see a consensus to Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shay Kanot

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

Created by a banned editor, but worked on by other editors since. I can't find any indication that this passes WP:DIRECTOR. The citations used in the article only reference them in passing so it would appear that this fails WP:NBASIC also. TarnishedPath^talk 12:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Film, and Israel. TarnishedPath^talk 12:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most mentions are about his films, nothing about him, and are trivial one-liners (XYZ Film by Shay Kanot). I can't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easy pass of DIRECTOR #3. Maybe also DIRECTOR 4c. AFDISNOTCLEANUP. gidonb (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in some Israeli sources, especially after seeing search results for the Hebrew name. Also as stated above, could reasonably pass DIRECTOR#3. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 07:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I originally came across this page (Special:PermanentLink/1189701926) during NPP and was ready to PROD it or draftify it but then my analysis looked like it still might've been notable in Hebrew sources but I can't read Hebrew so I thought I would give it a go and at least WP:FIXIT and clean it up to article standards—I was feeling generous and was in need of a Wiki-project for the day. The analysis above is correct: the sources I was able to find in English only have passing mention and alone probably don't satisfy GNG. Once I had the article acceptable, I went to de-orphan it and link to other mentions and then found his most notable project Kicking Out Shoshana also had NPOV concerns that I felt needed to be addressed. So to learn know that the creator was blocked doesn't surprise me. What I will say is that—as probably the most significant editor of the page since the other editor's article creation and then subsequent block—I don't want my edits of the page to be construed as any endorsement of !keep, nor should they prevent a !proceduraldelete as a result of the block. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 15:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I took a look at the sources, and I'm feeling okay. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, although the page needs styling editing. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though page definitely needs some work, person is notable enough from looks of it (has done several films and is a director). Homerethegreat (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ due to a lack of participation. No prejudice on immediate renomination. Daniel (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Hudhayfah Al-Ansari

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

Non-notable spokesman of a notable organisation. The very few reliable sources that mention him do so only in passing; all else I could find in a WP:BEFORE search in English and Arabic is blogs and social media chatter, and it's difficult to verify whether he actually exists. His predecessor's name is a redirect to Islamic State. Wikishovel (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Terrorism, Islam, and Iraq. Wikishovel (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He has made a audio speech and i have posted blog link to its english translation by Aymenn j al-tamimi, one of best experts on Jihadism & Islamic State in particular.
We had a article Abul-Hasan al-Muhajir since he made his first speech and his personal identity remained unknown and was revealed after his death. Sam6897 (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, but I bet for Maintain: Same as Wikishovel, it need to be extended and with more reliable sources. I believe there are sources which can help us to say more than his occupation and his succession. In the case of Abul-Hasan al-Muhajir, we have a biography of him, so it makes it more notable. Tajotep (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All things about Abul Hasan identity emerged after his death in late, 2019. For 3 years he was mysterious unknown spokesmen but he still had a wikipedia page. Sam6897 (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to clarify a speech is a primary source and is not any indication of notability. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn per Faroese-language sources found by Malo95. (non-admin closure) ~ A412 ^talk! 19:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Team Klaksvík

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

Sports team fails WP:GNG. Sources in article are what appears to be a team site and a database. WP:BEFORE finds coverage only for the similarly-named Klaksvíkar Ítróttarfelag, an unrelated football team, and https://partillecup.com/en/post/handball-is-getting-bigger-in-the-faroe-islands, which I don't think is independent. Perhaps Faroese-language sources exist, but I couldn't find them. A412 (Talk • C) 17:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 18:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a lot of Faroese-language sources exist. On the Faroe Islands handball is the second biggest sport and Klaksvík plays in the highest league. They also play in the continental cup. Clearly notable. Search results of nordlysid and article & [9]. Also a lot of results if you google "Team Klaksvík site:sosialurin.fo" like [10]. Or if you google "Team Klaksvík site:kvf.fo" there are a lot of articles from the local tv station.🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moon World Resorts

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

This stub frankly reads like an advertisement for an architectural fantasy project. This organization has apparently existed since 2000 but hasn't managed to actually get its project off the ground for over two decades. All of the sources in the references section seem to be puff pieces and/or interviews with the project's founder, without any basis in reality. Further searches for this mostly turned up hits from content farms. It hardly has signficant coverage from reliable sources. At best, this article is little more than a crystal ball speculating about a future project that may or may not happen. I propose this article be deleted, at least until something tangible about this project actually materialises. Grnrchst (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Organizations, United Arab Emirates, and Canada. Grnrchst (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I just added refs to in-depth coverage from AP, CNN and Forbes, which I found as a result of a half minute WP:BEFORE. Many others are available with little effort. Yes, this is indeed an architectural fantasy project, but it's a notable architectural fantasy project. Owen× ☎ 20:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of these articles talk about it in the future tense and using vague terms like "perhaps", "could be", etc. These are exactly the kind of puff pieces I was talking about. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing construction projects can be notable, and this one certainly is. WP:CRYSTAL is about unverifiable speculation. Nothing in those articles is an unverifiable speculation. ~~Plans are already in place, contracts were signed, and money--a lot of it--has changed hands - past tense.~~ Just because there's no shovel in the ground doesn't mean this is all speculative. Owen× ☎ 21:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC) (Stricken out erroneous statement. Owen× ☎ 23:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]
@OwenX Plans are already in place, contracts were signed, and money--a lot of it--has changed hands - past tense. Where does it say that? All I see when I google "Moon World Resorts" + "contract" is that Henderson has tried this stuff before, but in yet another location, namely Coachella, California in 2016 for 4 billion dollars, and that also went nowhere: https://eu.desertsun.com/story/news/local/coachella/2016/02/22/4b-moon-resort-coachella-tourism-official-doubtful/80082490/
The plan was originally introduced in 2002 as a Las Vegas destination, but was stagnant for almost a decade while the company searched for a different location with the right amount of available and affordable space for the project. (...) But more than a decade since announcing a plan, the company has little money of its own for the project, nor have developers publicly lined up eager to spend, putting the idea as far out of reach in reality as, well, the moon itself.
It seems like Henderson is peddling the same recycled idea since 2002, getting rejected everywhere, but just trying again and again with more publicity, hoping that some rich investor somewhere will bite some day, but it just never happens. Why would this latest Dubai iteration be any different? Wikipedia is not here to help this guy play his failing speculative game. NLeeuw (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You asked,Why would this latest Dubai iteration be any different?. As editors, it is not our job to predict the outcome of this project. It makes no difference to its inclusion in Wikipedia whether the project succeeds or fails. We also have articles about the biggest scams in history. The only question we need to answer is whether coverage today establishes notability. Your resentment of Henderson may be well justified, and your assessment of the likelihood of success of this project may be dead on, but neither are relevant to us here. We are here to document notable things, and the significant coverage this project generated is more than enough to meet our standards of notability. Owen× ☎ 20:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@OwenX You're right it's not our job to predict the outcome, whether positive or negative, as both fail WP:CRYSTAL. I don't "resent" Henderson as much as I think he's apparently incompetent at making his dream come true for over 21 years. I'm seeing a pattern here of a long series of failed attempts to get essentially the same idea being rejected, without the company ever having accomplished anything notable. The latest publicity barely changes anything, except that AP, Forbes and a CNN Travel item – apparently paid for by the Dubai government – are slightly more reliable sources than the rest of the publicity Henderson managed to create (at least he's somewhat capable of doing that, I'll grant him that).
However, the more important question I asked was: Where does it say thatPlans are already in place, contracts were signed, and money--a lot of it--has changed hands - past tense? I have not seen that anywhere in the cited sources. No concrete plans are already in place (there is no exact location, it's not even sure whether construction is supposed to begin in Dubai or some other place like Las Vegas, Coachella or China), no contracts have been signed, and no great amounts of money have changed hands (the 2016 Desert Sun article mentioned the company has little money of its own for the project, nor have developers publicly lined up eager to spend, and that situation seems to be exactly the same 7 years onwards). If I have missed anything of the sort, could you quote it for me please? Thanks in advance. NLeeuw (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right; I misread one of the sources. Plans are not in place, contracts were not signed, and I see no evidence of money changing hands. I've stricken out my earlier assertion. But again, even if this is nothing but Mr. Henderson’s pipe dream, the only question before us is whether this dream has received significant coverage in reliable sources. I share your skepticism as to the future of this project, but as NPOV editors, such views are irrelevant to assessing notability. Owen× ☎ 23:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much @OwenX! To me, the fact that there are no plans in place, no contracts, no money etc. means that the subject cannot pass Wikipedia:Notability per WP:NSUSTAINED and WP:NOPAGE, in particularOther times, a future event may clearly be suitable for a standalone page before it happens (such as the next upcoming Summer Olympics). However, before creating such an article, make sure that the likelihood of the future event occurring is reasonably assured. For example, the WikiProject Film strongly recommends that a standalone article for a new film be created only if reliable sources confirm that principal photography for the film has commenced, as completion of the film is generally seen out to the end from this point on. This is why it matters that construction has not begun at any of the places where Henderson has imagined his MOON building for over 21 years. (And as WP:NOPAGE, this is where concerns overlap with WP:CRYSTAL).
Now, this is not necessarily a reason to say nothing about the MOON project at all; it just means it does not merit a standalone page. In the case of a film, you might have a standalone page about a film that was screened in cinemas successfully so as to be clearly notable, and then at the bottom of the article the director announcing ideas for a sequel that may or may not be made. It is fine to include that announcement at the bottom of the page of the film which has been made, but until principal photography of the sequel has commenced, it doesn't merit its own page.
The question is, did Moon World Resorts accomplish anything else of notability, or has it been associated with something else notable, where we can perhaps merge some of the contents of this page to for the time being? I'm afraid the answer to that question is "no", but I remain open to many possibilities. One possibility could be a 1-line entry in the List of megaprojects with the status of "Proposed" under "Planned cities and urban renewal projects", section "Middle East", although I'm not sure it would even fit there. Thoughts? NLeeuw (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would like to suggest that the middle section, outlining the specifics of the MOON projects, should be completely rewritten, as THAT section feels entirely like an ad. The "Services" section on the side also feels like slapped on print from an advertising pamphlet.

Recently, a well known Youtuber has provided good criticism on the fabled MOON project, if this may be "helpful" at all in either keeping the article, or updating it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1-ui89FsnI

Also, should an article be deleted if nothing came from the company/development as mentioned? is it not better to keep it as an entry for future references and research? Wip403 (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wip403: Editors are encouraged to improve the article while the AfD is open. Go ahead and rewrite that section in a less promotional style. YouTube isn't considered a reliable source, but I believe the sources we already have in the article are enough to provide the content. I have no doubt you can improve the page.

We do not remove articles about a company or a project when the company dissolves or the project is shut down. Wikipedia has many articles about defunct companies and organizations, planned projects that never came to fruition, businessmen who died, wars that ended and empires that fell. If their existence was notable, it generally remains so after they're gone. Wikipedia isn't a business directory, it's an encyclopedia. Owen× ☎ 12:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of WP:SIGCOV, and per WP:CRYSTALBALL. All three mainstream sources currently quoted say very little about the company or the actual project, mostly staying within the realm of speculation, and making some general observations about the housing market in Dubai that have nothing to do with MWR. There isn't even agreement on whether this MOON building will be built in Dubai or elsewhere (note that the Forbes March 2022 article doesn't even mention "Dubai"; Henderson speculates thatLas Vegas is an obvious option, and in second and third place he thinks aboutperhaps China or the UAE), let alone a specific location, let alone a legal agreement to that effect. All AP May 2023 has to say isHenderson discussed the project at the Arabian Travel Market earlier in May in Dubai. That's it. There is no way that you can finish a 5 billion US dollar project by '2027/2028' if all you've done by May 2023 is speculatively talk about where it might be built and what it might look like, based some artist's impressions, and giving interviews around (the CNN Travel one seems to be sponsored by Dubai's government:This CNN Travel series is, or was, sponsored by the country it highlights.) This is beginning to look a lot more like a dubious company like Mars One that seeks publicity and funding with bombastic promises, but cannot actually deliver anything. The YouTube video unfortunately isn't a reliable source we can quote from, but does underline just how dodgy the whole project looks. Until legal agreements have been signed, a location been bought, and construction has actually begun, I think this deserves no article on Wikipedia, where it merely serves as an advertisement for something highly speculative and dubious (dare I say Dubaious?). NLeeuw (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no site/no funding/no contract in Dubai, and with a 20-year history of not having been built anywhere else. The sourcing isn’t strong either. KJP1 (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Apart from a few WP:CRYSTAL mentions in a small handful of speculative news articles, there's no indication that this resort will actually be built, nor that it is any more notable than the other crackpot proposals that have largely been forgotten by the collective consciousness over time. There's no planning, no granted permits, no confirmed location, no money, only a few vague plans. Until we actually start seeing these things materialise into reality, I strongly doubt that WP:SIGCOV can be met. Even if we treat the topic as a fantasy project rather than a real-life resort, the Wikipedia article itself certainly reads like a promotional piece, rather than objective coverage of a proposed megaconstruction project. --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:33, 2 January 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 Mickey Mouse#Legal issues. Daniel (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Mouse (Last Week Tonight with John Oliver)

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

I created this page, but in hindsight I really doubt it passes notability. The character gained minor popularity from a single episode and has not been covered by reliable sources since. I think this is a clear case of a minor thing getting limited coverage for a single event before being completely forgotten about. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mickey Mouse#Legal issues. I believe this fails SUSTAINED, but a couple sentences at the section on this stuff seems appropriate. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. In addition to what Di and QJR have brought up, this just feels more like an aspect of an existing thing than a separate thing in itself. To respond to Di, it's possible for something to be notable for a time and then cease to be notable.

Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to wherever someone wants to merge it to, since GNG is very weak indeed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I would say with Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (season 10) but given how no seasons past season 3 have articles I think maybe Mickey Mouse#Legal issues. I think the due to the other articles recently making featured status is is feasible someone would want to make that article and the information in this article could be used there. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. No opinion on the target, and it could easily be covered in more than one place. It doesn't have WP:SIGCOV by itself, but is a clear footnote to other notable topics. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per others. Definitely not meeting proper standards by itself but definitely something that's decently notable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per others. Also consider doing speedy delete with G7 next time. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 22:54, 1 January 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. Daniel (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Stickney

AfDs for this article:

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

This has been in CAT:NN for over 13 years and went to AfD about 2 months ago. The reason for nomination was: 'Fails the general and author-specific notability policies.' I couldn't come up with evidence to disagree. The last AfD had only one person commenting and no votes, so hopefully a better discussion can result in a decision this time. Boleyn (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and United States of America. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found a review of Stickney's McVeigh book in Publishers Weekly (link) and a review of his prison memoir in Kirkus (link). In addition, I found additional coverage of his work in the Buffalo News (link), WBFO (link), and the Union Sun and Journal (link) along with additional reviews in Booklist and the journal Social Thought & Research (these last two can be found through the Wikipedia Library). When all of this is added with the coverage detailed by Espresso Addict in the previous AfD, I believe this subject meets the criteria at WP:Author.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per SouthernNights' findings and my own from the previous AfD, in which I was also inclined to keep. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. Daniel (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025–26 UEFA Women’s Nations League

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

WP:TOOSOON – The article can be recreated once there is more official information. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - not currently notable, but will be in future. Giant Snowman 16:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Events, and Europe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify this will be notable but it's too soon. Also there is a discussion about deleting a redirect to this article over in RfD. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - not currently notable, but will be in future. Matilda Maniac (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above, not notable yet. - The Master of Hedgehogs ^{(always up for a conversation!)} 16:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Ford

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a person not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing Wikipedia inclusion criteria.
The principal notability claim here is that she's been a school board trustee and non-winning candidate for election to city council, which are not WP:NPOL-passing roles. Having a bit of run of the mill campaign coverage in the context of a non-winning election campaign doesn't add up to passing WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL, either: every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so having campaign coverage doesn't make her more special than other candidates.
Otherwise, what's left is a couple of local-interest awards in local-interest contexts that don't fulfill WP:ANYBIO, and a bunch of primary sourcing that isn't support for notability at all.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she achieves a stronger notability claim, but nothing here is already enough as of right now. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - unelected candidate, and don't quite think this is there on GNG grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 02:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked the newspaper archives and wasn't able to find any interviews or significant coverage. Dr vulpes (Talk) 18:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G5 - created by sock of Anne Barrington. Confirmed (by me) on Commons. Эlcobbola _talk 15:59, 1 January 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. Daniel (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Ashton

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

While he had a main role in Call the Midwife a WP:BEFORE search didn't show evidence of multiple significant roles to pass WP:NACTOR. The current sources in the article are focused on his relationship and family and I don't think they go into enough detail about him to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and United Kingdom. Suonii180 (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and 5x expansion of this former stub, which had 1,595,752 page views since it was first created six years ago. The article now has a sizeable Career section covering Ashton's major television roles (beyond Call the Midwife), as well as his theatre performances (A Streetcar Named Desire at the Donmar and lead in Strangers on a Train) and his starring role in a US film. We also find out what his real name was and how he chose his stage name. The most in-depth articles about him do incorporate quotes of Ashton himself, but also include facts that were presumably researched and/or fact-checked by journalists and editorial staff, including Radio Times, The Bristol Post, and MyLondon, and there are numerous reviews of his stage roles (e.g., The Times and What's On Stage), and one by the The Independent Critic about Instrument of War. (NB: Not sure if you were using Google for WP:BEFORE, but increasingly we're finding that it's not fit for purpose, particularly for single-parameter searches; Bing seems to perform much better in that regard.) Cielquiparle (talk) 07:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Suonii180 Respectfully request that this nomination is withdrawn. There are many viable candidates for deletion that actually do require attention, but this is not one of them. I have now invested the time to improve the article, and it seems fair not to waste anyone else's. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now clearly passes GNG thanks to the hard work of Cielquiparle. 21,673 pageviews in the past 30 days shows that our readers want to read about the subject, and we now have an article that does it justice. Edwardx (talk) 11:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep great work Cielquiparle Earnsthearthrob (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn as improved. BD2412 T 00:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Gruffalo's Child

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

Fifteen years without a source (and eight years with a tag requesting additional citations) is enough. Delete, or at best, merge into the article on the original book, The Gruffalo. BD2412 T 15:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 15:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep, inclined to err with keep on this as it was a winner of the 2005 best children's book award, so could pass WP:NBOOK as the winner of a major literary award (National Book Awards Children's Book of the Year). I'll go weak on this for the moment as I am taking a slight leap that this makes it sufficiently notable. The author was interviewed about it by The Independent also (who have some searchable reviews). There are also various newspapers of the time which loosely covered it, such as this by The Evening Standard. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The exceptional work by Beccaynr per WP:HEY makes me more confident in firming up my keep !vote from being tenuous. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this seems to be a notable book according to the WP:NBOOK guideline and sources added since the nomination; reviews added include The Horn Book Magazine, Publishers Weekly, School Library Journal, and BookTrust. Other sources added include two sources from The Guardian and The Observer that seem to find the 2005 National Book Awards Children's Book of the Year award noteworthy. There is also support added for theatrical adaptations in a review added from Radio Times and a review from WhatsOnStage.com. The book is also the basis for The Gruffalo's Child (film), and a film review by Common Sense Media e.g. notes the film is based on the book [11]. Beccaynr (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very decent article with references. Geschichte (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel W. Wright (poet)

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

Non notable, can't find any mention of subject in any significant coverage. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 14:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Poetry. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails NPOET, only sources found are bibliographies and self published sources. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 07:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NBASIC and WP:NPOET. I was unable to find significant, independent coverage of this poet or their works. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:17, 2 January 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 00:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angelfish software

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

There are no reliable independent sources indicating any notability. Written like a promotion. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelfish (software), apparently unrelated to Angelfish (browser) that is based on Chromium (web browser). Boud (talk) 11:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage in Gnews for the company, many hits on the fish in general. Not seeing NCORP as being met. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article has been updated with content & refs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frozenpizza (talk • contribs) 21:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Frozenpizza: I don't see any reliable independent sources:
35 Amazing Web Analytics Tools that Rival Google Analytics
60 Best Google Analytics alternatives: The Complete List
Websites like these do not constitute WP:SIGCOV. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 07:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was hoping for an AtD in the form of a redirect to the maker of this product, but the company isn't notable either, and we rightfully don't have an article for it. Owen× ☎ 15:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. The sources in the article are either primary or unreliable. I was unable to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources on this software. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:24, 2 January 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nedunkerny

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

Fails WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, requires significant coverage (about the town) in multiple independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:PLACEOUTCOMES is an essay, not a governing policy. The governing policy is WP:GEOLAND, which states,Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. This article meets WP:GEOLAND. Owen× ☎ 15:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:PLACEOUTCOMES is an essay. WP:GEOLAND is the policy covering notability of settlements. Nedunkerny satisfies the very first criteria under WP:GEOLAND i.e. it is populated and legally recognised. The town is divided into two Village Officer Divisions (Nedunkerny North and Nedunkerny South), the fourth level administrative division in Sri Lanka. The Department of Census and Statistics collects census data at the village officer division level. Nedunkerny is the headquarters of the Vavuniya North DS Division, the third level administrative division in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka Post allocates a post code to Nedunkerny.--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has presumed notability under WP:GEOLAND. Has shops and an army check point per Google Streetview in 2022. Mentioned in numerous books listed on Google Books about the Sri Lankan Civil War and looks like there's ongoing religious conflict. [12] Note the different name spellings. Rupples (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and WP:GEOLAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nomination seems mistaken, clearly notable. SportingFlyer T·C 23:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calibre Sports

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

Poor-quality article on non-notable entity (based on searches, not much third-party coverage) and also clearly written as a promotional article, based on subheading titles such as "A club in limbo", and the fact that several edits are from an account called "CalibreSport" - clearly a conflict of interest. Completely unsourced as well. Elshad (talk) 13:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Firearms, and Australia. Elshad (talk) 13:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: borderline G11. No evidence (or even claim of) notability, and involvement of COI SPA makes the choice easier. Owen× ☎ 13:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not cite any references and I could not find any SIGCOV on a basic Google search. I oppose a G11 speedy. While there is some advertising tone, this could be corrected if SIGCOV is made available and this article is kept. Frank Anchor 14:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't believe a poor quality unreferenced article has survived for 16 years. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 14:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO with no sourcing found. delete for lack of sourcing Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Per WP:NOTADVERTISEMENT this is unambiguous advertising. TarnishedPath^talk 09:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No RSs and unlikely to be any: WP:ROTM. Cabrils (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post-harvest Technology Application Centre

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

Sources are hard to find for Myanmar but other than a government source, there seems to be nothing to find JMWt (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Myanmar. JMWt (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or dratify - found a few potential sources- most results are on facebook or blog sites. There's some other government sources with one or two paragraphs here and there (e.g DOCA webpage) and a non-government website that mentions in passing only. I think it fails WP:SIGCOV, but with two sources that discuss it slightly, a more detailed search could find more information. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. I was unable to find significant coverage in secondary sources. The government website is a primary source and there is no point in draftifying an article created in 2008. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies founded by Harvard University alumni

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

The very recent Afd verdict against List of companies founded by Brown University alumni applies equally well to this list and others just like it. The sources are just lists or rankings or non-neutral. Only the Stanford list (which I have excluded) has the proper sourcing to justify its existence IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please read my reply to (@Dream Focus) and let me know what you think. Adarwinismshellfire (talk) 08:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Also delete the template "Companies founded by University alumni".

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all What college someone went to doesn't matter. Same textbooks, same classes, so no valid reason to list this. Dream Focus 04:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, here are my thoughts on this:
While it is true Stanford has received some exposure as a the "uber-university of entrepreneurship" as you (@Clarityfiend) claimed in your deletion request for "List of companies founded by Brown University alumni," the general phenomenon of start-up and entrepreneurship is not and was never a Stanford specific one. In fact, other universities had notable exposures as well. As apparent in the 2023 Pitchbook list that you cited as a rationale on why a 20th-ranked Brown University should be deleted while the 1st-placed Stanford University should be kept, many universities in the top 5 of the said list have more or less similar numbers of founders (especially, if we consider the time-variables on the year of the respective Pitchbook count). In fact, on the list you specifically cited, Berkeley ranks 2nd with 1433 founders to Stanford's 1435 founders. Furthermore, the lists are not meant to be competitive tallies, as apparent in the absence of tallied numbers of founders or companies. The tally-taking can be left to third party entities such as Pitchbook itself.
In a similar vein, I think that a deletion based on the lack of contribution to the said "cultural phenomenon", which you seem to have based on the number of founders, is not warranted as a necessity. If we are eliminating them on the grounds that they are mere listings of attendee/alumni and companies (albeit their respective notabilities), then either a complete deletion of all such lists is better and more equitably neutral way to go. Leaving out the Stanford founders list alone while deleting all others do not seem to be an impartial and neutral approach at all. In fact, as per the "PR of universities" claim, the Stanford article/list is not necessarily a "non-neutral" one either: it fails to mention any notable company that has been involved in serious and well-documented downfalls such as Theranos, Terraform Labs (of Terra/Luna coins), and Ethos Capital among many others.
On top of this, while there are places that need improvement (such as clarification and adherence to agreed upon standards of sources) in all these lists (even the Stanford one), the existence of the lists themselves seem warranted if we are basing one (Stanford) of them on its contribution the utterly GENERAL phenomenon of entrepreneurship. What the articles need are improvement on some of the citations and formats, not an outright deletion of all of them. Also, the "non-neutral" attribute of the phenomenon can be kept if all universities are allowed to keep a list of founders solely based on the notability of the companies that were founded and listed as separate article entities on Wikipedia. The phenomenon of entrepreneurship was not invented or is not owned solely by Stanford University.
Thanks for reading and let me know your thoughts. Adarwinismshellfire (talk) 08:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and let's not forget, many of these founders from whichever university's list have actually graduated from or attended many other universities (either ones with their own respective list or ones that do not have such a list). Adarwinismshellfire (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get the notion that I was basing anything on the number of founders? (I'm basing it on sources like The Independent, The New Yorker and Reuters articles, the book Inventing the entrepreneurial university: Stanford and the co-evolution of Silicon Valley, etc.) And if companies like Theranos are missing from the list, then WP:FIXIT. AfD is not for cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. Well, according to the deletion log in "List of companies founded by Brown University alumni," you mentioned the following:
Delete
per nom and
WP:NLIST
. Brown is not the uber-university of entrepreneurship. That would be Stanford, as explained in
List of companies founded by Stanford University alumni
.
Clarityfiend
(
talk
) 08:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
According to this list, Stanford ranks #1, while Brown is #20. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since the list cited does rank the schools based on number of founders, it would not be a far assumption to say that you were basing the need for a similar list to exist on the basis of the schools' number of founders or the schools' contribution to the phenomenon of entrepreurship. If you were not, then I do apologize for the assumption. Nevertheless, my reasoning still does stand as there is no need for Stanford to be given a special treatment over all the other universities that have contributed to the general phenomenon of start-ups and entrepreneurship. Especially since there seems to be no adequate quantitative way to measure such "contribution" if not for the number of founders or companies found.
As for the sources that you have mentioned, the same rationale stands for your argument on Theranos: the respective entries that use such sources on other universities' lists need to be fixed and improved, which is obviously not the same thing as deleting the entire lists. I do not see why those two need to be equivocated.
Let me know what you think. Adarwinismshellfire (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NLIST, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. I believe the sources I have provided do just that. YMMV. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. Like I stipulated earlier, if there are sources that can warrant existence of the list, it should most likely be fine. This is the rationale that I am tyring to point out for the lists of the other universities: they also have some reliable sources warranting their influence to the general phenomenon of entrepreneurship. If the sources are not to satisfactory level, then these sources need to be fixed or improved upon. It should not automatically lead to the deletion of the lists, given that they already have some reliable sources to begin with. The sources currently listed in some of these lists are not exhaustive at all, they can easily be reinforced with more reliable ones. Adarwinismshellfire (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is there don't seem to be similar sources for the other universities. E.g. for Berkeley, all I can see is one weak Fortune announcement: "University of California Is Putting Money Into an Alumni VC Fund". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. Understandable point, but I respectfully disagree on some aspects of it.
Even putting aside my honest and personal opinion that Stanford thrives on its and the newspapers’ VC and entrepreneurship propaganda to some extent (and many universities are following suit), there are many academic sources that account for the role of other universities.
While it is true that many early VC funds were from Stanford graduates, these funds did not fund Stanford-founded firms only (that would be a hugely misleading statement to make, actually), not to mention that there were other numerous VC funds from other sources. Furthermore, some of the sources account for the fact that the absolute amount of these funds from early private fundings are nowhere close to the government research fundings that eventually gave way to the patents created in the research universities. And if we are talking about the model of Stanford’s early academic entrepreneurship, the entire Stanford’s growing-on-defense-contracts model of its early days was molded after MIT (even Steve Blank, a prominent Stanford proponent argues this). MIT’s early and continuing contribution to the entrepreneurial scene is accounted for on many sources.
Some of these sources:
(https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WR1304.html)
(From the Basement to the Dome How MITs Unique Culture Created a Thriving Entrepreneurial Community)
(Entrepreneurs in High Technology: Lessons from MIT and Beyond)
Similarly for Berkeley, there are numerous academic sources that account for the fuller picture of the historical and current role of public institutions in the growth of university-industry technology transfers and its contribution to the general phenomenon of entrepreneurship (through faculty spin-offs, licensing of patents, and whatnots more or less identical to Stanford) in California and Silicon Valley. Although these sources are not as easily located as newspaper articles, they still are valid sources that attribute to the existence of a vibrant culture of entrepreneurship spurring regional development. And to make matters more interesting, I think we need to consider the fact that Berkeley attendees have consistently been ranking as the most number of founders on all six accounts (i.e. undergraduate, graduate, MBA, and the same three for female-specific attendees) for all public institutions. To be honest, these feats in themselves account for an unusual entrepreneurial phenomenon in and of themselves given that they are coming from a public institution. I think that disregarding Berkeley’s role in it would be to disregard the entire public institutions’ role in it.
Some of these sources I am referring to are:
(Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation: University-Industry Technology Transfer Before and After the Bayh-Dole Act.)
(Public Universities and Regional Growth: Insights from the University of California.)
(https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiA8ufFu7KDAxX5i68BHVEcDM4QFnoECDMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fbrill.com%2Fdownloadpdf%2Fjournals%2Fthj%2F7%2F2-3%2Farticle-p277_7.xml&usg=AOvVaw0HsdH5alvpi5O9q8nmbDc4&opi=89978449)
(https://brie.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/brie-working-paper-2017-1.pdf)
(https://urbanpolicy.berkeley.edu/pdf/JapanBerkSymp/AQW_Urbanization_020407.pdf)
(https://update.lib.berkeley.edu/2019/07/24/the-berkeley-remix-podcast-season-4-episode-2-berkeley-lightning-a-public-universitys-role-in-the-rise-of-silicon-valley/) Adarwinismshellfire (talk) 08:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I meant these sources to be posted as actual links. Sorry for the confusion:
Some of the sources for MIT:
(https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WR1304.html)
(From the Basement to the Dome How MITs Unique Culture Created a Thriving Entrepreneurial Community)
(Entrepreneurs in High Technology: Lessons from MIT and Beyond)
Some of the sources for Berkeley:
(Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation: University-Industry Technology Transfer Before and After the Bayh-Dole Act.)
(Public Universities and Regional Growth: Insights from the University of California.)
(The Role of Universities in Shaping the Evolution of Silicon Valley’s Ecosystem of Innovation)
(https://brie.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/brie-working-paper-2017-1.pdf)
(https://urbanpolicy.berkeley.edu/pdf/JapanBerkSymp/AQW_Urbanization_020407.pdf)
(https://update.lib.berkeley.edu/2019/07/24/the-berkeley-remix-podcast-season-4-episode-2-berkeley-lightning-a-public-universitys-role-in-the-rise-of-silicon-valley/)
Adarwinismshellfire (talk) 08:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These lists are too open-ended. The ivy league schools do in fact see a high proportion of alumni start successful companies. Why this is so, we can debate, it doesn't matter. Similar lists might include companies founded by vets of the Marine Corp (there are a lot). Companies founded by people who didn't go to university/college. It's endless. For the purpose of these universities, I think a better list is spin-off companies from the university research labs ie. a professor and students make a discovery or refine a process, see commercial potential, spin it off for commercial development. -- GreenC 20:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Just to clarify my understanding: by "These lists are too open-ended", do you mean that the contents of each list (i.e. the alumni and the attendees of degree-giving programs) are too open-ended or the lists (i.e. list per university) themselves as categories are too open-ended? I ask this because I think that the lists' parameters (i.e. the alumni and the attendees of degree-giving programs) are more or less closed off to those only that have attended the said institutions on a degree-giving program basis. Which is not only mentioned in each lede of the said lists and to an understandable degree not that "open-ended", albeit that they are not exhaustive in their essence. If there are companies that are not founded by people (i.e. "vets of the Marine Corp" and "people who didn't go to university/college") within the proper parameters of "alumni and attendees (of degree-giving programs)" then they need to weeded off, not the entire list necessarily.
Nevertheless, I agree with the claim that these lists in themselves are "too open-ended" that they can just as well be made for any university, whether in the past or in the future, give enough credence to their contribution to the general phenomenon of entrepreneurship. This is the same argument I proposed in the beginning when I argued that Stanford's list needs to be deleted as well if we are deleting all of these lists. I still think that the Stanford list needs to be deleted as well along with other lists if we are going to delete any one of them that actually have reliable sources pertaining to their respective contributions to the general phenomenon of entrepreneurship.
As for the refined of the lists' parameters to "spin-off companies from the university research labs", I agree with you. But the definition of a "spin-off" from universities is one that is a difficult one to measure since we would need to consider several variables more than the current lists: whether the "spin-offs" pertain to licensing by the universities only, or whether actual involvement of professors (or what if it only involved students), or whether the idea was first floated and developed in a class but independently made into products and companies outside the universities as, etc. Theoretically, we would not only need to tighten the parameters for such lists (which could make the lists themselves un-notable enough to not need separate Wikipedia articles in the first place) or the lists would ironically be much more "open-ended".
Let me know what you think. Adarwinismshellfire (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(I realize that I have so many typos. Forgive me if they deter your understanding of my statements and please let me know if you need any clarification! And BTW, Happy New Year to you all!) Adarwinismshellfire (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Oh and we also need to consider another important variable for "spin-off" companies: what if the firms were backed by the universities' venture arms? Should they count as "spin-offs"?) Adarwinismshellfire (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's open ended in both senses, within the list, and the number of lists. It is curious right, we only have lists for some premier schools, and not middling schools, like where I attended, even though I personally founded a company 30 years ago, but would find it ludicrous to see my company listed on Wikipedia in such a list (it was a small company but has claims to notability). But if I went to Harvard, I would almost expect such attention, or not be surprised by it. It demonstrates the underlying systemic bias of these lists, and to counter that bias would require a lot more universities to have lists, which is too open ended. -- GreenC 06:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, in light of the arguments I put forward regarding existing reliable sources that have since been added to the articles.

OR

Delete all, if having reliable sources still do not warrant the existence of the lists and therefore needs to delete a list with a reliable source. If so, delete all, including:

List of companies founded by Stanford University alumni

Adarwinismshellfire (talk) 09:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of companies founded by Brown University alumni ended in delete. All the rest are nominated now except List of companies founded by Stanford University alumni, that an oversight. Delete it too hopefully, since its the same as the rest. Dream Focus 20:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the comment, (@Dream Focus). First of all, Happy New Year to you! And secondly, I am not sure if you have noticed already but I am fairly new to the Wikipedia scene and I am still struggling to adjust to the rather esoteric functions and widgets here. I tried looking up on how to nominate articles for deletion and I find that the procedure was a bit difficult to execute for me. I could play around with it, but I really do not want to mess up the “source” codes like I did to this article on my first comment. If it is not too much of a trouble would you be able to help me nominate the Stanford list as one of the lists discussed in this AfD article? (If anyone is willing, please help?) It would be greatly appreciated. Adarwinismshellfire (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A closing admin that sees a !vote both ways is probably going to treat it as effectively "abstain". But I appreciate your deep thinking on this subject, looking at the nuances and and not being a win/loose mindset. We need a lot more of that. -- GreenC 06:32, 2 January 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Death in Arizona

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

~~It exists, but I couldn't find that it meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Bolivia, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added a few of the numerous existing sources. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the reliable sources references added to the article including French sources and Remezcla, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per the reception. It needs work but the sources show that it meets notability.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nominations the work on this article has proven me wrong - withdrawing nomination. Thanks for all your work, Boleyn (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Uppland#History. Daniel (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of Uppland

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

Stub with content already duplicated at Uppland. Ideally a major expansion would take place as a result of this nomination, but as of now there is no useful content. Merge is unnecessary. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Sweden. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Uppland#History: the page has even less notable content that the relevant section in the redir target. And having been here for 20 years, I doubt an extra six months in draftspace would help. Owen× ☎ 16:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Uppland#History rather than deletion. The article needs work but the subject is notable. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulaziz Al Yazidi

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

This badly sourced BLP makes no claim to notability per WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC nor was I able to find any in Arabic searches. The best that I can find is Yemeni Communities, which trivially mentions a goalkeeper of the same name. Given that the subject of this AfD is allegedly a Qatari midfielder, we can presume that this is just a namesake. It wouldn't be enough for notability anyway. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The only source present in the article is Soccerway. Svartner (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. TheBritinator (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Al-Omran

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

Played 1.5 games of football over 7 years ago and then disappeared. I can't find any significant coverage at all when searching in Arabic and the foreign language Wikipedia articles about him also contain no meaningful coverage. Seems to fail WP:SPORTBASIC #5 by some way. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No games, no sources, no substance. Geschichte (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the failure of WP:SPORTBASIC. Playing 1.5 games does not qualify one for a Wikipedia article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Completely fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ganga News

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

Not a notable agency, even fails WP:V, I came across this when links to it were being spammed as references (ironically, the link inserted as a reference at Anushka Shetty is a mirror of our Wikipedia page). The site itself should be blacklisted but that's a discussion for another forum. None of the references check out, the only online availability of any info are some regurgitated press releases on social media. —SpacemanSpiff 11:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and India. —SpacemanSpiff 11:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Bihar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NCORP. I was unable to find significant coverage of this organisation in reliable sources. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:01, 2 January 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pimalga

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

I couldn't find the sources to show WP:NPLACE or WP:GNG are met, but aware I may be missing something as I am not familiar with Burkina Faso. Boleyn (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this government report suggests that the place is a populated, legally recognized settlement, which is enough to meet WP:GEOLAND. Owen× ☎ 16:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Even abandoned places can be notable", clearly passes WP:NPLACE. AfD isn't cleanup. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nima Tamang

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

Tamang had an incredibly brief career as a professional and doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I can only find coverage like Sportskeeda and Times of India, both of which only mention him in passing as the scorer of a consolation goal in a 10-1 defeat. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, India, and Sikkim. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The squad template has not been updated in 10 years, and contains other deletion candidates such as Rahul Jaiswal. Geschichte (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fanai Lalmuanpuia

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

For over a decade, this has been tagged as being in desperate need for an improvement and doesn't meet our high standards for BLPs. In my own searches, I can't find evidence of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. The sources that I found were Asian Age, Herald Goa and Rediff but these are only trivial mentions of the subject. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, India, and Mizoram. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa Bubbear

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 10:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, Estonia, Finland, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Finnish sourcing appears very limited. There are a some interviews relating to NATO from the likes of Helsingin Sanomat [13] and Iltalehti [14], but as interviews I'd heavily discount their contribution towards notability. Especially when the interviews are not really about them as a person, but rather about their (or the UK goverment's?) views about a then-future Finnish NATO membership. The rest of the coverage looks like the standard "the UK ambassador warned Brits that it gets slippery in Lapland" (no, that's a real headline [15]) nothingburgers. That said, I'd probably be pushed to a (weak) keep by even one very good article about them as a person/individual. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete google news search yielded a few routine news mentions and the interviews that Ljleppan mentions above. But not enough to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bubai Singh

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

Stats stub on a footballer with a very brief professional career and no evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The best sources found were Indian Sports News and an unreliable Blogspot page. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Completely fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 15:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. There is still significant disagreement about the quality of the sourcing here. While prima facie I find the delete arguments slightly more compelling relative to our P&G's, the keep arguments have significant more support. Closing as no consensus as a reflection of this, I didn't consider relisting as it has already been relisted once and it appears we are at a stalemate of sorts. Daniel (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilf Billington

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 08:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 08:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fatally flawed nomination by somebody who, respectfully, does not have a clue, as shown by their attempt to CSD A7 the article prior to this AFD. This is a professional player (over 50 appearances) active in the 1940s and 1950s with sufficient sources to show notability. Giant Snowman 19:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That was 50+ caps in the the lowest division of the professional football league, so I am not sure about the coverage for that, also, did he not play for Blackburn at all? That's a long time at a club and not playing for them in that whole period doesn't seem right. Certainly feels incomplete on wikipedia, there could be more around. But I am really on the fence for this one atm, unless someone can shed more light with better citations on this players career. Govvy (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Billington states in source 3 that he "I was on Rovers books from 1947 to 1954 but I never got a run in the first team." I didn't find any sigcov in a newspapers.com search. There is a paragraph in a Derby Evening Telegraph match preview but that's as good as it gets. Dougal18 (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Dougal. I couldn't find anything either -- not even the (non-RS) BRFC fan sites and forums had anything to say about him, and those guys generally have access to local archives.JoelleJay (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dougal18 and JoelleJay: the article has been expanded and sources added. Surprisingly, there are primarily offline sources about a player active in the 1950s! Giant Snowman 09:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article is still lacking in sources giving sigcov. Dougal18 (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Giant Snowman 12:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC which allows us to combine multiple independent sources discussing this goalkeeper who was active from the late 1940s through to the early 1960s in both England and Australia, now added to the article. Most focused piece is an obituary in a local newspaper in Cumbria, England (which includes a quote from Billington but also multiple paragraphs with facts about his life). As mentioned above, the 1955 Derby Evening Telegraph article offers a paragraph recognising Billington as one of manager Bill Shankly's best signings who had developed into a "sound and reliable goalkeeper"; the 1955 Lincolnshire Echo article recognising him as one of the best goalkeepers in the Football League is not in-depth, but is evidence that he was highly regarded. In addition, the ups and downs of his career (and his activities post-retirement) were followed closely in Australian soccer newspapers and magazines from 1959 through 1966, with the pinnacle of his career the 1963 NSW Grand Final when South Coast United shut out favourites APIA, 4–0 in front of a crowd of 30,000+ at Sydney Stadium. Also WP:HEY. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASIC also states "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability". None of the sources except the cumbriacrack obit covers Wilf Billington in detail. I'm not sure why Don Revie's opinion on goalies two leagues below him and praise for Billington's abilities is relevant but there is no sigcov there. Occasional mentions in magazines is not his Aussie career being "followed closely"'. He also can't get sigcov from mentions in stories about his son's football career. Dougal18 (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To review sourcing added during this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is Cumbria Crack RS? We don't get any details on specific authors, and they have a page for submitting your own sports reports to them...
The Derby Evening piece is two sentences of pure transactional/local interest news. It's among nine other such "profiles" on that page documenting "today's visitors to the baseball ground".
HEY doesn't mean anything if the sources of the expansion are trivial mentions. The global community came to a strong consensus that sports biographies must have a piece of IRS SIGCOV cited in the article, and this has been upheld in hundreds of AfDs at this point despite claims of BASIC. JoelleJay (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NSPORT / SPORTCRIT is a sub-guideline of NBIO / NBASIC; it does not have the authority to overrule the authority on which it is based! (i.e. SPORTCRIT does not have more power than NBASIC); per the creator of SPORTCRIT:"SPORTBASIC #5 was never intended, nor should it be misused, to trump or overrule the more general, overarching rule" / "SPORTBASIC #5 creates a very strong prohibition on sports bios sourced only to databases. However, in limited circumstances where a well-rounded biography can be created using multiple non-database sources, NBASIC provides a very limited saftey valve". BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot the part where he saidSuch circumstances are very rare, and I've only come across one circumstance in the past two years where I concluded that it was appropriately applied., which indicates that the claim of NBASIC put forth 99% of the time would not be sufficient to overcome SC5. And that one instance didn't even have consensus support that NBASIC should be applied, as it closed NC. As it is intended (and as was understood by editors at the RfC, where this "escape clause" was not codified) to be applied, there is a clear prohibition on the flimsy sourcing most often asserted for NBASIC. JoelleJay (talk) 03:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per above. Player with online and offlune sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as per GiantSnowman and Das. Played at highest level in Australia, grand finals and national cups. Eccy89 (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - plenty of coverage and decent sources, the subject played at a high level of football and the citations support this. Article text is of decent quality and every sentence is supported by a citation. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:56, 2 January 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 00:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Ljubljana

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

Another installment in the embassy series. No content about the embassies; each article duplicates the one on bilateral relations. Biruitorul ^Talk 08:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to the relevant article on relations between the US and those countries. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete. None of these embassies is independently notable. Cortador (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Senegal, Nepal, Qatar, Slovakia, Slovenia, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all another non notable set of articles which are unnecessary content forks. LibStar (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The general precedent with these "Embassy of the United States, X" have been to merge and/or redirect to the "US-X relations" article. Is there any support for doing that here, or is deletion preferred? Relisting to canvas potential alternates to deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not support merge. LibStar (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the one in Kathmandu seems to have enough reliable sources, so it definitely does not qualify for speedy deletion. One on Dakar also seems to have enough sources. Krishna Dahal (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources attesting what, @Krishnadahal12:? When were the embassies built? Who were the architects? What significant features do the buildings have? What are their dimensions, what size are their lots? What renovations have they undergone? As long as the articles address none of these questions — and they don’t — the obvious approach is to delete, or at most to merge/redirect to Nepal–United States relations and to Senegal–United States relations. — Biruitorul ^Talk 07:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all All listed articles fall short of notability. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Among the 5 articles, there is only 1 sentence about the actual embassy, and it's about a painting on display in one of them. Embassy articles cannot exist unless the physical embassy meets WP:GNG. Geschichte (talk) 17:13, 1 January 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 00:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bagheera (2024 film)

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

Per WP:NFF. References are announcements and most fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Note that the creator and bulk of edits to this page are confirmed SOCKS. CNMall41 (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A teaser is not considered pre-production. Assume draftify as the article have useful prose. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 08:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Principal photography has began and a teaser has been released. Complies with Wikipedia guidelines. Manthara^talk 06:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source to show that? Also, what is your definition of "principal photography?" --CNMall41 (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @CNMall41, Please find these sources -

By Principal photography I was referring to Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films section/WP:NFF. Manthara^talk 18:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I believe that answers the question about NFF. Principle filming means the majority of filming is complete. From the references, it appears that this project has been started, stalled, restarted, then paused, and then maybe started again. According to one reference, "25 per cent of the shoot is complete, and we still have a long way to go. Post the Mangaluru schedule, we will take a short break before returning to non-stop shooting at Goa from October 29." Is it "still on break" or are there reliable sources that say it is filming again AND substantially completed? IMDb is also not a reliable source that can be used to establish notability. Finally, please have a look at WP:NEWSORGINDIA as the references you provided fall under that criteria so not considered reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for the detailed explanation, really appreciate it. No it is not on break [16].There are sources in Kannada language which have reported that 90% of the filming is completed [17] and 60% in May[18].

and 50% in January [19]

I do understand that some of these are not listed in WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Manthara^talk 04:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These all fall under NEWSORGINDIA actually. It is not about the publication, but the individual references. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this film has completed 96% shooting, by April-2024 is set for a grand release, this article should be there as people should know about it, if deleted how people will know about it ? . In India large number of people are depended on *Wikipedia for news* as there are no ads published unlike regular india news media which is full of ads and mess, so in my opinion, Wikipedia should keep this article. 2409:40F2:1023:5C2C:ACE3:ACFF:FE95:AB41 (talk) 11:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - This appears to be the now blocked SOCK (page creator and major contributor) editing from IP to avoid block. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify, this is clearly NFF and NEWSORGINDIA territory, and if not pure futurology, the estimates of completion from a wishful 96% back down to 50% or near offer do seem distinctly crystal ballsworthy. If it ever gets released then there could even be some (gasp) reliable review comments. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious spam and statments above with sources don't pass the smell test. CRYSTAL has been mentioned, there are SOCK accusations, COI concerns, and not to mention general WP:NOT concerns. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 19:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:TOOSOON + WP:NEWSORGINDIA. If notability exists, it may be recreated in the future. Svartner (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imdb Has a entry for this upcoming movie, isn't IMDB reputed ? What else you people want to keep this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.228.222.113 (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:- one of my friend is working on this film, he confirmed that film shooting is almost completed, so this article should stays . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40F2:20:7E10:A0C0:E2FF:FEC0:3573 (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. Daniel (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 39 Steps (TV series)

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

No updates since the announcement (January 2022). This show have not commenced principal photography. Probably should be draftified. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 09:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Per nom. This could probably be deleted, but no rush to that, I suppose. If no developments come in 6 months, it will G13 anyway. 2pou (talk) 05:03, 2 January 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. Daniel (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdian Mahardika Ranialdy

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

Fails N:BAD, BLP, WP:V Stvbastian (talk) 08:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Indonesia. Stvbastian (talk) 08:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Daniel (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aparekka

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

Fails WP:NGEO / WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, lacks any sources or references. Dan arndt (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Originally moved to draft form but was reverted (correctly) on the basis, as per WP:DRAFTIFY, in that the article was older than 90 days and should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD. Hence the current AfD. Dan arndt (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unless a reliable source is found to verify the origin of the name of Aparekka that part of the narrative should probably be removed. The Ceylon GNS shows Aparekka/Aperekka under Palle Aparekka [20]. Google Maps shows Aparekka as an area with a boundary suggesting it is a GN.[21] People live here so has presumed notability under WP:GEOLAND. Unfortunately, unable to connect to Matara district website,[22] which should confirm this. We also have an article on Uda Aparekka, which could probably be merged here. Both Uda Aparekka and Palle Aparekka are listed in the Ceylon Census of 1911[23]. Checking other named places in the census, such as Kekanadura to current mapping confirms location. Similar situation to the recent Articles for deletion/Uda Makuruppe. Rupples (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to the above, this Google translated source [24] has Grama Niladhari divisions listed for Palle Apparakka (no.449), Uda Apparakka East (no.448A) and Apparakka North (no.449C) within Divisional Secretariat - Devinuwara. As the names are translations, I'm going to overlook the different spelling. Rupples (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further source on a Buddhist temple[25] and another [26]. Rupples (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need to hear from more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per above. killer bee  04:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as mentioned above. Skt34 (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC) sock strike. Daniel (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom lacks references does not meet WP:NGEO.Lankancats (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sources. Reiterate this has presumed notability under WP:GEOLAND and passes the GNG. Colombo Telegraph source featuring the village in a study:[27] and mentions the Aparekka Ayurvedic Hospital.[28] News report mentioning Aparekka and the E01 expressway [29]. A research paper's abstract on water resouces mentioning Uda Aparekka.[30]. The uncited folklore-type material should be removed if no citation is forthcoming; it ought not to influence whether the article is kept. Rupples (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Insight Films

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

Fails GNG. The article has one source from a box office site about their film, not the company itself. I don't see how this article should stay unless multiple in-depth proper sources are introduced. Producing one noteworthy film doesn't automatically give notability to the production company. X (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. X (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has multiple films and programmes produced included and a clearly outlined history of the production company, which provides evidence of its notability. There are citations from IMDB, which itself needs all information to be provided by authentic sources, as well as reviews from papers such as The Guardian and Screen international. Callyroader (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NCORP. Of the sources in the article the majority are imdb and Wikipedia which are not reliable. The secondary sources cited do not contain significant coverage of this company. None of the company's productions appear to be notable and I was unable to find any additional sources that support this company's notability. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 02:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NCORP. The new version does not meet the basic criteria there, i.e. "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Being listed in an article about a movie or whatever does not qualify as _significant_, and I can't find any articles about this company that meet the criteria. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Duru Ejiogu

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

Non notable businessman, who has secured a modest amount of publicity for some non notable awards. Mccapra (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and doesn't pass WP:GNG. There are sources but it's not easy to see if they are independent. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While eligible for soft-deletion, this was only created 7 days ago so soft-delete unlikely to 'stick'. Relisting for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The problem I have with this is the status of the sources used. They’re either utterly unreliable or not WP:INDEPENDENT. Thus, notability isn’t established. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Ring of Honor personnel. Daniel (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Ring of Honor personnel

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

I am not sure if anything in Category:Lists of professional wrestling personnel is encyclopedic. But at the very list it makes little sense to have this and List of Ring of Honor personnel. Either delete due to very poor referencing (WP:V) and dubious connection with WP:NLIST or merge to the main list. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Wrestling. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think the alumni article is very WP:LISTCRUFT. While WWE is very big, there is a clear criteria: people under contract. Since ROH it was an independent promotion, many of them are just random wrestlers who worked a few dates with the promotion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the page should stay, but I think that the page should be reorganized in the same way that WWE's & Impact Wrestling's List of former personnel pages are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B23F:BA41:0:A:3073:8501 (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any policy-based arguments on what should happen with this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ring_of_Honor. killer bee  05:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ring_of_Honor BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsuami Heroine

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NALBUM, artist is a redlink so no suitable redirect target. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any evidence of notability in Japanese. Dekimasuよ! 06:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This even appears to meet WP:A9 criteria for speedy deletion: "none of the contributing recording artists has an article and does not indicate why its subject is important or significant ". Jonathan Deamer (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I should've mentioned that I would've A9'd except that it was no consensused in 2013. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, thanks! It does say 2nd nomination, I should've spotted :) Jonathan Deamer (talk) 08:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find sources to meet WP:NALBUM and the article does not describe meeting any other WP:NALBUM criteria. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NALBUMS due to the complete absence of coverage in sources. Also "unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs". An artist article does not exist for the title to be redirected to.--N Ø 13:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In agreement with everyone above. The album seems to be have gone unnoticed by the music media and I can only find brief mentions in lists of items tangentially associated with Polysics. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhaan Rajput

AfDs for this article:

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

Bringing this to AFD as G4 was declined. Possible UPE/COI concerns and Does not meet GNG or NACTOR. Thilsebatti (talk) 05:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 05:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - Was going to wait for this SPI to run a CU but looks like creator is still bludgeoning the process, including removing the AfD template from the page. Subject is not notable and has no major roles in films. References are simple mentions or WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails NACTOR or GNG, as per above. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 13:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Subject is not notable and references don’t meet the criteria. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 15:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to show that WP:NACTOR is met. Ravensfire (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Disclosure, I was the closer of the 2nd AfD. While this isn't a G4, factors don't appear to have changed. Hopefully this will establish a firm consensus to apply to the continued UPE around Rajput. Star Mississippi 15:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Domingo Manami

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

Poorly sourced BLP with no indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 05:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 05:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elisania Torrico

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

The subject, a Bolivian women's footballer, has not received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2015, 2017, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Bolivia. JTtheOG (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Completely fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ximena Solís

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

The subject, a Peruvian women's footballer, has not received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2018, 2019, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 05:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Peru. JTtheOG (talk) 05:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shenelle Henry

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

The subject, a Trinidadian women's footballer, has not received sufficient WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2013, 2016, 2018, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 05:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Trinidad and Tobago. JTtheOG (talk) 05:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 07:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas military bases of India

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

Seems WP:TOSOON. None of the base mentioned in the article are in permanent operation, some are not even built. Sources are sketchy. nirmal (talk) 05:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Mauritius, Maldives, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, and Oman. nirmal (talk) 05:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. nirmal (talk) 05:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand The subject is notable and it is fine as a stub for now. It needs expansion, not deletion. Azuredivay (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that some expansion will be needed but deletion cannot be the solution. Agletarang (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Azuredivay needs expansion, not deletion.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most information is at List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases#India already, but having its own article allows it to expand, plus the map is useful. Dream Focus 17:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brisa Da Silva

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

The subject is an Uruguayan women's footballer who has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All that I found in my searches were passing mentions (2018, 2019, 2020, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Uruguay. JTtheOG (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ujjawal Trivedi

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

Recently deleted twice [31], but recreated again by new account. BLP, fails GNG and NBIO, sources found match those normally for a journalist, but nothing from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found mentions, interviews, promos, but nothing from WP:IS with WP:SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing. Title should be SALTed due to history. // Timothy :: talk 03:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & SALT – Only two sources found doesn't establishes notability. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 07:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Television, Internet, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some coverage about a viral video, this is typical coverage [32], but I'm not sure that's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom Jeraxmoira (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glitter cymru

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

Fails GNG and NORG. Sources in the article are social media listings, a promo interview with the founder [33], and images of flyers. BEFORE showed nothing from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 03:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fails WP:NORG; sources found are mentions, nothing significant found. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 08:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ORGCRIT. I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 23:47, 1 January 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 UEFA European Under-17 Championship. ^Complex/_Rational 02:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2027 UEFA European Under-17 Championship

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

It is likely (far) too soon to create this article. Aside from the single source confirming the location for the 2027 championship, I have not been able to find any information. I would suggest draftifying (which has been contested) or redirecting. For a sense of similar articles, 2027 FIFA U-17 World Cup currently redirects to FIFA U-17 World Cup. I would suggest redirecting to UEFA European Under-17 Championship until more coverage is created for this event. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirecting to be consistent to the parent article. Not only this, but the 2025 and 2026 editions. One would convert from a redirect once reliable sources are published. It is too early to have those articles. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 08:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 13:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albania and Estonia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all as WP:TOOSOON, not enough known/confirmed information for separate, notable articles at this time. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above as it's too early yet. HawkAussie (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B. Andreas Bull-Hansen

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

Self-promo, long-term lack of independent sigcov. Search brings up nothing but more self-published sources. Jdcooper (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Sportspeople, Internet, and Norway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage for this person, even in Gnews there are only about two stories in the native language, then on to other things. Oaktree b (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NBASIC and WP:NAUTHOR. I can't find significant coverage in secondary sources of the subject or their works. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 23:40, 1 January 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!} 03:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Bosco Group of Colleges

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

No indication of notability. Sources WP:PRIMARY. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Tamil Nadu. PepperBeast (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have noted before that it can be very hard to find sources for Indian schools, and we may struggle to find sources for schools there that would easily pass GNG in the US, UK or similar. However, in this case the page is not about any particular school or college but a grouping of unspecified colleges. In terms of writing an encylopaedic article, we shouldn't be starting from here. The domain for the grouping has, in any case, expired and the lack of sources means there is really nothing we can say here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, previously PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing here to indicate the GNG is met. Let'srun (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of dog crossbreeds. Daniel (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pomchi

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

A designer/mixed breed dog with no reliable sources. Previously deleted for this same issue, discussion here, two of the four sources listed are unreliable per WikiProject Dogs, the remaining two likely should be added to this list. Annwfwn (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Annwfwn (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Although I can find an entry at A-Z animals, it only gives quick facts on the breed with no substantial content whatsoever. But as mentioned by the nom, no reliable sources—only content found was some mentions on websites, and guides. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 06:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with ~~Pomeranian dog: (or possibly with Chihuahua (dog))~~ List of dog crossbreeds. While Google claims 700,000 hits for the breed name, neither the American Kennel Club nor the Fédération Cynologique Internationale list the breed among those they recognize. Owen× ☎ 13:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC) Changed merge target per Annwfwn. Owen× ☎ 13:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that if we added every designer breed to their parent dog's page, we would be opening up a whole can of worms where each purebred dog breed's page would be cluttered by the myriad of crosses that can be produced from it. Also why Pomeranian and not Chihuahua? Might I suggest instead that it remain added to List of dog crossbreeds, as it does have some notability, just insufficient for it's own article. This would be consistent with other dog crossbreed articles. Annwfwn (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea! I changed my proposed merge target. Owen× ☎ 13:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a possible Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Delete I would be okay with the merge if the article had more sources that actually discuss the subject of the article but right now the only source that has a hit for pomchi is the dogtime pomchi page, the rest are just bare URLs. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 15:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC) Actually, I suppose one source is all that is needed to put it on the list article. A merge would be acceptable. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 20:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Characters of the Metal Gear series. ✗plicit 00:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Venom Snake

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Venom Snake

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

Really having a hard time finding sources per BEFORE that mainly talks about this guy. Most of the current sources that are used were only about the ending of Metal Gear V. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 00:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the character list. I feel whatever notability could have been taken from Big Boss' first appearance actually being Venom Snake doesn't really provide his own character notability, and there's really no demonstration of importance outside of the twist.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Kung Fu Man Svartner (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please give the name and a link to the target article you want to merge this too.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a size fork. WP:SIZESPLIT states that articles "> 100 kB Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed" and the article Characters of the Metal Gear series is at 142 kB for prose length. Photos of Japan (talk) 11:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a valid reason compared to simply trimming down the size of the list entries. The list is much larger now simply because many entries have been merged recently as is and just need to be better summarized.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How much trimming do you think can be realistically accomplished? WP:SIZESPLIT says >60 KB "Probably should be divided or trimmed" and we are already more than double that. The article as it is is massive and there is no way to even see who is being discussed without manually scrolling through it. Photos of Japan (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of info there can be kept to the bare minimum. As is Venom Snake wouldn't add much, and there aren't many other articles to merge in there. The size fork argument is just a bit baffling.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is baffling about not wanting to continue expanding an article that is already well beyond where it is supposed to be for readability and technical purposes? Furthermore, WP:SIGCOV explicitly states "it does not need to be the main topic of the source material," so noting that most of the sources are discussing the ending of Metal Gear V as the main topic doesn't in it of itself invalidate him having significant coverage. What's important is that he is discussed in enough detail that no original research is needed, and enough seems to have already been written on his casting, naming and reception to flesh out an article about him. I don't see the purpose of deleting well-sourced material about his character design and reception, and I don't see the purpose of moving it into an article that is already too long. Photos of Japan (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into Characters of the Metal Gear series. 2001:4455:6D2:8200:153B:BE1D:3F70:AC4C (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Characters of the Metal Gear series. If spinning out a subtopic would create a non-notable article, we should avoid it, per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M3 Communications Group, Inc

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

No sources found on Google or in article. Stevie Awards are described as "fee-based" with 30-40% of nominees receiving an award, so carries no weight. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 00:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Bulgaria. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 00:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Management, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Beery

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

Not enough SIGCOV specifically about the individual, not enough reliable secondary sources GraziePrego (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an easy one. There is certainly coverage but it seems insufficient to sustain a BLP. Basically the same conclusion as nominator. My own analysis of references and sources. Hopefully this will make it easier to close. gidonb (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NBASIC. I agree with gidonb, I can't find any sources that meet all of the notability criteria. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 23:32, 1 January 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 00:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Wróblewski

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

Scarcely attested (11 Google results) seems possible that someone created an article on an illustrious war hero relative or something. Tone is unencyclopedic, but more importantly, not passing GNG as it only appears to have one source, in Polish so I didn't verify the language. Andre🚐 00:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Royalty and nobility, and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No mentions of this person, even in Gbooks. German article is sourced to Find a Grave and wahat looks like blogs or non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourced to self-published book, no pl interwiki, created by a WP:SPA MatheoPLI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who seems to be promoting their family. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:GNG; sources found are mentions only relating to the subject itself. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 08:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Mario O. Rizzo

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

Dubiously notable radio DJ. Great resume but only 26 Google results and probably doesn't meet NBIO or GNG as the coverage is light. I can't check the 2003 book mentioned but the other sources are basically passing mentions and profiles on self-published blog sites or the person's own website. Andre🚐 00:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Dance, Music, Radio, Ecuador, Florida, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing more than incidental mentions in RS. Mach61 (talk) 05:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No sources found are independent or significantly covered. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 08:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources found that are both independent and significant coverage. Also, although I don't have access to the 2003 book, it doesn't seem like it would be significant coverage of the subject either per a few summaries I found of the book online. Bsoyka (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, due to lack of reliable sources. Assuming the print source is reliable, the guideline requires multiple sources to establish notability. Not that it weighs on the discussion, but the article also borrows liberally from this source for its prose. Substantial rewrite to avoid plagiarism is recommended if kept. Zsinj^Talk 03:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rasheda Abdul-Rahman

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject of the article failed WP:GNG. According to a Google search she existed, but there is no significant coverage about her. References used in this article didn't show any notability. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Ghana. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Completely fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject appears to only be mentioned in trivial wide-sweeping database sources, which do not generally confer notability per WP:SPORTCRIT. Bsoyka (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP: GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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