Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 3

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 keep‎. Daniel (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Somali

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

Procedural nomination as a page repeatedly nominated per WP:PROD, and once per G10. Lots of other disruptive edits dismissing the subject's significance or attacking Wikipedia editors, such as this and this.

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, Somalia, Japan, and Arizona. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Japanese newspaper sources are RS, but trivial (14, 15, and 18), the South China Morning Post is extensive (11). I also find this on GameRant [1], the Statesman [2] and BBc [3], all providing more than just coverage of his stunts. His entire "thing" is provoking people, so that perhaps explains why coverage is mostly of his arrests, but it gives context. Oaktree b (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not sure where the "attempt to defame and vilify Japanese community" comes from when the article just simply describes Somali's actions and reasons for arrest. There's been plenty of worldwide coverage on Somali as mentioned above, as well as other articles stating that Somali's actions have caused the Japanese government to take action on not just him but other YouTubers in Japan causing "public nuisance." I think that's significant enough. lullabying (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. ~Kvng (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: irrelevant, unimportant and harmful redirect. There is no importance to the discussion or showcase of this individual who has put his disregard for respect of other cultures on full display. Also he is not a famous figure, very far from it. Among his peers he is practically irrelevant as a streamer except for his short-time conducting public stunts in Japan. There's no reason for Wikipedia to be housing clout chasers, wikipedia is more relevant and prestigious than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23acewe (talk • contribs) 07:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't understand how this is vilifying or dehumanizing Johnny Somali or the Japanese community since the article just states his actions, consequences, and subsequent backlash. The article isn't leaning in a direction or is any bias is present.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Twink (home perm)

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

@Espresso Addict: @MrDemeanour: Article has been tagged as unsourced for over a decade - I did a Google search and the subject does not seem to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and England. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I do see one source for the proposition that the band was named for the product, but that is insufficient for encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 00:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks significant coverage Wolfson5 (talk) 20:44, 9 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 Morristown, New Jersey#Education. Daniel (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Oaks School

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

Subject fails NCORP. Schools are not inherently notable. Everything I found on BEFORE was LOCAL or ROUTINE. Article has been repeatedly re-created from a redirect and, since redirects are costly, deletion is the only course. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and New Jersey. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Morristown, New Jersey#Education This was the status quo ante when the article was turned back into a standalone. The school has no independent notability. Alansohn (talk) 01:37, 4 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) 21:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Philomena College, Puttur

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

Fails WP:NORG no independent reliable sources and plagued by endless sockpuppetry. Theroadislong (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and India. Theroadislong (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete No significant coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. __Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only two references found are the school's personal websites. None are reliable, and therefore this topic is not notable. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 13:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is coverage The Hindu there are over 50 articles and extensive coverage about the subject in the Daijiworld. 1 ,2,3 ,4 ,5 ,6 ,7, 8 ,9 ,10 and more here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I was involved in undoing the damage done by COIs and socks on this article. Its state at the time of this nom was very rough. But, as POTW just demonstrated, this is a real entity that has received enough coverage in English alone to justify retention. Coverage like this further seals the deal for me: this is a crummy stub for a notable subject. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the reliable sources coverage identified by Pharaoh of the Wizards such as The Hindi, Daijiworld as well as Times of India so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

change to Keep in light of sources found. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close‎. There is no need to go to AfD to merge content in situations like this; Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing_a_merge advises that editors can either be bold and merge themselves in uncontroversial cases (likely to include this situation), or alternatively on the talk page. Daniel (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Federación Anarco-Comunista de Argentina

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

For quite a while now, I've been looking around for sources to expand this stub, but I haven't been able to turn up anything more than those already referenced in this article. Most of my sources that reference a "Federación Anarco-Comunista de Argentina" are actually referencing the original name for the Argentine Libertarian Federation, which changed its name in 1955. I can't find anything on this organisation, apparently founded in 2011. Even the two sources cited in this don't go into any further depth, only giving it a passing reference. The Spanish Wikipedia doesn't have a dedicated article on it, instead all of this information (with both sources cited) is included on the larger article Anarquismo en Argentina.

As I can't find any real evidence that this passes notability guidelines, I propose we follow the Spanish Wikipedia's example and merge this article into our article on Anarchism in Argentina. It would be a relatively trivial merger to carry out. Grnrchst (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Argentina. Grnrchst (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree but you don’t need an AfD discussion to propose a merge. Mccapra (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 3 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 undeletion of these articles. Daniel (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Baghlani

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

Fails notability, only played U16 and U17 basketball teams. still achieve nothing in senior level, not sure if they even played pro basketball. Sports2021 (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Comment The question is does he have the significant coverage to WP:GNG or not. Whether or not he has played for the senior national team or professionally is irrelivant. Alvaldi (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 3 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Police Office

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

Completely unsourced and I cannot find a single source substantiating the existence of this office. Elshad (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and England. Elshad (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Metropolitan Police as was done in 2009. Mccapra (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. In fact, there are numerous references to the MPO in The Times, for instance. Thousands. A Google search also turns up plenty of references to the MPO. So I have great difficulty in accepting the nominator's statement that they couldn't find "a single source substantiating the existence of this office". Merging the article to Metropolitan Police#Governance would probably be fine, but deleting it and claiming there are no available sources is clearly a very poor option. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article isn't about the current Met. It is about a defunct government department which probably did exist at some point (per Google Scholar results, mainly paywalled), but without any clues as to when and how it was created, or when it ceased to exist (c.1830?). Anyone reading the article would be unable to use it as a launching point for further research as there is zero sourcing. Merging it into Metropolitan Police would just be passing the trash to another page, due to the lack of sourcing. Oblivy (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about the current Met. Why is this relevant? Actually, the MPO existed from the creation of the Met until 2000. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I was suggesting was that the fact that the Metropolitan Police show up in search results is not necessarily proof there are references to the Metropolitan Police Office. I searched and did not find them. Maybe you did better than I did and could share the results of your search?

Note that the article did not give any dates at the time I made my comment (my reference to c.1830 was because I had done some searches and knew a structural reform was made around that time). You added the claim about 1829-2000 yesterday, without prividing a citation. If there's support for your claim it should be added to the article. Oblivy (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NORG. Article is unsourced so there is nothing to merge, I don't see this as a particularly good redirect, but if there is a consensus I have no objection to one. // Timothy :: talk 05:25, 4 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) 00:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Lacrosse Conference

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of in depth secondary sources which are independent of the source. The only source I found which comes even close to qualifying is [[4]]. Let'srun (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. Let'srun (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Collegiate athletic conferences are presumptively notable, IMO; we have countless articles on less noteworthy subjects. The only reason for concluding that the subject is non-notable would be if it were a hoax, which does not seem to be the case. The issue here is how to find good sources; but notability is not determined by the present state of sources, nor are sources required to be online. The failure of someone's Google searches to uncover material on something that must certainly be documented merely shows that this search strategy is inadequate. One or more editors will have to take the time to figure out where independent sources might be located, and consult them. They may not be online, but there is no deadline for improving articles. Given that we know this conference exists across a number of colleges in several states, and has for multiple years, concluding that there are no independent sources merely because one couldn't locate them online is inadequate to demonstrate a lack of notability P Aculeius (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: Collegiate athletic conferences conferences in the NCAA may generally be notable, but there is no criteria that says they are presumptively notable, and in this case this "conference" is in a club-level competition with little in the name of coverage due to the level of the competition. Just like your local travel baseball league isn't notable, this conference isn't either. Most of your vote reads like arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The absence of available sources should not, in my view, ever be twisted around to be seen as proof that sources actually exist. We can only use what is available, not what we imagine might exist in some fantasy world, and this article isn't up to snuff, simply enough. Let'srun (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you're setting up a series of straw men. I didn't say that the absence of sources proves that they exist in some fantasy world. Your claim is that sources don't exist because you couldn't find them online. This is precisely the kind of subject that's likely to be documented primarily through college athletic sites and local news that isn't searchable online. It's fairly certain that written or audiovisual confirmation of the conference and its history and membership exist; the only plausible explanation for it not existing would be if this were a hoax, which it's clearly not. A relatively short search revealed that Davidson College's athletic site discusses its Lacrosse program, although some of the other colleges mentioned don't seem to. But that speaks to the quality of their web sites, not the reality of their participation in the league. If I haven't made this point clear yet, sources do not have to be available online. The simple fact that it's a collegiate athletic conference means that sources will exist; a claim that they don't because you couldn't find them online is not credible. P Aculeius (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, but we need independent, secondary sources. A member school discussing their program is a primary source. WP:ITEXISTS and WP:SOURCESEXIST are not legitimate keep arguments. Let'srun (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it backward. "None of these sources are good enough" and "I can't find any sources I consider acceptable" aren't legitimate delete arguments for something that we know exists and that should be notable. You're still fixated on the lack of online sources, as though you hadn't read the guidelines that you keep wikilawyering with. Sources do not have to be available online; articles don't get deleted because their sources aren't good enough; there's no time limit on improving articles. The burden rests with the nominator to show that a topic cannot be documented, and that burden is not satisfied by arguing that there aren't enough online sources that are independent of the subject—particularly when it's obvious that better sources exist, even though they don't seem to be easy to come by over the internet. P Aculeius (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course offline sources are just as good as online sources, yet it is nowhere near obvious that better sources exist. Let'srun (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: To address @Let'srun's concerns for notability of a "club-level conference"; for most schools, the MCLA is the only available option for collegiate level lacrosse, especially for schools along the west coast. More schools participate in MCLA level lacrosse than NCAA DI and DII lacrosse. Yes, the Atlantic Lacrosse Conference is a young conference, so it has a shorter history and fewer online sources than others, but every other MCLA conference has met Wikipedia's notability guidelines. SammySpartan (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other conferences have articles doesn't make this one notable. Also, did any of those other articles have AfD discussions? Let'srun (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Suggestions to the contrary are based on false notions such as "of course it's notable," while they actually testify to the subject's evident lack of notability, e.g. "still a young league," etc. Maybe in a few years. I'd also suggest we all revisit WP:OSE. -The Gnome (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:01, 26 November 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) 23:06, 3 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) 00:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Judie

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

Non-notable WP:NACTOR. In a WP:BEFORE search, all I can find on him is blogs and WP:THESUN. Wikishovel (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some coverage around his death, but does not seem to have earned critical attention. I can't find anything else about the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are 3 citations used in this article. It should pass WP:GNG by a small margin. If not, this article can be renamed to Death of Carl Judie, as the citations are somewhat leaning towards his death. There's definitely some more parts of the citations that could be used to strengthen the article somewhat. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the three references you've cited is that they're all blog posts, rather than WP:Reliable sources. A hundred blog references like that still wouldn't demonstrate notability: we're looking for coverage in newspapers, books, films, etc, showing how Judie was notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Wikishovel (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete fails NACTOR, and I'm not really seeing a case for WP:GNG either.-KH-1 (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and those above. Sources are below the threshold for inclusion. BD2412 T 00:42, 4 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. Editors who supported Keeping this article should read up on what RS are as well as the in depth coverage required for SIGCOV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Plautz

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

I was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guidelines are always interpreted differently. This article is definitely not a clear candidate for deletion. There is not a tiny attempt of improvement; deletion seems to be the easiest way to handle imperfect articles for some users. The easiest way is not always the best or most reasonable way, though. --Mojnsen (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is definitely not a clear candidate for deletion. Why? Please provide a policy-based reasoning. I searched for WP:SIGCOV and couldn't find any. Could you? Robby.is.on (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mojnsen. Puppygray (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provided are reliable, significant coverage in form of statistics exists, secondary sources are used, and the football player played for professional football clubs in Denmark and Germany. --Mojnsen (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics databases are not significant coverage. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A added a source Puppygray (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You added the player's profile at footballtransfers.com which is also a statistics database and also not SIGCOV. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails SPORTSBASIC and GNG. Only sources found were databases and statistics pages, which isn't SIGCOV as noted above. Tails Wx 21:56, 4 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 Karl Wolf#Singles (ATD). Daniel (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carrera (song)

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

Rejected PROD, poorly referenced, non notable song. Jax 0677 (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This song has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist or label, and as such does not meet the notability criteria set out at WP:NSONG. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due lack of notability. Suitskvarts (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient sources to meet general notability guidelines Wolfson5 (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Karl Wolf#Singles as WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 21:57, 9 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 The CW Sports. Contention is that there's nothing to merge, if anyone disagrees with this they can rescue content from behind the redirect and merge editorially. Daniel (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

College Football on The CW

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

Unnecessary split. Can be covered at ACC on The CW (which might also be unnecessary) and The CW Sports. Only one line (about the Arizona Bowl) is different than coverage on The ACC on The CW article. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOPAGE, the information covered here can be seen in the main The CW Sports article. Let'srun (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: Seems like thats what your proposing. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The reason I'm not proposing a merge is that there is nothing to merge. It's a direct copy of ACC on The CW. Everything in this article already exists elsewhere. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The CW Sports. Maybe in the future this could get its own article, but not at this time as not enough standalone coverage. Grahaml35 (talk) 14:16, 4 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jonson (disambiguation)

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

Jonson (name) exists. Jax 0677 (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jonson (name) is a surname article. Keeping a purely surname article would keep the given name entries at the disambiguation page, as well as other uses. (My personal opinion is to have separate given name and surname and disambiguation pages, when there are enough entries; there being enough for a surname page and disambiguation page in this case) - 65.92.247.90 (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment though the feeling at the move discussion talk:Jonson (name) is to make Jonson a single page disambiguation page with the surnames and given names and other uses, which also need a histmerge from Jonson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and which would still need a redirect at Jonson (disambiguation) (so, if that happens, deletion is still not needed, rather conversion to a redirect) -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - My sentiments exactly, make one and only one disambiguation page for Jonson. If Jonson Gallery is in that article, it will need to be a disambiguation page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Jonson. When I accepted this page, I didn't see it already exists as Jonson (name).zoglophie^•talk• 06:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also agreeing with the proposal of single entry Jonson with names and surnames included. zoglophie^•talk• 06:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's continue to discuss this in the earlier discussion at Talk:Jonson (name)#Requested move 30 November_2023. (Procedural close) --Joy (talk) 09:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not really enough to support a disambiguation page. The title should be the name page, and anything that is not a human name should be handled in a hatnote or a see also. BD2412 T 00:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as content is insufficient to justify a disambiguation page. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yekaterina Pyatkina

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

The subject made a half-dozen appearances for the Kazakhstan women's national football team. All that comes up in my searches are passing mentions like 1 and 2. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Kazakhstan. JTtheOG (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of sources Svartner (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Leadership Network for Health and Social Care

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

Cannot find any evidence for existence of such a named organisation. There is an NHS Clinical Leaders Network but of course that is a different organisation with a different name.

The provided website does not work, although there is a website here but the name does not include "for Health and Social Care" and makes no mention of previously being the so-called "NHS Modernisation Board".

Hard to find any third-party sources verifiying the existance of this entitity.

Overall unclear if defunct and certainly non-notable and does not warrant article. Elshad (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and England. Elshad (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Chad international footballers. Daniel (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noumasseri Djimadoum

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

Redirect to List of Chad international footballers. The subject made a single appearance for his respective national team. I am unable to find any coverage at all, nor is there any indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 22:30, 3 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) 22:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Reeths-Puffer Marching Band

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

High school marching bands are not notable and this appears to be no exception with routine local and non-independent or irrelevant sources. Bensci54 and I both redirected the page to be reverted by the creator. Both WikiOriginal-9 and Voorts declined AFD submission, not sure why Timtrent approved it in such a self-promotional and unencylopedically written/sourced form. Reywas92^Talk 22:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Michigan. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One has to love nominations with a bit of snark in them 😈. I have a firm personal policy of steadfast neutrality at articles I accepted at AFC. I follow the guidance that a draft must, in my view, have a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. This is an immediate deletion process and I await the community's view. If I was mistaken then I will learn from it If I was not then you will learn from it, But, whatever transpires, I really think you might learn not to be snarky when you nominate something for deletion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really trying to be snarky, but I don't think there's a single other high school marching band article on Wikipedia for good reason. This is of interest only to participants and clearly fails WP:CLUB and the few independent sources fail WP:AUD. Even without an article for Reeths-Puffer High School, individual student groups at scondary schools are not something we need standalone pages for and virtually never pass AFD. Reywas92^Talk 00:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that this one is unlikely to pass, too. But that is what AfD is for, and we shall still see what happens. If you weren't trying then snark came naturally. You were not lacking in civility, not exactly, but you get an A+ from me for what must be natural snarkiness. It is the article that you are nominating, not the reviewer. I'm perfectly content to have a mistake demonstrated to me, but I do prefer it to be demonstrated with no edge to the demonstration. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As I noted in declining this at AfC, the only RS providing SIGCOV is the MLive article. I have been unable to find additional RSes via TWL or Google. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As someone deeply invested in the marching arts, from drum corps to winter guard, I can say for certain that no high school marching band in the world is notable. There is not enough coverage to sustain a completely independent page from the parent article. I oppose a redirect. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: poor-quality promotional article with bad sourcing; band itself is not notable, and the search term seems rather unlikely to me. page creator seems obviously connected to the subject. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 14:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As one of the people who attempted to redirect this back to the article on the high school, I see no reason this article needs to exist. Bensci54 (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the high school I attended 50 years ago won the 1920s version of a national high school band competition so many years in a row, they disbanded the contest and gave them the traveling trophy. The band director at the time was hired away by the University of Michigan where he was director of bands for over 20 years - and they are not notable. And it stands to reason that if the school itself is not notable, than an individual student activity wouldn't be either. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 21:02, 4 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. Redirect also. JBW (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brenton Tarrant

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is simply a repeat of the information (and wording) in Christchurch mosque shootings. Brenton Tarrant is known for just one action and is neither famous nor noteworthy. It is unlikely that anyone would search for Brenton Tarrant without finding his name on the Christchurch page in which case they would already have all the information that is on this page.

Please note that this is the second time that this article has been nominated for deletion. The first time was before any text had been added. You can see the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenton Tarrant.

Since this page is a redundant duplicate then I suggest Delete OrewaTel (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Terrorism, and New Zealand. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]
Comment. This page was a redirect to the event from February through June 2023, until and anon IP editor felt this perpetrator should get a stand-alone article. If there isn't enough true biographical depth, restoring that redirect would be in order. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of coverage, source 22, 30 to 33 seem the best. Rest is added coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and restore REDIRECT – Known only for one event, where his involvement is sufficiently covered. All sources mention him only in connection with that event. There is nothing encyclopedic in this article that isn't covered in the main article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Entirely pointless duplication. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, for the reasons given above. He is notable in connection with a single event and the significant content is already covered in the main article. Chocmilk03 (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect. WP:BLP1E applies here. TarnishedPath^talk 00:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Cf. Martin Bryant and Anders Breivik, who have individual biographies even though separate articles exist about their crimes. However, some copy-editing could be done to minimize overlap between the biography and the crime article. Muzilon (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Muzilon, WP:OTHERSTUFF, is not a reason to vote keeping. TarnishedPath^talk 03:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath: Then see WP:WHENSPLIT. The Christchurch mosque shootings article is currently over the 9,000 words/60 kB prose threshold,[5] suggesting that the article "Probably should be divided or trimmed, although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." Muzilon (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Daveosaurus's comment below. I suggest the facts you highlight make a stronger argument for trimming, not for devoting more time and resources to this individual who's notability is WP:BLP1E. TarnishedPath^talk 04:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What material do you propose to remove from the Christchurch article? Muzilon (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Under the heading Christchurch_mosque_shootings#Perpetrator, just a quick review of the first two paragraphs reveals material about his family life growing up that is irrelevant to the shooting and material about a visit to a hospital because of a gun accident that is again irrelevant to the shooting. 50% of those two paragraphs could be trimmed and consolidated into one paragraph. That's just a quick review. However, I don't edit that article so I'll leave that to the good judgement of people that do. TarnishedPath^talk 05:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest those details are probably necessary background, and strengthen the case for WP:SPINOUT. Muzilon (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. Anything sufficiently encyclopaedic about him belongs in that article anyway. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Articles about mass shootings generally do not need a separate article for the perpetrator, as it leads to problems with repetition and overlap.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 09:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as he’s known for a single event only. Schwede 66 13:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Tarrant has no notability independent of his crimes, which are covered in another article. Zarenon (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 05:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's more or less a copy and paste from the main article. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Simply too big of an event and impact on society, too many victims for him to not have his own page. Everyone one else anywhere near that kill count has there own page Genberg47 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC) — Genberg47 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete and redirect as this person is known only for a single event.Marshelec (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spark (software)

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Mdggdj (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Tagged for notability (by me) since the page's creation in 2014, nothing has arisen to challenge that notion. Previously deleted through PROD. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: and SALT. This page has already been deleted three times over the years, persistently recreated by likely COI editors. Owen× ☎ 20:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Media Group

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

This is a company which appears to own six small radio stations in Northern Ireland. I can't see any reason why it needs its own article above and beyond the articles that deal with the individual stations themselves. Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. Tagged as unsourced since 2018.

Similar articles which simply list stations owned by a single-market radio owner have been deleted in recent months: [6] [7] [8] Flip Format (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland. Flip Format (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JVx (Framework)

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Mdggdj (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's an open source project and I'm one of the developers. Which independent sources do you need for such an article? It's important for open source projects to have a wikipedia page to get more contributors and attention. We can't pay for ad words and if you don't have a big company behind the framework, it's important to get attention.

So, what do we need to keep the article? Rjahn (talk) 08:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please, see Wikipedia:Notability (software) Mdggdj (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per NSOFT. @Rjahn:, thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest, but this should have been done beofre you started editing the article. I appreciate the challenges of getting open source projects going, but Wikipedia is not free advertising space to drum up support for it. What is needed for the page to be included in Wikipedia is significant independent coverage. Your participation in editing that page, as a related party, only harms its chances of surviving this process. Owen× ☎ 20:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find sources for NSOFT. SWinxy (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Figure skating at the 1st Winter Children of Asia International Sports Games

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

Non-notable figure skating event full of an endless sea of red-linked participants... Even the overarching event (the "Winter Children of Asia International Sports Games") doesn't have a Wikipedia page. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, the main event itself isn't notable, this specific event even less so. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Svartner (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The World's Most Beautiful Transsexual Contest

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV. A 2006 AfD closed as no consensus but notability thresholds have changed significantly since then. Let'srun (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Nevada. Let'srun (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the only news coverage I could find was a cursory mention in Las Vegas Weekly, which is hardly a RS to begin with. Owen× ☎ 20:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It was held once, 20 yrs ago, and nothing has appeared since. That Las Vegas Weekly article is the only coverage there is. Not enough coverage for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found this using ProQuest. It's quite long, but manages to say very little about the actual pageant. Unless something more surfaces, it'll have to be a delete from me.

Padgett, S. (2004, Jul 29). ONE-OF-A-KIND CONTEST: Head-turners: [final edition]. Las Vegas Review - Journal Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/one-kind-contest-head-turners/docview/260152880/se-2

-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, but we'd need one more like that (at least) for it to be a !keep from me. Oaktree b (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The source linked above provides not a whole lot of coverage and is from a local news outlet (Las Vegas Review-Journal), which could indicate it's just routine coverage, but maybe not. If there was more coverage, even from local sources, I would not be opposed to keeping it. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No GNG, not notable topic. बिनोद थारू (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom --Devoke water 22:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Staniforth

AfDs for this article:

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

Biography which does not appear to meet WP:GNG. The are has only three sources. Two of them have incomplete information to ascertain whether they are books or articles about the subject, or merely a listing in some directory. The only linked source is simply a picture of a medallion which does not contribute to notability. I found nothing in Google to determine notability. NOTE: Previously nominated for deletion in 2018. Flibirigit (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I found a listing for William Staniforth on "The Staniforth Society" web site, but I do not consider this to be an independent third pary, but rather seems to be operated by the same person who created this Wikipedia article. Flibirigit (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn't really my area of expertise however I added a few more sources including one from the The London Medical and Surgical Journal, there seems to be various mentions in publications from years gone by.Thief-River-Faller (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of coverage in Gbooks, this in particular [9] is a good start. Oaktree b (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Todbowyer (talk • contribs) 20:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC) — Todbowyer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of California, Irvine (selectively as per Owen). Daniel (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

University of California, Irvine student housing

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

This is a two-parter. First, with an exception covered in part 2, below, there's no sign of notability of the housing system of the University of California, Irvine, outside of publications by the University of California, Irvine, and statistical data and lists of available apartments from Irvine. There's no more independent notability here than there is for the housing systems of most schools. In addition, the vast majority of the information given isn't encyclopedic anyway. It belongs in the student handbook. Nobody outside the community is going to care which eateries are covered by the student meal plan or that "many Mesa residents find it a treat, worthy of their time, to walk to Pippins and Brandywine just to eat!"

Second, there used to be an article titled Middle Earth Housing about one housing complex at UCI that received some attention when its buildings were named for places in Tolkien's works. An AFD was created for that article. The outcome was the merger of that article into this one. That was unfortunate because if any aspect of UCI housing is notable, it's specifically the Middle Earth housing. If anything other than deleted, this article should be rid of just about everything not related to Middle Earth housing and then moved to Middle Earth Housing; or else this article should be deleted and that article restored and updated. Largoplazo (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and California. Largoplazo (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up request: If you !vote for "Merge", please clarify whether you mean merge the Middle Earth Housing material into Middle Earth Housing or merging anything useful into University of California, Irvine. Largoplazo (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge section about Middle Earth Housing into University of California, Irvine. The rest is non-notable, poorly sourced, and reads like OR. Owen× ☎ 18:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, but obviously delete the rest. It feels like WP:ADVERTISEMENT mixed with WP:OR. It's a huge issue when it comes to college students who want to spread pretty helpful information online, but are unaware of the policies that govern Wikipedia. Conyo14 (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Its an advertisement right now. Lorstaking (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Balti wine

AfDs for this article:

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

This page appears to completely fail the notability guidelines for companies, and the organisation behind the brand also seems to have vanished, having not been notable in the first place, IMO B800h (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wine, Companies, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage for this wine, it's all foods to eat for Christmas now that pop up. Lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Original Nominator here. ~~Delete~~: I'm convinced that this wasn't notable to begin with, just the result of some good PR. There were a cluster of articles when the brand launched. It now appears to have been defunct for a long time. B800h (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B800h, I have relocated the above text which was above the heading, and struck the "delete" opinion, as your nomination already provides that. AllyD (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There were substantial Keep opinions in the 2007 AfD (and also opinions worth reading on the article Talk page). The original firm seems to have ceased 13-14 years ago (Companies House), though there were several similarly named subsequent firms. I feel too much was resting on the Manchester Evening News interview with the founder, which would be discounted under the later WP:NCORP standards, and too much was riding on the firm's own claim that their Argentinian wine branding was a market innovation and on expectation of a great future for this distribution / branding start-up. There was also a sponsorship deal [10] but again, such are insufficient for current notability standards. AllyD (talk) 20:56, 8 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 The Prodigal Son#Theatre. Daniel (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Prodigal Son (play)

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

Unsourced since 2007. A WP:BEFORE search discovered nothing substantial relating to this play in particular, which doesn't seem to even be the most notable play of the story. Moshe1022 (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Norway. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Prodigal Son#Theatre. This play doesn't seem to be notable, but there are other plays that would make a redirect useful. HappyWith (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm supportive of a redirect option as well. Moshe1022 (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect as well. Kazamzam (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The play has never been produced. I don't think it's anything encyclopedic at all. It shouldn't even be listed in the Disambig page. If it should be redirected anywhere, it should be to the playwright Peter Wessel Zapffe's page -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Prodigal Son#Theatre as a reasonable search term. Should not redirect to Zapffe because this is also the most logical name for the 1951 and 1735 plays which are at least as notable (likely more IMHO). Eluchil404 (talk) 05:28, 10 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) 11:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ring of Fire (novel)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kadı Message 14:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Literature, and Italy. Kadı Message 14:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - It looks like it got reviews by both Kirkus Reviews that you can find here, and Publishers Weekly that you can find here, as well as a short review in The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books, which is here. None of the reviews are particularly long, but I believe they would fulfil point one of WP:NBOOK. I took a look at the Italian Wikipedia, but it does not look like this book has its own article there to draw any additional sources from. At the very least, if other editors do not agree on these reviews being sufficient for Keeping, this article should at least be used as a Redirect to Pierdomenico Baccalario rather than being deleted. Rorshacma (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the reviews above, I found this in Italian, which gives us the two reviews for WP:BOOKCRIT even if we discount Kirkus/PW. (A surprising number of books don’t even make it to Kirkus/PW/Booklist so I don’t think they’re unacceptable for BOOKCRIT but it’s nice to see other sources too.) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The proffered sources are sufficient to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:31, 10 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) 11:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Eleonore of Schaumburg-Lippe

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only source is her own LinkedIn page. DrKay (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Denmark. DrKay (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Almost no coverage of her. In fact, I couldn't find anything about the subject from any reliable sources, so she fails WP:GNG. Moshe1022 (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A euro-poppet having a perfectly lovely insignificant career. Bless. But the place for this is Linked-In with 100 million others. MisterWizzy (talk) 13:38, 8 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 Arar, Saudi Arabia. Daniel (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Abdullah bin Musa'ed Sports City

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

No citations. Nexovia (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nexovia (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - The article was created on 3 December 2023, I think it is possible to turn it into a draft before deletion. Svartner (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Arar, Saudi Arabia. One citation was added, however the nomination just flatly saying "no citations" isn't a helpful nomination. If the stadium gets better coverage, then it could have its own article in the future. But at the moment, I feel it's better serve in the article about the city it's in if it's a multi-use stadium. Govvy (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:33, 4 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 Conker (series). Daniel (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conker (character)

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only good source were the criticism of its design from Project Spark, but thats it! GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Conker (series), as a vast majority of the content and commentary is more about the games/series than the character itself. I'll note, anecdotally, that I do recall a lot of commentary in the 2000s about the change in direction from children's game to a game with adult themes...but even then, I'm not sure if they were talking about the character, or more about the game itself. Probably the latter, but maybe others will find something. Sergecross73 msg me 14:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ran into the same problems as Sergecross mentioned: Conker isn't discussed as much as a character as the games around him were.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per others. Yeah I couldn't find sourcing based solely around the character. It was mostly the game not the character. Conyo14 (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with series – The series and the character together have great notability, the problem in this case is the separate articles. Svartner (talk) 12:33, 4 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) 11:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brutos Framework

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Mdggdj (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. I can't believe this has been hiding here for seven years. Owen× ☎ 14:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article subject does not appear notable, and the entire article as it stands violates WP:NOT with no scope to re-write the current content into a proper encyclopaedia article — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly NOT. Not sure if it's something that Wikibooks allows? 94rain ^Talk 02:15, 8 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) 11:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Son Sik

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

Already been draftified before, and couldnt find any sources Begocc (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, obviously notable, and plenty of reliable sources online in Korean. Wikishovel (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be so kind as to provide the best WP:THREE to look at? Roxy177 (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a third reference. Wikishovel (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable and available sourcing sufficient for WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now notability is evident. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. Daniel (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jinan North railway station

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

This article is too WP:CRYSTAL to be useful, all the listed sources are pointing to another station called "Jibei station", none of them are indicating Jinan North as a high speed railway station. The title name was cited by some local medias, finally defined as rumours, to indicate a station of Shiji passenger railway, called Qihe (on zhwiki), was to be renamed to be so, but when Shiji opened for service, that station remains called Qihe, not Jinan North. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anders-sandholm, Nikki, RobotMichiel1972, Lockal, and Pasleim: ^^ Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't it be better to add all this to the article and then rename it Qihe railway station? Thincat (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thincat Better to re-create that article, to avoid questions on reliability of sources. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever is best. Thincat (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until the situation clears up. This will be much easier to source once the Chinese language wiki has a well-referenced page about it. Owen× ☎ 16:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whatever information I can find on Jinan North station is mainly specuative planning articles, so it's WP:TOOSOON. Jumpytoo Talk 04:58, 6 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!} 08:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Zenteno

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

The subject is a Bolivian women's footballer. I was unable to find any in-depth coverage, nor is there any indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 08:25, 3 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) 08:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of sources Svartner (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:32, 4 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. Weighing up the opinions before and after improvement (as hinted at by Liz), there seems to be a consensus to keep this expanded version of the article. (non-admin closure) Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 18:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Familie Leitner

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

Cites no sources, little non-trivial information can be found online, fails WP:GNG DirtyHarry991 (talk) 10:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Austria. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 10:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~I'da sent it to draft, FWIW...~~ Oh no I wouldn't - are you seriously telling me this has been a thing since 2011? Grief!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a notable long-lasting Austrian series.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The article does cite various reliable secondary sources about this indeed long-lasting series on the main national channel.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a very different article than the one that existed at the time of nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: dramatic improvements in both content and sourcing changed this into a viable article. Those who voiced their opinion here on the day of the nomination: please take another look. Owen× ☎ 16:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it seems there was a book written about it and several retrospective pieces published.

JoelleJay (talk) 20:51, 3 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Herminigildo Ranera

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

Successful musician, but doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, Philippines, and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs rewrite and more sources, because the current article reads like it was lifted from a CV. With regard to notability, I would argue that this article can be retained as the subject is significantly notable in the Philippines. Ranera was a NAMCYA winner (which is one of the top music competitions in the country), and was a former conductor of the national orchestra. His current group (UST Symphony Orchestra) is also a resident group of the country's premier cultural institution. --- Tito Pao (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though some sprucing up is needed (such as but not limited to more relevant references as one isn't enough, an infobox template and probably a freely licensed photo). -Ian Lopez @ 16:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy bear hospital

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

Has been in CAT:NN for over 13 years. Last AfD attracted little response and was no consensus. It reads as promotional, but also I couldn't find sources to confirm it meets WP:N, as an individual place or as a concept. Boleyn (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Medicine, Israel, Ireland, United Kingdom, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The previous AfD was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SGUL Teddy Bear Hospital; the article was renamed following a move request. No opinion on the article itself at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Such initiatives often have a limited shelf life and are best not captured in WP entries. Still, if it was mentioned on St George's Hospital, it could have been redirected. Since it isn't, delete is the only good option. gidonb (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Not eligible for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ARTN, WP:NTEMP. There is also no WP:DEADLINE. Although I cannot see the ProQuest previews (they might just be dead links), I can find a number of sources independent of St George's University of London with independent significant coverage: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Granted, a few of these are preprints, but there is plenty of academic material for expansion. The article doesn't even list there was a trial in Singapore too: [17]. I will try to expand the sources and improve the article too. Darcyisverycute (talk) 12:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have made some initial improvements to the article. With the sources provided it could still be improved plenty more - going in details about regional variations of studies, how study design differs from typical practice in pediatric curriculums, what hospitals run programs, so on. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. This AfD was opened less than three weeks after the prvious one was closed. I also find the comment about "limited shelf life" odd. The project has been going on for 23 years already. Owen× ☎ 17:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on, not least, the journal sources/coverage (Nordic Journal of Nursing Research , Health Professional Education , Journal of Health Psychology , National University of Singapore , Canadian Medical Education Journal , etc), I don't think I can support deletion on a "can't find sources" basis. The promotional stuff is WP:SURMOUNTABLE (and already largely surmounted). If there are issues here, I don't think they are so fundamental (clear lack of notability, overt/insurmountable advertising, copyvio, etc) that deletion is the right approach. Guliolopez (talk) 10:57, 5 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. While we always welcome new editors, I am more persuaded by established editors who are more familar with Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing. Though it is interesting to hear that the Furry world has its own award ceremony. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kristi Brooks

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

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

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Oklahoma. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, and based on a search online and at the Wikipedia Library; the article has one book review [18]; her profile at ISFDB does not list reviews in entries for her works. Beccaynr (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep wiki page has been up since 2006 with steady and incremental additions to the bibliography, and I found another review listed for her book here and a mention of her in a contest with other notable Oklahoma authors (Ree Drummond, S.E. Hinton, & Lou Berney)in 2016--LovingtheBruce (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC) — LovingtheBruce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. The figure is notable and has some reliable sources. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The part of the WP:AUTHOR notability guideline based on reviews (#3) indicates more is needed to support notability than two reviews for one work, so the NONzine review found for Vision2, and the review from The Oklahoman in the article for Vision2, plus the passing mention of her name in a Best of OKC 2016: People source about other people, is not enough according to the notability guideline to develop a balanced article that is not advertising. The lack of adequate support in reliable sources for notability under any guideline is one reason for deletion, and this article also appears to be contrary to WP:NOT policy because this article seems to be promotion. Beccaynr (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find mentions of the author at all, I'm not sure the NonZine review is a RS. There doesn't seem to be enough critical notice of the author to meet notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still say Keep I did a slightly deeper search and found another mention of her as a runner up for the 2019 Ursa Major Award for Best Short Fiction and listed as a contributor to the Oklahoma Historical Society's 2020 Exhibit for Covid as an author/artist — LovingtheBruce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - from the award link: "The Ursa Major Awards are Anthropomorphic (a.k.a. Furry) Fandom's equivalents of s-f fandom's Hugo Awards, mystery fandom's Anthony Awards, horror fandom's Bram Stoker Awards, and so forth. The Ursa Majors are administered and presented by the Anthropomorphic Literature and Arts Association (ALAA), an organization dedicated to promoting anthropomorphic literature and arts both within and outside of the fandom." This does not appear to be a notable award supporting notability. The other link above is an archive listing, not a secondary source supporting notability, and may be a different Kristi Brooks who is a painter. Beccaynr (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources seem reliable. Nonzine has other reviews for books, music etc so I would say it's a RS too. Also found this podcast she was a guest on for one of her books https://www.heroesmediagroup.com/podcast/finally-fiction-with-kristi-brooks/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlowerdancerRH (talk • contribs) 23:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC) — FlowerdancerRH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a passing mention by a couple of local newspapers falls short of establishing notability per WP:AUTHOR. The clearly canvassed votes here certainly don't help the case. Owen× ☎ 17:24, 3 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Path of Titans

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

The only significant coverage I could find from a reliable source was from Pocket Gamer, and this is their best article about it - every other one from them is just a short thing about the new updates. All other significant coverage is from random bloggy sites. QuietCicada - Talk 18:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada - Talk 18:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON or just not notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree the news coverage on the updates is just routine coverage, but this independent review seems fairly detailed: [19]. This French review looks detailed too, I found it on metacritic: [20]. Since the listing it's also gotten coverage in a podcast from Rock Paper Shotgun here: [21]. I haven't listened to it though, it's probably just five minutes coverage so I suppose it doesn't count for much. Darcyisverycute (talk) 11:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and reexamine when the game comes out or a year from now, whichever comes first. For now, it's not ready for main namespace. Owen× ☎ 17:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, doesn't pass WP:GNG...yet. --Mika1h (talk) 16:11, 7 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 2024 California State Senate election#District 9. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marisol Rubio

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

Highest office is a city council. No national news coverage or really any coverage at all outside of routine campaign/municipal politics stuff. Clearly does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Biology, Medicine, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cited in the following news coverage. There is more and I will post when located.
CAMPAIGN2020: Candidate Marisol Rubio hopes State Senate District 7 Voters Are Ready For A Change - YouTube
City of San Ramon passes new firearm storage ordinance – NBC Bay Area MRC2024 (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:ATD is draftification or redirect until the election. Curbon7 (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marisol has had multiple news coverage across the Bay Area and, in addition to her two elected positions held to date, she serves in leadership positions across California and the country. I can verify and attest to the accuracy of the information provided on this page to date and ask that it not be removed because there is no justifiable reason to do so. MRC2024 (talk) 05:49, 30 November Wikipedia.
The information on Marisol Rubios Wikipedia page is correct. Marisol Rubio is an elected San Ramon City Council person. She is an active member of the CA Dem Party. She was elected to the water board prior to being elected to city council. Marisol Rubio is a member of SEIU-2015. She is a co-chair/vice chair of the CA Dem Party's Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion committee. Marisol has been in many local news stations reports in the Bay Area. She stood in solidarity with the striking SEIU-UHW workers at Kaiser Permanente Walnut Creek and I witnessed her being interviewed by a reporter that day and saw it on the local news that evening. I serve with Marisol as a delegate to the Contra Costa Labor Council and as an active member of the Dem Party of Contra Costa in California. Please don't remove this page, it is accurate and I attest to the facts shared here.

Amy Scott-Slovick, AD 15 Eboard Member to the CA Dem Party, Associate Member of the Dem Party of CCC, Delegate at the Contra Costa Labor Council.

Nobody is disputing the accuracy of the page. We are discussing whether or not she is notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. Appearing on local news a couple times does not prove notability. Read WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet GNG--Mpen320 (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. What is the suggested Redirect target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the result of the discussion was a redirect, the obvious target would be 2024 California State Senate election#District 9. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. City council is not a level of office that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia, and unelected candidates in future state legislative elections do not get articles on those grounds either — and simply having a normal level of run of the mill local coverage of local politics in the local media, where such coverage of local politics is merely expected, is not enough to deem her more special than everybody else, because every other city councillor on earth has similar levels of local coverage in his or her local media too. Obviously no prejudice against recreation next November if she wins the state legislature seat, but nothing here is already enough as of right now. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Argument for maintaining the article about Marisol Rubio in Wikipedia.
The argument for deletion of Marisol Rubio’s article appears to hinge on Honorable Marisol Rubio only being of interest to local populations.
I direct your attention to:
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Demographics_of_California
Demographics of California - Wikipedia
California is the most populated U.S. state, with an estimated population of 38.9 million as of 2023. [1] It has people from a wide variety of ethnic, racial, national, and religious backgrounds. Population California is the most populated sub-national entity in North America.
And too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area
My argument is that in the San Francisco Bay Area being involved to the level that Ms. Rubio is involved is significant.
Of note she is an up and coming elected progressive woman who champions the environment (Sierra Club) and inclusion (CA Democratic Party JEDI Board- https://cadem.org/standing-committee/diversity-equity-inclusion-committee/) and she is currently running for CA District 9 State Senator seat.
In California, our state senators represent more people than our elected members to the House of Representatives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Senate
I read a recent post that verified what was in the Wikipedia information about Marisol Rubio and I too can verify that the information is factual. But then I saw from another post that stated that it isn’t whether the information is factual but whether it is notable. As a user of Wikipedia I appreciate being able to search for honest and reliable information. Regarding the maintaining of the article is the question. My position is that the article on Marisol Rubio should be maintained because she is running for CA State Senate to represent just under one million people (my community). I believe this article will be/is of service to our community in getting to know about an outstanding community activist, a woman who is a member of a minority, from the working class who is running for the CA Senate. She is a role model and I do not believe that she nor the work that she has done is "run of the mill". 2601:644:9200:A31B:A48C:8654:95AE:867 (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right...I'm sure you, the anonymous user typing out an overly formal essay praising Marisol Rubio, are a totally different person compared to the first commenter, who was also an anonymous user typing out an overly formal essay praising Marisol Rubio. There are over 100 state senate candidates in CA every two years and tens of thousands of city councilors. Giving all of them a Wikipedia page would be ridiculous. And that's even besides the point because, even if your argument was sensible, that's not Wikipedia's current policy, so this page should still be deleted. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat's reasoning. Should Rubio win the state senate election, which is almost a year from now, then the article can be recreated as she would pass WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:30, 8 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. Nominator is advised that a fuller deletion rationale (rather than simply "Fails WP:GNG") might be more persuasive to participating editors and also demonstrate BEFORE had been done. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avery Patterson

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Oregon. Joeykai (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG with coverage such as Oregon's Avery Patterson goes from little-known backup to pick-six safety as secondary shines, Patterson back at full speed for Ducks (P2) and Healed Avery Patterson one of D-Boyz again Alvaldi (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources provided in this discussion shows that this subject reaches the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jason "Singer" Smith

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

Over 20 years ago, he was involved in an altercation in Kyrgyzstan with Tommy Caldwell (who would become one of America's most notable climbers); however, Smith achieved little notability beyond that incident, and there is no proper SIGCOV on him in any quality RS (either national-RS or in climbing-RS per WP:NCLIMBER). Can't see this BLP surviving on Wikipedia long-term? Aszx5000 (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The best I found looking through the interweb and the climbing mags is this interesting... memoir. That said, not much value is lost if this stub is deleted.

No prejudice to creation if someone else manages to locate some obscure sources. Ca ^{talk to me!} 07:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly merge into an article about the hostage event in Central Asia. However, no such article exists at this point. Cortador (talk) 10:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1973 Lancashire County Council election

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

Contested draftification. This article was moved from article space to draft space by User: Significa liberdade saying that more sources were needed. It was moved back to article space without adding sources. There is only one source, The Elections Centre of Plymouth University, which is a reliable primary source. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plymouth University is sufficient as a primary source for verifying the content. Finding secondary sources at a level comparable to the other ten articles we have for the various Lancashire County Council elections and the hundreds we have for local elections for other county council might be difficult for pre-web elections, but not impossible. Draftifying this page would only slow things down. Owen× ☎ 17:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Other Lancashire County Council elections are notable. As we go back in time, sourcing is harder, but the topic remains notable. Bondegezou (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable event and the article is sourced (and the source is not a primary source; a primary source for the election in question would be the council itself publishing its results). Number 5 7 08:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable event. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 06:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kesho Naik

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

Appears to be an hoax. Fictional character from the named book in the article. Am unable to find any other source that mentions it in the slightest. Fermiboson (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and India. Fermiboson (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if a minor rework into an article about the book, The Exploits of the Kesho Naik is a good option. —siro χ o 04:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be, if the character is notable. The first book the article cites actually mentions the character, and on the exact correct page, as a fictional character. It’s not a significant mention like you’d need for notability, but it supports what the article says if you know it’s fictional. (This is according to google books preview) Mrfoogles (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The snippet is: “ In 1912, for example, Sir Edmund C. Cox published The Exploits of Kesho Nark, Dacoit, which describes the exploits of a fictional Indian bandit who behaves in a Robin-Hood-like fashion: 'what Kesho robbed from the rich he distributed ... to the poor'. In this case the outlaw's activities are overtly anti-imperial.” It uses it as a quick example, basically. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Sources it cites say it is fictional (maybe accidental, not a hoax?) but I don’t know if the character is notable or not. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be from a real book, so it would have to be a really indepth hoax to also fake an entire old book. Still, does not appear to pass GNG. If the book itself is notable, a new article on that would be a better idea. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the history, the first version of the article presented the character as a real person. That part has since been corrected, though of course all the peacock wording has not. Fermiboson (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think it is a hoax, but it fails WP:GNG. If we had an article about the book or its author, could redirect there, but right now I don't see a target. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 15:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely any coverage in independent sources [22] Ratnahastin (talk) 14:12, 9 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. I see a consensus to Keep and more importantly, no support for Deletion or even Redirection. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Capitals

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

There are not enough independent citations to warrant a standalone article. Fails WP:NSPORT. Consider a deletion or redirect it to International League T20. Charlie (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and United Arab Emirates. Charlie (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is a borderline bad-faith nomination considering it was tagged as having sufficient sources. WP:BEFORE has not been followed here. St Anselm (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@StAnselm with all due respect and assuming good faith; This team is quite new, and there's a lack of in-depth citations both within and outside Wikipedia. Presently, the citations mainly focus on athletes and coaches joining the team from different places globally and according to WP:NTEAM, the notability of an athlete (or a coach) that does not imply the notability of a team or club. As it stands, the topic seems premature for Wikipedia inclusion i.e., WP:TOOSOON, though I am receptive to further information meeting WP:HEY. Charlie (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage coming up on a simple search to suggest that there will be plenty of WP:SIGCOV with a more detailed search. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although there are sufficient sources the article in its current state isn't great and I doubt that anyone would notice a redirect at this stage. It might end up getting filled out in January when the next season is apparently to be played. On available sourcing it's a keep though. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. DJ InstaMalik (talk) 08:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC) A possible WP:SPA that solely participated in numerous AfD nominations I recently initiated, which raises significant doubts from the outset. -Charlie (talk) 07:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If you are suggesting a Redirect closure, please provide a link to a target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks fine to me. Plenty of coverage out there, it doesn't have to be in the article itself. Desertarun (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:00, 3 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 Lipogenesis. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lipoexpediency

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

Lipoexpediency is not a commonly-used term. Lipoexpediency is not even an uncommonly-used term. It originated as a clever turn-of-phrase in the title of a decade-old journal article and has been used only a small handful of times since, either in reference to that article or by members of the team that coined it. Marchantiophyta (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Lipogenesis: not a common term, but appears enough in academic literature to be a likely search term, and redirects are cheap. Owen× ☎ 14:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as OwenX suggested. A contrast with the well-known "lipotoxicity" makes this a plausible search term but it's not substantial enough for its own article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:42, 3 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 11:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

K21OC-D

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/K04QR-D

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

Another HC2/Innovate station with little notability to speak of, and seemingly no known programming that isn't carriage of national (or international, in the case of Multimedios Televisión) services. It's been tagged for notability issues since 2014, and while it technically survived an AfD earlier this year, said AfD was the failed bulk nomination of 140 HC2/Innovate stations. I can't see any indication that this comes anywhere near meeting the GNG. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and my rationale in the K04QR AfD. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:20, 26 November 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, ✗plicit 02:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Another unnotable Innovate subfarm with no real local history. Nate • (chatter) 05:25, 3 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) 11:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anais da Associação Brasileira de Química

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

Unsourced since its creation in 2007; can't seem to find anything via WP:BEFORE (though someone else might be able to) other than this, which this article may have been copied from or it just mirrors this article. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Brazil. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only indexing that I can find is the Chemical Abstracts Service (see here), which is not very selective. Misses WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should be kept, not necessarily as it's own article, but it's a major journal and the Associação Brasileira de Química is a major association. The ideal solution would be to have the article on the association, and merge the journal there. If that article isn't created, then this can be draftified until the ABQ article is created, and the merge can be performed at that time. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - No objection to draftification if Headbomb wants to work on an article for the association. Suriname0 (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boston College–Harvard men's basketball rivalry

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

None of the sources in the article mention any rivalry between these schools, and a BEFORE check came up empty regarding WP:SIGCOV for this to meet the WP:NRIVALRY. Let'srun (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Basketball, and Massachusetts. Let'srun (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NRIVALRY. None of the sources cited mentions "rivalry". Owen× ☎ 18:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG. Nothing too significant in terms of sourcing either. Also, be sure to delete the statement in List of college rivalries in the United States. Conyo14 (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NRIVALRY. One of the AP articles listed as a reference calls Harvard "the local entry from the Ivy League" in relation to Boston College with no mention of the word rival. Taxman1913 (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Panama women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kathiuska Domínguez

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

Redirect to List of Panama women's international footballers. I found plenty of passing mentions in my searches (1, 2, 3), but nothing that might indicate notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Panama. JTtheOG (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 13:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Morocco women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soumia Hady

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

Redirect to List of Morocco women's international footballers. All I can find on the subject are passing mentions like 1, 2, and 3. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Morocco. JTtheOG (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 13:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fidorah Namuesh

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

The subject seemingly made a single appearance for the Papua New Guinea women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All that came up in searches were passing mentions like 1, 2, and 3. JTtheOG (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above. MisterWizzy (talk) 13:33, 8 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alisa – Folge deinem Herzen

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

Unreferenced and undeveloped since 2011 with almost no content. Terasail ^[✉️] 01:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Terasail ^[✉️] 01:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Terasail, take a look at the German Wikipedia article's refs at de:Hanna – Folge deinem Herzen#Einzelnachweise. I think you'll find all the references you need to establish notability. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added several of these refs to the article.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, the german article has 2 deadlinks, 1 webarchive link that might aswell be dead, a webarchive link to a german page I can't read/translate and 2 short quotenmeter links which are written by the same person which doesn't scream notable. Terasail ^[✉️] 02:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The refs I added have working links. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per refs added to article since AfD began. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY - The sources added show notability.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:12, 4 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 Riyaz Khan#Early and personal life. Discounted the two IP keeps that geolocate to the same area as sockpuppet IPs of the checkuser-blocked article creator. Most of the other participants converged on redirect as the appropriate solution for now. RL0919 (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shariq Hassan

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Is the main antagonist of Pencil and has no other notability. He was the winner of the reality show BB Jodigal but that doesn't add much. WP:TOOEARLY, please redirect to Pencil (film). He also played the lead in the 5 episode YouTube series Kaalam Neram Kadhal. Is that notable? I smell COI because the article said his unreleased film "received an average reception from critics". [23].

Has a similar notability to Draft:Tharshan Thiyagarajah. This source talks about his lack of roles since Bigg Boss [24]. DareshMohan (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Music, Television, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find DareshMohan's explanation convincing and agree with him that redirect to Pencil (film)#Cast is a good solution for now.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC) add. But really not opposed to Keep as his notoriety is also indeed clearly associated with Bigg Boss and a redirect would make that pehaps unclear. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See below for other possible target of a redirect. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage by the Times of India, on multiple occasions, is more than enough to establish notability per WP:NACTOR. Owen× ☎ 17:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only notable factor i found a role in Pencil and BigBoss. 00:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Keep. Has major roles in atleast more then 2 films and has appeared in a major and highly popular reality show in India and is exposed to a high ratio of audiences in the Indian entertainment industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:9425:5800:C58C:FF1D:D300:BA78 (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@2001:8003:9425:5800:C58C:FF1D:D300:BA78: Please list the films. He only starred in 2, one was a minor role. DareshMohan (talk) 23:29, 8 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) 00:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Provides enough information to show the individual is notable in the industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.185.219.179 (talk) 06:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, ToF counts as one source so no matter how in-depth and substantial any of those pieces are they still do not amount to GNG. This is even ignoring the tabloid quality of the ToF articles.

JoelleJay (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but what is "ToF"?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)? (did you mean The Times of India? if so, only ~~one~~ 2 articles from this periodical are cited on the page, one addressing directly and in-depth the career of Shariq Hassan, the second clearly there only for verification of his presence in the cast of a future film.)[reply]

This was addressing the claim above thatCoverage by the Times of India, on multiple occasions, is more than enough to establish notability per WP:NACTOR. JoelleJay (talk) 06:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, it's generally abbreviated as TOI rather than ToF, though. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank: @DJ InstaMalik: @JoelleJay: Would you support a redirect to his father Riyaz Khan#Early and personal life with a sentence about him? Clearly Wikipedia:TOOSOON. DareshMohan (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that works for me! (but not strongly opposed to keep) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is his summary:Shariq Hassan, an actor who appeared in the film Pencil (2016) and the son of Riyaz Khan. See Bigg Boss (Tamil season 2)#Housemates. @OwenX: He doesn't meet WP:NACTOR now, also The Times of Indiais considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It has a bias in favor of the Indian government and is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage. per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources. DareshMohan (talk) 23:31, 8 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. I hope some editors can spend time improving this article and adding new sources to it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Direct care

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

The term "direct care" could mean almost anything in the English language e.g. "I am taking direct care of my dog", "The painting was placed under direct care of the museum". With regards to its meaning in the NHS, I could only find a single reputable source here, and even so that does not justify an article.

Essentially this is an incredibly vague term, which perhaps has a specific niche meaning in the NHS, but certainly not enough to warrant an article.

The article is essentially saying "direct care is the direct care of a patient in the NHS".

Most of the rest is just tangential information about nursing, audit etc.

None of the cited sources are about the term itself.

One of the worst articles on Wikipedia. Elshad (talk) 11:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- The article clearly scopes the subject in the lede so the ambiguity discussed in the nom doesn't apply. There is strong, sustained, extensive discussion of this subject in journals [25], [26], [27], [28]. The article desperately needs editing and expansion, not deletion (WP:DINC). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- there are many uses of the term in the NHS itself[29], and beyond in the week before this deletion request[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[]. If the proposer was a registered veterinarian, they could take direct care of their dog, otherwise you're just staff (although this applies more to cats). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamSmithonWP (talk • contribs) 14:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Direct care (NHS)" if independent sources establish notability beyond a DICDEF. Otherwise, Delete. Owen× ☎
Keep as per above. Bondegezou (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Last1in and SamSmithonWP — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 09:27, 7 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. consensus is that topic meets our notability guidelines for professors, if just barely 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Yipp

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

Fails GNG. Fails NPROF, unless being a Canada Research Chair qualifies? Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: recent AfDs that involved Canada Research Chairs:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joanne Roberts -delete
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Talwar -- delete (this was a requested delete)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebrahim Bagheri -- delete
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charity Marsh -- delete
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerard van Herk -- redirect to professor's garage rock band
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Gosse -- keep
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mosto Mostapha Bousmina -- keep

There are a total of 1,993 Canada Research Chairs. Some commenters opined in these AfDs that only tier 1 Canada Research Chairs should count towards WP:PROF#C5. See Canada Research Chair#Types of chairs: tier 1 chairs are for senior academics and constitute 38% of Canada Research Chairs. The remaining 62% are tier 2 chairs for promising junior academics with potential, such as Bryan Yipp.^[35] --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. He is an assistant professor and tier 2 CRC. Whatever one thinks about tier 1 CRCs, that definitely doesn't count for WP:PROF#C5, which is only for above-full-professor level appointments. That said, he seems to be the go-to expert on NETosis (two first-author papers with 4-digit citation counts on Google Scholar, seemingly the top-cited two works on that subject), so I think he passes WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. I agree with David, while a CRC Tier 2 is an early career award and does not count towards NPROF, I think with his strong expertise on a niche field, three publications with 1000+ citations each and a healthy h-index of 23, he passes the NPROF#1 -- not by much since he is still early career but there is enough for a pass. --hroest 15:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't really see any reason to get in the way of a delete on this article, which is a one-sentence stub that would be eligible for G5 deletion if this AfD hadn't been opened instead. I realize that isn't exactly an argument for deletion, which is why this isn't a !vote, but I think it's context to keep in mind, given that no one has advanced a strong keep argument. -- asilvering (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is incorrect that this article would be eligible for G5 deletion. G5 is only for articles created by already-indef-blocked (or banned) editors evading their block. This article was created in March 2017; the SPI that banned SwisterTwister was not initiated until December 2017. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my bad. Disregard, then. -- asilvering (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Draftify. I added two significant cites from CTV News, a well-respected major national mainstream news outlet. Owen× ☎ 20:20, 3 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) 00:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1881 Randolph–Macon Yellow Jackets football team

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

Fails WP:GNG as no WP:SIGCOV has been found in independent, reliable sources with in-depth discussion of this team. The article was created in 2016 as a micro-stub with no substantive content. More than seven years later, the only content that has been added is an unsourced schedule chart reciting that the team lost two games on unspecified dates and at unspecified locations. (As an additional nail in the coffin, it appears from this source that this was a season of association football (i.e., soccer) rather than gridiron football as the article asserts.) Cbl62 (talk) 23:45, 2 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 00:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. WP:BEFORE turned up nothing substantial to pass WP:GNG. Moshe1022 (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage available. The subject is ancient, so it's unsurprising nothing came up. Happy to change to keep if someone provides sources, I cannot find anything. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the nom, nothing is here to show this meets the WP:GNG or WP:NSEASON. Let'srun (talk) 02:56, 4 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.