Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 12

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< December 11 December 13 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beta-Lactamase Database (BLDB)

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

Sole source is primary. Tagged non-notable for years without improvement * Pppery * it has begun... 23:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This database is cited in 69 scientific review papers. One could make a really big and nice page about BLDB on wiki using these reviews. It is just that the authors apparently do not care. The actual candidate for deletion is another page (see above).My very best wishes (talk) 21:56, 19 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! 06:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Chol

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
talk) 17:54, 18 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! 17:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Conakry

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

Only 1 sentence in this article is actually about the embassy. The rest is a content fork about bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 23:09, 12 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! 21:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Lusaka

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

Only 1 sentence in this article is actually about the embassy. The rest is a content fork about bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 23:00, 12 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! 21:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Kinshasa

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

Only 1 sentence in this article is actually about the embassy. The rest is a content fork. LibStar (talk) 22:58, 12 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) 11:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your life its back (Venezuelan Movie)

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

original research attempt at inventing an English title for a film that doesn't have any known English title yet -- but "we don't even know what title the page should actually be at yet" is another reason why this would be too soon. ("Come Back to Life" would be a more appropriately idiomatic translation of the film's native-language title, but that's not properly verified as the English-title of this film either — remember that foreign-language films' English titles are not always literal translations of their original-language titles, so we can't just assume that its English title will necessarily be "Come Back to Life" just because its Spanish title is slated to be "Vuelve a la vida", and have to wait until a reliable source verifies that before we can title an article about it that way.) The film also has no article at all on the Spanish Wikipedia yet, even though it can hardly be more notable to the English-speaking world than it is in its own country. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Good afteernoon
Thanks for your review alwways its good learn in this plataform.
The article have four citation from the principal newspaper of Venezuela. About the titlee its translated as that in the official instagram account of the movie. in addition of that the film have noticed for be development by the directors of " Papita, Mani, Toston" The most sucess Venezuelan movie in recent years. About the spanish article, its in construction, some others native languaje production dont have articles in wikipedia in spanish. GEORGEB1989 (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Caracas, Te Quiero Que Jode and Papita, maní, tostón are previous work of hueck directors.
@Bearcat GEORGEB1989 (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has three citations from newspapers — the fourth is an IMDB-like directory, not a newspaper — and three citations from newspapers is not enough to make a film notable while it's still only in the production pipeline. Films in the production pipeline can collapse and fail to ever get released at all, so you need a lot of production coverage, not just three hits, to make a film notable in advance of release — as in so much production coverage that even if the film did collapse, its failure would be permanently notable in its own right. Normally, films are not notable at all until we can source a firm premiere date, and even after the premiere some films can still fail to pass our inclusion criteria at all: films still just don't always get the necessary depth of coverage at all, so they simply aren't exempted from having to have good sourcing just because they've been released.
And what other films the directors made is irrelevant, as notability is
not inherited, and you've also failed to address the problem with the page title at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
That said, the article is in poor shape and could really use improvement. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did some improvements to the article. There probably are going to be even more sources once the film is screened to the public, but the current coverage should warrant it being kept. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per the above. The sources are minimal from a
    WP:NFF perspective. Not enough that I'd recommend creating an article, but not so sparse that I'd recommend deletion in the face of an upcoming scheduled release. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: I have included a Reception section and found more sources: [5][6]. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opportunity to evaluate new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:50, 12 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. I'm in a really awkward situation here that I feel like in many respects the deletion argument is probably more persuasive overall, assessing it as the closer. That being said, there is significantly more support for the keep argument. Trying to balance this is hard to do and find a clear outcome, and I've landed on No Consensus as a result of that. Daniel (talk) 11:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Amin

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - @GiantSnowman: Did you actually read these? The first one is a brief article about his contract expiring. The second is pay walled. The third article isnt even about the player in question and the last one is a match report. These do not satisfy WP:GNG Simione001 (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He is mentioned in the third one, you clearly haven't read it - just as you clearly haven't bothered to do any BEFORE. I have located numerous coverage about this person, you have done nothing. GiantSnowman 21:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - excuse me how do you know what i have and haven't done? I have read it and I've just read it again, the third article you provided, this article is not about the player in question. This is simply a list of players that were nominated for Allsvenskans Stora Pris. This doesnt satisy WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He is still mentioned in the article, so you have not read it. GiantSnowman 22:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Seems like we are going around in circles here and im not sure what you are trying to achieve. Anyway, not sure why you provided the source in the first place, it doesn't do anything towards satisfying WP:GNG. Do you still think he's notable based on the sources provided? Sounds like just another case of
    WP:ILIKEIT. Simione001 (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. From the sources mentioned above: 1 is a routine transactional update Red XN. 2 I can't access. 3 is literally just his name in a list published by the Swedish Elite Football organization Red XN. 4 is a mention in a routine match recap plus a quote from teammate Strandberg Red XN. Even if #2 is SIGCOV, that is still not equivalent to GNG.
JoelleJay (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – There is coverage on sv.wiki in addition to Arabic sources, as mentioned above. Svartner (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per WP:GNG. Article needs improvements. But Afd is not a clean-up service. Sources are notable.BabbaQ (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that they aernt notable at all. Simione001 (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per
    WP:GNG and above. gidonb (talk) 04:53, 19 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! 21:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Aubale Epstein

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

This is an article for a non-notable real estate agent in the USA. All of the citations seem to be to SEO churnalism sources; reprinters of press releases. Wikipedia should not be an extension of an SEO operation. Tagishsimon (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and current status.. The article does not establish the notability of its subject per
    WP:SIGCOV). The article resembles a promotional resume rather than an encyclopedic entry, lacking the depth and standard of coverage necessary for a standalone article. Will say, @Tagishsimon
    nom, could have been slightly better.
Reference [1] is a sponsored segment, other sources such as Bizjournals, are a trade pub, that merely mention one award. I couldn't find any other sources of notability on the subject. PD Slessor (talk) 00:38, 13 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! 21:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Torture Justice Center

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

This article was made in user-space, moved to main space, draftified, and moved back, and moved through various names, so its deletion is clearly controversial, at least with its creator. It has already, under another name, been nominated for speedy deletion. The problem with it is that it's extremely contentious, but lacks any inline citations. I'd have no problem with the creator incubating it properly in draft space or their own space and putting proper references, but to dump this uncited into main-space is completely wrong. I don't know if it should be speedied, draftified, or discussed properly, so we're here. Elemimele (talk) 21:15, 12 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) 21:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External (mathematics)

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

As noted at

talk) 20:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete per nom and @
    WP:SIGCOV
    . Without verifiable and reliable sources, the term does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards for inclusion.
PD Slessor (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I found two primary source mentions of the term "external semiring", and one of them was about antenna design. I applaud the author's attempt to coin a useful new term, but WP isn't the place to do that. Owen× ☎ 14:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is pure original terminology from the author, not attested anywhere in the literature. PatrickR2 (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this is deleted, some of the material should be kept, in other articles. Including some of the lists of examples. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:28, 18 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 Public image of Javier Milei. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies involving Javier Milei

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

None of those "controversies" have any actual substance to them, or is even worth a standalone article. All of them are just "Politician says X", and "someone somewhere is outraged", or even just "Politician says X". All of them lasted for just some days and died as old news, without any actual consequences. In this day and age, all this stuff is just routine. Heads of state are always saying something, and someone is always reacting to those things said, even if just for a couple of hours.

Note as well that a page "controversial stuff involving a BLP" can easily get carried away into undesired directions.

And note that Trump and Putin, the most controversial world leaders of recent times, do not have any similar articles. Cambalachero (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Conservatism, Economics, and Argentina. Cambalachero (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Donald Trump has several articles about particular controversies, from mishandling classified information to sexual misconduct to... There is precedent at Wikipedia for these types of articles. That said, quickly glancing over this one, "alleged" this and "alleged" that is different. Trump actually did those things (he denies most of them, but there is at least some proof to the contrary), while this person seems to have just been mentioned in connection with xyz thing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is true. I think some content can be merged to Public image of Javier Milei, as suggested by @Pedantic Aristotle, and some may also be relevant for La Libertad Avanza, for example the invistigation also involving the coalition. But just saying that all of them [sic] are just "Politician says X", and "someone somewhere is outraged", or even just "Politician says X" is an exageration. In fact, that may only apply to "Insults to Horacio Rodríguez Larreta", which could be moved at the "Public image" article, since many sources have noted how Milei insulted his political opponents or journalists. Many of them are in fact legal investigations (hence alleged), perhaps his plagiarism can be considered proved (he admitted it for the first case and for the second case reliable sources took it as self-evident) so alleged can be removed, and controversies that attracted significant attention (children and organ trade positions or the state terrorism denialism accusations, etc.), so much so that Milei himself has been described as controversial. So I find the nominator's argument too dismissive. All of this may not warrant its own standalone article but a merge yes; they are acting as though literally none of this has any value or significance. Davide King (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Donald Trump has articles about specific controversies, with a well defined scope. I meant that there is no parent article "Controversies involving Donald Trump" or similar. Cambalachero (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Could use a rewrite, but most of this seems well-sourced. Perhaps not as NPOV as I'd like, but there is notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm ok with a !merge into the "public image" article as suggested as well. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Ideally these are merged into different articles, where they can be added in relevant contexts. Some parts could be deleted, and seems more like trivia rather than encyclopedia content. Ideally a lot more content is written, where dedicated articles are created for the more notable topics. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - this makes me very uneasy, because it's a BLP list of mainly "alleged" accusations gleened from non-English sources: "Alleged cover-up and illicit association", "Alleged plagiarism for El Cronista and Infobae", "Alleged plagiarism for Pandenomics", "Accusations of alleged state terrorism denialism," "alleged sexual favours", "Alleged sales of candidatures", "Alleged involvement of neo-Nazi and Argentine military dictatorship apologist candidates". Unless proven, this is just political gossip. Political leader or not, since when does English Wikipedia create articles/lists based on rumors and gossip — Maile (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, alleged is used because some of those were followed by investigations, and thus the use of alleged is warranted, so hardly "political gossip". His plagiarism seems to have been confirmed, and his vice-presidential candidate seems to be a proved apologist for the Argentine military dictatorship, so the alleged can be removed if you feel only proved things should be listed. Those relevant to the coalition could also be moved at La Libertad Avanza, and others could be at Public image of Javier Milei, for example for a section about his rethoric and insults, for which he is well known. As for the non-English sources, they are allowed, and it is not like there is literally not a single English-language source... Davide King (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I"ve changed to "Merge", and hope for the best outcome either way. — Maile (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Pedantic Aristotle and Davide King. As suggested above, move content relevant to the coalition to La Libertad Avanza, and the other content to Public image of Javier Milei#Controversies. I agree with the nom.'s rationale in opposition to keeping as a standalone page. Sal2100 (talk) 17:23, 15 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 Organisation and structure of the Metropolitan Police#Specialist Operations. Daniel (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Area Major Incident Pool

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

No sources cited. Seems to be more of a definition rather than entity. Google search provides only mostly Wikipedia mirrors. I did find three mentions in this report (page 115) but still not notable enough to warrant an article Elshad (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and England. Elshad (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Given the time period (1985-2000) I'm not surprised little information is available online, but everything in the article (assuming it can be cited, I've not looked) is encyclopaedic information. I agree though it's a bit thin for a whole article, so I recommend merging this to a broader article about the structure of the Met over time as this is not the first AfD I've seen about such units. I don't know if such an article exists yet, but if not it can be started. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. What is the suggested Merge target article here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. Original close was redirect with the history preserved to facilitate a merge, but Siroxo requested a merge close and tag and, as I don't see that being a huge difference I've done so. Star Mississippi 18:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fearless Photog

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

This is an *extremely* minor character that, while it has some development information, lacks any actual discussion as a fictional character to demonstrate notability. In writing articles for wikipedia it's important to demonstrate *why* a subject meets

significant coverage
discussing the topic and illustrating people discussing a subject and why it's important outside of the scope of the main subject.

While this is an obscure character in the He-Man franchise, there's no indication of that importance. Furthermore it's not an isolated instance of an obscure character in the franchise being revisited as a toy much later. And as a fictional character, which should be the most important aspect of such an article...there's nothing.

The whole subject could be covered in a list entry with nothing lost Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Literally all of that could be fit into a paragraph on its development. What reception is there of it as a fictional character? Even as a toy there's still nothing indicating any significance over any of the other MotU toys, other than its origin. The coverage indicating that importance isn't there. The coverage discussing it as a fictional character and why it's important also isn't there Dream.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the He-Man characters list. It's not really a matter of notability here, but of the fact the information here can be easily covered in the list with little to no detriment. The article just doesn't have the bulk to justify its separation. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per others and as a notable topic. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Violates
    WP:INDISCRIMINATE by not clearly demonstrating its impact or significance. GNG is not passed here, no prejudice to recreation if someone is able to find sources that indicate why this character is recognized by the public at large. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge per above. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 00:04, 16 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) 12:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce D. Jette

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

After seeing the consensus of the Afd for Jette's successor as United States Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, this position does not confer notability by itself. Independent sources are just not there. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Has coverage in reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • What independent sources are there about him rather than events in which he may have played a part? Clarityfiend (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sohom (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails GNG due to lack of independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpen320 (talk • contribs) 2023-12-12T17:34:14 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:06, 12 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 Ranmoor with history preserved for a "slim merge" if needed. Star Mississippi 01:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carsick Hall

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

This building doesn't appear to meet

WP:N. There is the possibility of merge/redirect to Ranmoor, but I think that would give it overdue prominence in an article I'm not sure it even needs a mention in. Boleyn (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Does not look notable - There is no listed building designation for it and although it is just within the Ranmoor Conservation Area there is nothing about it in the statement of special interest. EdwardUK (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • DELETE - Agreed. Its sourcing is also odd, it appears to be the original creation of an SPA, and it contains some dubious statements. To suggest that Sheffield has few old buildings because of the Blitz is nonsense - it has many, including many far more notable than this, e.g. Sheffield Town Hall. KJP1 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some more information here but I'm not sure that's enough to be notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Doesn't appear to be listed. Some of the article checks out. (William Creswick at that address in 1843. Sales description in 1879 Sheffield and Rotherham Independent as well as notice of sale to Mr. James Ward for £370. Mentions in The Times and The Telegraph as home of Francis Balfour in the 1950s. Telegraph gives Eric Robinson as owner in 1980.) I think there is also evidence that it might be among the oldest local buildings ([10] states most of buildings of interest date from 1860–1914). Also brief mention in The Making of Sheffield, 1865-1914 p 194 ("...Carsick Hall, a small double-fronted house unworthy of its name but very old and very old-fashioned."). In the lack of any detailed coverage of the house, leaning slim merge to Ranmoor, where it might merit a mention. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:54, 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! 21:05, 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) 17:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (leaning towards delete) -- The article appears to have sources, but they are cited in a peculiar (and incomplete) manner. The house is apparently a minor mansion, but not obviously notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 9 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, Liz Read! Talk! 19:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two major problems with this:
    • https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/topic/441346-carsick-hall-help/?do=findComment&comment=7893247 is quite clearly how the original single-purpose editor got xyr information. It's a fortnight before the article was created by ChaosAlien (talk · contribs). I don't have any access to whatever "Find My Past" is, and the original single-purpose editor provided zero citations of whatever bunch of old newspapers have been stitched together to make this. Espresso Addict hasn't provided enough above, either, alas.
    • The good-faith citations added later by someone else are impossible to check. Having laboriously found what each one is and digging it up to cite it properly, I've had to add {{
      pageneeded
      }} on every single one it turns out. One of them is an edited collection book and the citation didn't even say which article in the book by which author is being cited. Needless to say, not a single one of those sources is accessible to me.
  • Verification is simply impossible here. I've tried. This is unverifiable by any reader, or anyone at all who didn't write the article. Uncle G (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's simply not true. I verified much of it, just typing "Carsick Hall" into one of the WL newspaper searches. I don't always provide citations when I do this kind of search because typing and especially cut & paste hurts my injured hand, but the search is trivial for anyone with library access. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm afraid that it is true. "Mentions in The Times and The Telegraph in the 1950s" doesn't cut it. As I said, I've looked for sources, and tried to look into the sources already cited. A vague handwave in the direction of an entire decade of two newspapers points to nothing. It's as vague as the handwave to a 264-page book (which Google Books reports no instances of "Carsick" at all inside) from 1948 is. If you cannot point to things that I or other people can check, then verifiability is simply not there. Amazingly, all of the people with the claimed actual access to these old newspapers, from the person on the WWW forum through the article creator to you, have not cited one single specific newspaper article for the rest of us, let alone the clearly multiple ones used in the WWW discussion forum. Uncle G (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • In attempting to check the sources and found copies of some on archive.org (Reeder, Walton and Tiratsoo), and White Rose eTheses Online (Donnelly). But searches within these indicate that none mention Carsick Hall, Walton has only a brief section on Ranmoor (p.225) and there were no search results for Sheffield in Tiratsoo. Cannadine and Hebblethwaite require journal access but the statements they are there to support do not suggest notability. I do not have full access to the British Newspaper Archive, but a search for Carsick Hall shows some results that could verify the residents and history section (Sheffield Independent 10 May 1879 p.11, and 7 March 1938 p.2, and Yorkshire Evening Post 11 June 1940 p.5) but these also do little to indicate notability. Delete seems a reasonable option because if all the unsourced and trivial content was removed there would be little left to merge. EdwardUK (talk) 09:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's names and dates at least, more than anyone else has given. I didn't think to look for an in-copyright 1997 book in the Internet Archive, and thank you for the pointer to the thesis, too. It's very disappointing to discover, especially after all of that effort hunting down the proper citations, that all of the additions by GavinMansfield (talk · contribs) were false sourcing. Having seen now how irrelevant they were to this subject, especially the thesis, I have changed my mind about these being good-faith edits. Uncle G (talk) 13:07, 14 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 on whether to redirect this, or to move it ito a proposed article about its successor. Suggest those discussions continue on the Talk page as I don't see a 4th relist establishing any clear path. Star Mississippi 01:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SPIN (cable system)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the

general notability requirement. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I'm not hellbent on keep this as a standalone article but we out to keep some record of proposed/unrealized submarine communications cables somewhere. Could be nice to divide List of international submarine communications cables into groups like "active", discontinued", and "unrealized".Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 07:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be good with that and making this a redirect to the list. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:16, 22 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! 21:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this is well worth documenting
AaronVick (talk) 08:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC) — AaronVick (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Comintell (talk · contribs). [reply]
Can you speak to which notability policy would allow this article to continue as it is?
notability is a requirement to be an article. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:47, 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) 17:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to me! 22:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I see a suggestion to divide an article, is this the target article you are suggesting? It's not clear what the consensus is here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I support redirecting to List of international submarine communications cables, which could then be re-worked. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: There is coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and I suspect that notability could be proven if someone developed and referenced the article. However, nobody has been interested enough to develop it much. There is not even an article for its successor project, the Hawaiki Cable, which is much more notable as it is an operational cable, and there is arguably demand for an article. I suggest we rename this "Hawaiki Cable", do basic reformatting, keeping the info about the SPIN predecessor, then wait and see whether anyone develops it. An article on an operational cable is much more likely to attract editor attention than a defunct cable proposal from the 2000s. Nurg (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Flagg Gibney

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the

author-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:58, 12 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.

(non-admin closure) Schminnte [talk to me] 16:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Samuel Nchinda-Kaya

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

Listed competitions do not seem to establish notability – winning a Résisprint International does not seem to fulfill GNG or NSPORT as a "major international competition". InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, thank you for the nomination giving us a chance to improve the article. Samuel Nchinda was a regular on the international track and field circuit in 1991 and 1992, not just at major championships where he advanced past the first round at two different Olympics. Résisprint is a
WP:NATH, he satisfies point 8) as Nchinda's 10.24 PB is listed on the IAAF "senior all-time list" for men's 100m on page 15 here: Senior all-time list. I also added a cite that Nchinda competed at the 1991 World Indoor Championships, setting a national record and qualifying for the semifinals. Thank you, --Habst (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete. Every sporty sperm isn't with a couple of tin cups worth a Wikipedia entry. There are sporting websites for that. MisterWizzy (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of GNG coverage, which is necessary to establish for athletes regardless of their accomplishments. Being listed on the IAAF senior all-time list does not exempt the subject from the requirement that a SIGCOV IRS source be cited in their article.
JoelleJay (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC) EDIT: Keep per new sources found. JoelleJay (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for commenting because it has spurred me to look for more GNG coverage. I found dozens of contemporary newspaper sources featuring Sam under the name "Sam Nchinda" -- perhaps the article should be moved to that title. I added a few of them to the article (the article now has 19 references) but I am not done going through them yet, here are just a few from the Edgware Observer, Harrow Observer, and Pinner Observer: Sam takes on best in world Sparkling Sam lifts the gloom for Gayts Olympian Sam goes out in heats. May I ask that you please re-evaluate the article in light of this significant new information added? --Habst (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sadly, BEFORE didn't help. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vanderwaalforces, thank you for commenting because your comment along with JoelleJay's above drove me to find more GNG sources for this article. The article now has 19 references including several significant newspaper sources that focus specifically on Nchinda, see above for some examples. Can you please re-evaluate based on the new changes? Separately, if you could help organize the newly added information in the article into sections, that would be greatly appreciated. --Habst (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Habst This is a good job you've done. Thank you so much! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I now lean towards Keeping this article based on this. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also have done the re-organisation as you requested. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of the additional sources provided by User:Habst. Ingratis (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fantastic work by Habst in finding sources to demonstrate notability and expanding the article. @JoelleJay, Vanderwaalforces, and MisterWizzy: BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, expansion and sources added satisfy notability guidelines, good work, Habst! ~ Tails Wx 03:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jynxzi

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

Subject is a You Tuber for gaming and fails GNG where by subject does not have

verification. Cassiopeia talk 21:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep - per the Kotaku, Dot Esports and IGN Brazil sources. They each contain adequate significant coverage about his web content and aspects of his life, proving he meets
    WP:GNG. Also per WP:BASIC's "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" guideline, the BBC, VentureBeat and PCGamesN sources can also work for extra verifiability. PantheonRadiance (talk) 08:30, 29 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! 20:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Kotaku is fine, it's a RS, but it's not long. Otherwise there's coverage in Game Rant, but nothing extensive. The BBC coverage mentioned a comment above this is a trivial mention. Oaktree b (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Donkey Show (band)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the

band-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and California. UtherSRG (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can find brief mentions about the band's existence from specific members that were popular by themselves, but nothing decent about the actual band itself. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 03:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Don't buy the article's assertions about how famous and influential they were. Instead, they were a local band that got some gig announcements in the local press, a couple of mentions in scenester blogs (e.g. [11]), and brief mentions as historical tidbits in articles that are actually about other bands or their former members (e.g. [12]). Otherwise, all that can be found are the
    usual social media and self-upload links. While searching, note that the band's name is also an old Mexican urban myth. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:47, 19 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. ✗plicit 23:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ato Ampah

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

Fails

WP:GNG, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 18:24, 12 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.

(non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Essex Arms

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

No refs on the page, I don't see enough independent RS to show notability. JMWt (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Found reviews from The Quietus, DIY, and AllMusic. That's plenty enough already. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the reviews found by QuietHere and since added to the article. The article could use some expansion but there are enough pro reviews to support a typical stub album article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the reviews that QuietHere found; sources found and used should be enough for at least a stub/start-class article. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 03:25, 16 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) 21:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CEA-PME

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

Fails

reliable, third party sources. Geoff | Who, me? 17:14, 12 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) 21:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Hughes (banker)

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

Non-notable business professional. Related companies are not notable. Seaweed (talk) 15:41, 12 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

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Ocean State Cup

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

Subject does not meet the

WP:NRIVALRY due to a lack of significant coverage independent of the subject. Let'srun (talk) 15:13, 12 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

ATD. The eventual redirect can be re-targetted to a different section within that article, or a different article, if so desired. Daniel (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

2023 Clarksville tornado

2023 Clarksville tornado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough for standalone article,

WP:EVENT. Usually, standalone articles are for tornadoes that are particularly deadly and have a massive lasting effect on a decently-sized community. This tornado caused 3 deaths and was rated as an EF3. This may also apply to 2021 Tri-State tornado, which although an EF4, caused 8 deaths, compared to the effect of the Mayfield EF4 that casued 57 deaths and destroyed several towns. In my opinion, for a tornado to have a section on an article it should either cause 1 million USD or more in damage, be rated EF3 or more, or cause 20 or more injuries. To have its own article, I think a tornado should have to cause 10 or more injuries in three communities and 10 or more deaths in total. The Clarksville tornado caused damage, but it was an EF3. This is pointless as an article and should either go in its own outbreak or go onto the tornado list in December. CutlassCiera 14:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I believe that even if you think it is a minor event, it had killed 6* people and counting. Even if it wasn’t an EF5 or even an EF4, it had done possibly permanent damage to the people of Clarksville, TN. Yes it wasn’t the 2013 el reno tornado but it doesn’t hurt anyone to have this article. It is better to inform people of events like such because events like the December 9th tornado will get covered by other big news like politics, then people forget. With an article about it that people can read, the reader can understand the devastation that the people that experienced the tornado had gone through. There is no harm by having its own article, it might help though. People reading the article could contribute to helping the communities hit by the tornado through donations and or by informing others. Once again, no harm is done by this article. It should not be deleted. EvanAndrews22 (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First off, it killed three people, not six. Two, even if it did permanent damage, it doesn't mean that it is notable. The rest of your statement reads off as
WP:HARMLESS. CutlassCiera 16:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Really? I am just going to repeat what Reecey said and say that it was one of the strongest December tornadoes in recent years. While not THE strongest, it is still notable in its own right, being the strongest of one of the worst December outbreaks in recent years. You have provided no points except for the fact that El Reno is only notable for size, which it is not. You also fail to realize that the outbreak of which this occurred in was a one-in-a-million chance. I mean, some tornadoes took the same paths as the ones two years prior, which is remarkable, and can only really be compared to the Moore tornadoes and the Codell Tornadoes. I rest my case, this should not be deleted for the reasons stated above and the reasons stated by other people. 108.67.192.250 (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention this, but this article is NOT a stub, and you can tell that there is enough info for an entire article. It also was very long-lasting, being an hour long. 108.67.192.250 (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your argument of "Long lasting effect on a decent sized community" is easily disproven by the fact that the tornado destroyed 114 homes, heavily damaged 857 others, mostly in a town/city of over 160k people. 108.67.192.250 (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
100 out of 160000 is a very small percentage. Even if we assume 10 people per household, that's still trivial. Oaktree b (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree with that, it is a city of 160k, which is a more than decent sized community. 108.67.192.250 (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're tunnel-visioning on what you personally feel is notable. Tornadoes like this occur all the time. Check out Perryton, Matador, Amory, Sullivan, Winterset, Wynne, etc all from this year. None of these have articles for a reason. Wikiwillz (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but we can't use
Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument. ChessEric 16:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
It was a major event, and even if you don't live around here, it killed half of the people that were in this outbreak, and it was possibly a multi-vortex. If you want to use the "It was an EF3" argument, then we should also delete the El Reno tornado article. You see how unfair that is? I stand my case. Clarksville (and Hendersonville) deserve their own articles, separate from the current, very tiny, outbreak article. This is IP address user, signing off. 108.67.192.250 (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The El Reno tornado was particularly notable due to its large size, which is unique. A run-of-the-mill EF3 with three fatalities is not really notable. It doesn't work that way. CutlassCiera 16:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The size of the storm doesn’t matter. The damage it caused does. By saying it doesn’t work that way is saying that those 6 people who died don’t matter as much as those who died in the el reno tornado EvanAndrews22 (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing the point here. The size of the storm does matter. The EF3 damage was three or four very poorly built houses flattened and a strip mall destroyed. That itself is not grounds for an article. The rest of the article is refuting an argument I never made. CutlassCiera 16:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable, It killed 3 people, and was an EF3. It was one of the steongest December tornadoes in recent years. The article shoudl be kept. Reeceycat123987 (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, this isn't proving it to be notable. Being "one of the strongest December tornadoes" is not grounds for an article. Three people is not grounds either. CutlassCiera 16:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Trivial weather event. Under 10 people dying is rather routine for a weather event; to be blunt, we've had articles in AfD where more people were involved in a mass shooting in the USA and it's been deemed not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • * Delete: The event was a low-end EF3 and was fairly tame. Dozens of other tornadoes even in the last couple of years are much more worthy of an article over this. The speed in which this article was written gives me sort of WP:HATSHOP vibes as well. Wikiwillz (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
-
Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023? The AfD nominator also supports a merge into the article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, given it is substantially thinned down to increase readability. Wikiwillz (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This argument has no ground to support it. The section can be trimmed to make it readable. CutlassCiera 18:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is readable as is. It passes
WP:NEXIST exists. The 1999 Aïn Témouchent earthquake survived AfD because it has multiple reliable sources. The state of the article (and overall impacts) weren’t that high…Yet it has the coverage, so it passes notability requirements. Like I said, I’m not opposed to the merge, which it seems you aren’t either. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
A large amount of these sources lack
WP:DEPTH. The NWS survey is a routine survey done of every tornado that is reported to cause damage in the US. Several of the other sources are news articles that only say one point (e.g. that the tornado was an EF3). CutlassCiera 18:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I'd lack to add Cutlass, that this is how a majority of tornado's are written. The NWS survey is the most official and comprehensive detail of damage and chronological impact. There's little need to scour for sources that would really have less detail or authority to the survey itself. Wikiwillz (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the article passes WP:GNG, but the thing about general notability guidelines is that they're.. well... general. There are nuances to consider. I support a merger, sounds like the smart thing to do. Wikiwillz (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Now that an article for the outbreak has been created, there is no need for an individual article for this tornado. I support a merger. ChessEric 18:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC) ChessEric 19:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge-We can summarize this in the outbreakn article. Reeceycat123987 (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To get this back on the log following DRV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note,
WP:CFORK is not an issue as the section in the outbreak article is 138 words while the article has a readable prose size of 1,278 words. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:07, 14 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 XBoard. Daniel (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fairy-Max

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

Couldn't find any reliable sources. QuietCicada - Talk 14:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting. I suggest merging or redirecting. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:03, 15 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.

Numerically, we have no consensus, with about 40% of opinions in favor of deleting and 60% in favor of keeping the article.

In terms of strength of argument, many "keep" opinions invoke the

WP:ATD). But the "delete" side has failed to make their case in this way. They merely allege, but do not demonstrate, inadmissible synthesis.

The "keep" side does not really do better: with the exception of Homerethegreat and a very few others, nobody really addresses the specific sources cited in the article, and how well they correspond to the article text (as would have been needed to rebut a WP:SYNTH deletion rationale). Instead, they make sweeping allegations mostly about how notable the topic is, which, as explained above, is beside the point here.

Consequently, there is no informed consensus to delete the article. A merger discussion or a more convincing renomination for deletion remain possible. Sandstein 13:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel

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

This looks like a re-creation of an article that was deleted two months ago (

WP:SYNTH, in that the source cited doesn't explicitly say that the Hamas-lead attack constituted genocide. In fact, many of the sources predate the attack, so they can't possibly be making that assertion. The few sources that do explicitly state f should be covered under Second_Holocaust#Claims_that_Palestinians_are_committing_genocide. VR talk 13:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • SYNTH is not a valid deletion reason. There are sufficient articles that directly address the topic to establish notability. Anything else is just a content dispute. Marokwitz (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note I included 20 sources referring directly to genocide accusation as well as being after the attack. It is below. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - article on very notable topic. I wrote it 2 months after the event, seeing along the discourse of experts in the fields of international law, genocide studies, history and more discuss the issue at length and when it became clear that it has received more than enough coverage and it has become clear that the topic has grown notable enough, seeing there was no article written I endeavored and wrote it. The allegation of genocide has/is (depending on time of reading) been brought up to the International Criminal Court in Den Haag. Notable topic has garnered international attention in multiple reputable news outlets as well as WP:NOTABILITY:
There is "Significant coverage" on the allegations, there are Reliable sources that deal with this topic directly, Secondary Sources are used, therefore meets WP:NOTABILITY
Article is also written in neutral language and attributes claims to scholars and therefore avoids wikivoice.
Furthermore, article is not Synth, sources directly refer to the allegation of genocide. Other sources that predate describe background of event which is normal. I will use an example to explain the rationale: Would one deny a source explaining that blue birds live in Madagascar from 1990 and are in danger of extinction when describing the background if those same blue birds were extinct in 2020?
Furthermore, regarding propositions to merge to 2023 Israel-Hamas war article or The Hamas attack article, it has already been raised multiple times in these articles that there is need to make child articles so that those articles do not become to long and burdensome. Furthermore, topic is of such repute that it is worthy per notability explanation above to be its own stand alone article.
Furthermore, this article deals with a specific event on a specific point of time, not the notion of fear from second holocaust. Indeed holocaust describes a different category of slaughter which would destroy or significantly wipe out part of the Jewish people. This is not the case here and therefore should not be merged with the article proposed for merger. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding here a list of sources, all different directly on the topic, to show notability used in the article:
[1] The Atlantic
[2] The Economist
[3] Haaretz
[4] Times of Israel
[5] Genocide Watch
[6] France 24
[7] Times of Israel
[8]Times of Israel
[9] The Economist
[10] Genocide Watch
[11] The Australian
[12] The Bulletin
[13] Jerusalem Post
[14] Engelsberg ideas
[15] Time
[16] Israel Hayom
[17] The Wall Street Journal
[18] The Jerusalem Post
[19] The Jerusalem Post (United States Government referring to issue).
[20] AFP, Barrons'
I think this is enough for notability, also included several renown newspapers such as WSJ, The Economist, Time in order to show international notability. Homerethegreat (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why this can't be covered Second Holocaust#Claims that Palestinians are committing genocide? VR talk 23:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the following, I believe it was explained, Marokwitz provided an adequate answer in
Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel#Merge into Second Holocaust. Furthermore, I also referred to that specific question in my answer, please read what I wrote above and also the other mentioned. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
You said that this topic can't be merged into Second Holocaust because it doesn't deal with "destroy or significantly wipe out part of the Jewish people". But the very definition of genocide is to attempt to destroy a group of people "in whole or in part". VR talk 23:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Policy requires that we evaluate this subject for notability on its individual merits - AFD for another article is irrelevant.
  • Any concerns regarding
    WP:SYNTH
    or other content disputes can and should be addressed through editing, not deletion.
The topic of the article is undeniably notable through direct coverage in reliable and secondary sources. Here are just a few examples demonstrating the notability of this topic:
  • Israeli families bring genocide complaint against Hamas to ICC reported by Al Jazeera.
  • How the term “genocide” is misused in the Israel-Hamas war from The Economist.
  • Hamas has genocidal intentions against Israel - White House, reported by The Jerusalem Post.
  • Hamas's Genocidal Intentions Were Never a Secret by Bruce Hoffman, published in The Atlantic.
  • 9 bereaved Israeli families bring ICC war crime, genocide complaint against Hamas. The Times of Israel.
These sources are not only reputable but also directly relevant to the topic at hand without any original synthesis. They provide significant coverage and come from reliable outlets, fulfilling the criteria for notability as per
WP:GNG. Marokwitz (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Some Israelis filing papers at the ICC, which anyone can do, is not even news. The
War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war otherwise one attack does not a genocide make, this is just an invented topic with no real history until October 7. Selfstudier (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Please note that Palestinian genocide accusation also widely refers to events from 7 October onwards. I honestly find it confusing, on the one hand some editors say there should be sources only from after 7 October, others suggest from before 7 October, I'm finding it absurd. I understand this is a hot and notable topic. Please read the sources presented and familiarize yourself with the topic. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are making strange point. Yes, they are terrorists and they were making genocide in Israel. Exactly. This is nothing special. Consider Armenian genocide. Was not it a form of Terror (politics) designed to terrorize the population? Did not the attack by Hamas serve the same purpose? See RS [24] My very best wishes (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike Second Holocaust, this page is about crimes committed during the specific operation by Hamas, i.e. 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. The important and significant well sourced materials from this page are only briefly mentioned on page "Second Holocaust". One might reasonably argue this page should be renamed to something like "War crimes by Hamas during 2023 attack on Israel". However, an outright deletion of this page would be wrong. My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Already exists. However we really needed to have an article of the same thing but calling what the opposing side did a genocide, because that's the trend now. An absolute insult to actual genocides such as that of the Armenians or the Holocaust. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ Hoffman, Bruce (2023-10-10). "Understanding Hamas's Genocidal Ideology". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2023-12-07.
  2. ISSN 0013-0613
    . Retrieved 2023-12-07.
  3. ^ "Deadly Hamas Rampage Constitutes 'International Crime of Genocide,' Hundreds of Legal Experts Say". Haaretz. Retrieved 2023-12-07.
  4. Times of Israel
    .
  5. ^ Watch, Genocide (2023-10-18). "Legal Experts: Hamas committed War Crimes, Genocide". genocidewatch. Retrieved 2023-12-07.
  6. ^ "Israeli families bring war crime complaint to ICC: lawyer". France 24. 2023-11-03. Retrieved 2023-12-07.
  7. Times of Israel
    .
  8. Times of Israel
    .
  9. ISSN 0013-0613
    . Retrieved 2023-12-07.
  10. ^ "Holocaust & Genocide Scholars condemn Oct 7 Hamas Massacre". genocidewatch. Genocide Watch. 2023-10-25. Retrieved 2023-12-07.
  11. ^ "Hamas 'Intending nothing less than a second holocaust'. Neil Fergusson". The Australian. 12 December 2023.
  12. ^ "Hamas 'Intending nothing less than a second holocaust'. Neil Fergusson". The Australian. 12 December 2023.
  13. ^ "Can the Hamas Oct. 7 massacre be compared to the Holocaust? - opinion". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. 2023-10-29. Retrieved 2023-12-11.
  14. ^ "Hamas' genocidal massacre on October 7 has deep historical roots". Engelsberg ideas (in Swedish). Retrieved 2023-12-11.
  15. ^ "Finding Common Ground Between Israelis and Palestinians". TIME. 2023-12-08. Retrieved 2023-12-11.
  16. ^ Avraham, Rachel (22 November 2023). "Denying October 7 must be condemned worldwide". www.israelhayom.com. Retrieved 2023-12-11.
  17. ISSN 0099-9660
    . Retrieved 2023-12-11.
  18. ^ "Son of Hamas co-founder: Death penalty for October 7 massacre terrorists". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. 2023-11-30. Retrieved 2023-12-11.
  19. ^ "Hamas has genocidal intentions against Israel - White House". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. 2023-11-08. Retrieved 2023-12-11.
  20. ^ Presse, AFP-Agence France. "Israel, Palestinians Accuse Each Other Of 'Genocide' At UN". www.barrons.com. Retrieved 2023-12-11.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uchana Amit

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

Non-notable Singer. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uchana Amit is a notable Singer worked with Badshah here is his instagram ID for reference @theuchana, you can also check YouTube for his songs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parth1221 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that's promotional coverage, not valid here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources don't support this person as notable, plus article is written in a highly promotional nature. Ravensfire (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleted most of the unsourced and promotional fluff and it really drives home the notability problem. No
    WP:SIGCOV of the article subject. Ravensfire (talk) 16:41, 13 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

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

TVBully

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

Non-notable organisation. Issues have been left unaddressed since 2015. Sources is about the criticism of the TV network, nothing on the website at all except for a dead Facebook link.

A CSD would be worthier for this non-notable organization SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Identity (video game)

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

Had been dePRODded previously; nominated due to issues with general notability and lack of significant coverage. Sources do not assert notability, not even a single review. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:09, 12 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) 11:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Leach (trader)

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

Non-notable

WP:FORBESCON, and the Bangkok Post interview cited here which is at least clearly marked as PR. His charity work has only routine local newspaper coverage. The rest is passing mentions such as the Reuters and Huffpost articles cited about him joining charity fundraisers, articles written by him, and unreliable sources like news blogs. Speedy deleted G11 once at Samuel leach (created by same editor), and this one is borderline.Wikishovel (talk) 11:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I have noticed a fair amount of organic coverage on this individual:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/22143690/i-once-shared-one-room-with-my-dad/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/eladnatanson/2023/09/21/the-rise-of-the-smartphone-trader-experts-on-the-future-of-investment-apps/
https://www.express.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/1763562/fire-movement-early-retirement
https://www.manxradio.com/podcasts/manx-newscast/episode/in-conversation-with-celebrated-entrepreneur-samuel-leach/
https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/entrepreneur-has-big-plans-for-the-island-591649
https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/money/saving-and-banking/fire-savers-regret-save-salary-wife-leave-me-2300748
https://techround.co.uk/interviews/a-chat-with-samuel-leach-samuel-co-trading/
I got bored of pasting more, but there is a lot of coverage on this notable individual. Autocorrectgods (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are in unreliable sources (The Sun), Forbes is a contributor piece, so also not notable. Rest are promotional or PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is typical [26], PR-ish coverage. Nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-Notable, almost all references are blog types (Interviews, promotional content, trading services). Kkb091 (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have semi'ed this to avoid disruption pending the SPI. Star Mississippi 02:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Created by a sock of User:Abbasshaikh124 but enough other editors have worked on the article that I don't think it is eligible for CSD G5. Liz Read! Talk! 04:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Coverage consists of profiles and non-independent/insignificant coverage. Does not meet
    WP:NBIO. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 13:35, 14 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Fenner

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

I cannot find any in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Fails to meet either

WP:CREATIVE. The only claim which comes close to satisfying CREATIVE is sourced to a press release. SmartSE (talk) 11:52, 12 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 University of Nottingham Ningbo China as an ATD. Daniel (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

DiversityUNNC

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

References are all primary, and I couldn't establish notability with Google. —Panamitsu (talk) 11:14, 12 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 11:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skye Aurelia

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

Not yet notable per

WP:BIO. Speedied G11 three times Draft:Skye Aurelia, but this one isn't eligible for speedy. WP:BEFORE search turned up passing mentions for modelling credits in WP:RS, but no significant secondary coverage - the best I can find is the Harper's Bazaar Serbia softball interview cited here, but an interview is a primary source. Wikishovel (talk) 10:51, 12 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 11:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lacrima Dairy

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

Non-notable

WP:CORP, no significant coverage online from reliable sources, only passing mentions found in business listings in a few languages. Original version was highly promotional, and there's a previous history of this from a blocked account a year ago: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LÀCRIMA DAIRY, and the accompanying article and draft history. Rather than bother with a SPI, it seemed better to clean it up and take it to AFD, but there's no real sign of notability here. Wikishovel (talk) 08:58, 12 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobic tropes

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

Unencyclopaedic topic. We don't make lists of possible views; the broader topic is covered at Islamophobia. Fermiboson (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Islamophobia is already near the upper size limit, so it makes sense to have a separate article for this topic. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 08:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Merge with Islamophobia Islamophobia in the media (thanks, Significa liberdade!). True, the target is already a long article, but this small, specific section is not a good one for branching. Owen× ☎ 11:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If merged and/or redirected, I might recommend Islamophobia in the media rather than Islamophobia more generally. However, as Maddy from Celeste has noted, we have similar articles for other defamatory tropes. I have also included a quick list of articles that discuss Islamophobic tropes on the article's talk page. If we don't merge/redirect, I might recommend draftifying. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 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, Liz Read! Talk! 08:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Draftify - I'm inclined to think that this is a worthy article for inclusion but I have no idea how it could be fairly written without
      WP:OR. Fwiw I disagree that this could/should be a redirect to an article about the media because the notion of a "trope" is that it has a life outside of the published media. JMWt (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
      ]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: the article now is essentially the same as it was when nominated. Regardless of the outcome of this AfD, the nomination was appropriate and made in good faith. The accusation of WP:ZEAL is baseless. Owen× ☎ 11:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You do understand that
      WP:ZEAL has nothing to do with zealotry, right? It has to do with a rush to delete an article before we know whether it's worth keeping. A better name for it would be WP:OVERPROTECTIVE. There is nothing about bad faith in that entire guideline (nor intended in my use of it), just that some folks propose an article for deletion before editors have a chance to build it out. Anytime an article comes up for AfD a mere hours after creation, ZEAL is a reasonable part of the discussion. In this case, the article was (and is) labeled a stub, the nomination came three hours after the first post, and I feel that the subject does have valid scholarly sources as I linked above. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      I know exactly what WP:ZEAL is about, and I stand by my statement. Whether it was three hours or three months, if the article wasn't ready for main namespace, it should have been introduced in draftspace. The topic could have--and I believe should have--been developed inside the Islamophobia in the media article, and only spun off if and when its size and independent notability allowed for a standalone page. WP:ZEAL is an essay intended to discourage editors from nominating articles that haven't had a chance to get fleshed out. It is not an automatic waiver against nomination of pages less than X days old. Yes, ZEAL is indeed often part of the discussion when the nomination comes shortly after the article's creation, but that is not to say that it is always a reasonable part of the discussion. If the potential to mature into a viable article isn't apparent, article age is irrelevant, and a ZEAL accusation is unreasonable and unnecessarily antagonistic. Owen× ☎ 13:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      First, I made no accusations here, and there is no reason to be nasty about it. Until a few hours ago, this was a discussion on the merits of the article, not the editors. I found an AfD where (1) I easily located hundreds of quality RSs many of which could help make this a good article (I posted my
      WP:THREE), and (2) the AfD came three hours after the article's first post (which felt like -- still feels like -- overprotectiveness). Whether it should have started in draft space or not, AfD is not for cleanup and I felt Draftify was a good option. Maddy's point about draftifying an existing, mainspace article felt persuasive to me so I moved from Draftify to Keep. If this is is again going to devolve into insults and accusations, I'll take my leave. Thank you and good day. Last1in (talk) 14:46, 12 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) 11:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Wales Centre for Health

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

    This short-lived agency only existed for four years (2005-2009). No sources are cited other than the laws that governed it. This article fails

    WP:ORGSIG since there is no outside coverage of it. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    ●Delete- The only 2 references listed are from the same website, one of which is about a health act & not the centre specificaly, neither of the two refs provide significant coverage of the centre. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I've been watching this since the nom. and hoping someone else would find something, but as it is on the second relist, I've taken a fuller look. I am unimpressed by an argument that says "are generally notable." If this is notable, there will be sources. If there are no sources, it is unclear how any encyclopaedic page can be written. The nom specifically cites
      WP:ORGSIG which says No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is. So is this notable? I can't find sources talking about it. There is a touch more about the Welsh Health Common Services Authority which also has no page (not the same thing). There was a Welsh Centre for Rural Health and an institute for Health Informatics that were funded by Welsh Government but independent. There were a whole plethora of Welsh Health organisations over the years, all of which would be scraping the barrel to find their way beyond permastub status as pages. What is missing, I think, is some kind of page looking at the healthcare landscape in Wales. We have NHS Wales but that is largely the current situation. The Wales Centre for Health could be mentioned in an as yet unwritten page looking at the historical situation, but there is not notability for a page in its own right. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:12, 12 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) 11:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    CocoWalk

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

    Small mall that lacks

    WP:SIGCOV DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    • Disagree, the article is sparse at best but the actual place is a fairly significant shopping center in that area.
      AfD. [reply
      ]
    For the article to exist for 18 years...there's really nothing significant stated on it. – The Grid (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per the
      SIGCOV
      guidelines.
    Here are links I could find of sources to satisfy this significant coverage requirement. I am currently unable to add these to the article, but I will be sharing the links here.
    https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/650904536
    https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/article/the-miami-herald-cocowalk-property-1984/69726780/
    https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/656236427
    https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/657073065
    https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/635805980
    https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/642257530
    https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/637566270 BurgeoningContracting 16:00, 7 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! 07:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Excellent sleuthing, BurgeoningContracting. Meets SIGCOV. Acebulf (talk | contribs) 09:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I do not agree that this article lacks significant coverage. From my perspective, there are sufficient reliable sources to support what is written in the article.
      talk) 23:46, 12 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 05:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Rectifi

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

    Only cites two sources, one of which is its website. Very little coverage available online DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete I'm not seeing much beyond routine listings and passing mentions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete – It does not appear to have any notability Svartner (talk) 04:45, 15 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 04:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Trustix

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

    Non-notable Linux distribution with almost no reliable sources available DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - Article fails the relevant notability criteria (
      WP:NSOFT). I couldn't find much of anything beyond the two sources mentioned in the previous AfD. This reads like churnalism/native advertising and while it may or may not be, the other reference being a routine coverage of an acquisition announcement is very specifically trivial coverage, and the only sources I could find outside of what was discussed in the previous AfD was coverage of the aquisition which again is trivial and does not contribute to notability. - Aoidh (talk) 03:55, 13 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. The WordsmithTalk to me 04:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    2022 Eastern Eagles football team

    2022 Eastern Eagles football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails

    junior varsity" squads from three small colleges, losing two of those games. Cbl62 (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Delete per nom. Honestly don’t remember making this, but it definitely is not notable under any circumstance. Especially with a Division III school. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 03:52, 12 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. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The Fifth Quarter (TV series)

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

    Unsourced for over a decade, found no

    WP:GNG
    . Previously prodded, but deprodded with the rationale: "8 seasons on national network may meet
    WP:NTV" ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 03:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Devlyn, Darren (30 June 2004), "Ten goals in Fifth Quarter", Herald Sun
    "The Fifth Quarter has consistently topped the 200,000-viewer mark in Melbourne, a significant achievement given its graveyard timeslot."
    Epstein, Jackie (18 April 2004), "Flying high in the fifth quarter", Sunday Herald Sun
    Wilson, Caroline (11 March 2004), "Ten prepares for football, the extended version - FOOTBALL", The Age
    Short what's coming
    The Age
    The Sydney Morning Herald
    Capsual comment from Bernard Zuel

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear from more editors plus an assessment of recently identified sources in this discussion (if they are accessible online).
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete No sources for the article. I agree with user Jkudlick that this stub is just an essay. killer bee  05:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No Sources, even if it was notable enough for a few articles it barely makes an article. If anyone cares enough about this topic to re-open the article in the future then they can do so. Tooncool64 (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Beth Quist

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

    Fails

    • whaddya want? • 03:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    • Delete I agree that the article fails
      WP:NMUSIC. Doing some research reveals some sources but none of them are sufficient to pass. She has a song that has a quarter of a million listens on Spotify which would lean the article more towards passing but there's simply not enough media coverage. GoldMiner24 Talk 03:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Reply: I am not very familiar with WP:NMUSIC but after trying to find sources for this article, I think she may meet notability. She performs and/or records with two Grammy Award winners, Kitarō and Bobby McFerrin, and is a long-time collaborator with the latter. I did not add this to the article but saw in several sources that she is also in a band with a member of the rock band Heart. She also composed music for both Cirque du Soleil and an Emmy nominated film. Does this fit WP:NMUSIC? Rublamb (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Described as an electro-Balkan meets New age artist in some sources, but all are streaming sites, social media, then non-RS. There just isn't enough in RS to keep the article. Having a large number of streams on a certain platform isn't notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment: I think I have solved the coverage issue with non-social media sources. Rublamb (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: I have found and added enough secondary sources to convince me of notability. Rublamb (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Thanks for searching. However, these don't really establish notability. The Albuquerque Journal is a passing mention, both Taos News articles and Corvallis Gazette are promotional pieces for upcoming shows, and Rock at Night doesn't appear to be a reliable source.
    • whaddya want? • 07:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Reply: Perhaps you did not read the "About" page for Rock at Night Magazine. It used to be a print publication and is writen by staff journalists. From its website: "Covering globally, but concentrated in the United States, United Kingdom, and Europe, Rock At Night is dedicated to professional journalism and photography, publishing news daily, in its website and many social media formats." Thus, this is a reliable secondary source. Rublamb (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful to get more opinions about recently added sources.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Not notable enough. killer bee  05:04, 12 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) 02:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Pentaapeirogonal tiling

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

    Subject is not notable. I cannot find mention of it in either of the sources, nor the external links. A search for more sources turns up no mentions in any reliable sources. Admittedly the topic is difficult to search for since it is unlikely to be called the "Pentaapeirogonal tiling". It's more likely to be referred to by symbol or diagram, which are difficult to search for. It is however unlikely that this receives any significant note, because it doesn't appear to have any unique properties among the uniform tilings of the hyperbolic plane. All the properties in the article are pretty trivially derived from its Coxeter-Dynkin diagram.

    It would be better served as a single entry in a list of uniform tilings if any of these properties could even be sourced. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    *Merge with Uniform_tilings_in_hyperbolic_plane. Seems this is related with uniform tilings so probably can be moved there. killer bee  05:07, 12 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. North America1000 12:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Aerial Acres, California

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

    Disputed PROD. Non-notable location with little information found. Satellite image of coordinates does show a cluster of small buildings surrounded by desert, suggesting this may be a populated place; however, without any legal recognition, it fails

    WP:GEOLAND. All mentions found have been passing, confirming that this is a place, but without further information nothing can be said. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    • Newspapers.com brings up a 1977 legal notice mentioning To that portion of the unincorporated area generally known as Aerial Acres .... Another reference to it from 1985 as a development between Mojave and Rosemond. Several passing mentions to things being located there or occurring there refer to Aerial Acres, Edwards or Aerial Acres, North Edwards, suggesting that this development is a locale within or related to Edwards, California or North Edwards, California. The book Gem Trails of Southern California by one James R. Mitchell has this as a "small group of homes and trailers". I'm struggling to find any sort of significant history for this site; the indications I am seeing are of this location as an informal housing development. Hog Farm Talk 03:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per
      WP:GEOLAND and the legal notice above. बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Comment: there are 50-60 homes clumped together in some sort of old development. Aerial Acres is now a scruffy-looking place deep in the middle of nowhere. Our article says it's supposedly a "fly-in community" but I see no sign of airplanes or a runway when looking at Google Earth[32] I don't want to hurt any residents' feelings but Aerial Acres is a bleak, unpromising place. Google Street View is even bleaker: desert, dust, dirt roads and occasional yard plantings. There's a high-power rocketry range on the edge of town.[33] The only store is "The Mothership", a second-hand shop; the name makes sense since Aerial Acres looks like the sort of isolated place where alien abductions occur.

      As for "keep" or "delete", recent AfD decisions for obscure California locations have been inconsistent. !voters have kept places with no historically mapped indication of habitation and deleted other places with 500 residents. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      • They are only inconsistent when one applies totally wrongheaded and daft (given how the encyclopaedia would turn out if everyone applied them) standards like what your subjective opinion is of what the place looks like in Google Earth. If you keep doing it wrong, you're going to keep being the outlier that thinks that everyone else is being inconsistent, when it's actually simply you that's doing it wrong and being inconsistent with subjective measures, over and over and over. Hog Farm has the right approach: research, not subjective personal opinions of Google Earth images. Research would tell you, for starters, that the whole "fly-in" thing is a red herring added by Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs), and that the source that xe cited says no such thing. Uncle G (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Old topo maps give additional information; 32
          US Geological Survey maps give time slices of this place's physical history over the last 108 years.

          I would argue that failure to consult these and current satellite imagery is, in fact, "totally wrongheaded and daft", especially when these resources are highly reliable and readily available.

          As for "my subjective opinion", when I count houses, I'd say that's hardly subjective.

          Note that I don't say "fly-in" community is a basis for notability -- in fact I used visual evidence and old maps to debunk the assertion.

          As for "keep" or "delete", I have not cast a !vote -- I've simply presented information.

          So, @Uncle G, aside from taking potshots at me, what's your take on this place? And why? What are your sources? --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

          ]

          • A.B., the basic problem is that you're trying to judge this stuff almost entirely off of maps, which just doesn't work. Try Martensdale, California - a notable former community in this county which does not show up on maps. Same with Dubuque, Arkansas, which I wrote awhile back and have struggled to find a map showing the community on it. Meanwhile, a large number of AFDs have held that routine HOA developments/subdivisions/housing tracts without any sort of formal recognition or significant coverage in reliable sources do not warrant a separate article, and those sort of things would appear on maps or when counting houses. Count of houses does not lead to notability - what leads to notability is the history and coverage of the area in RS. Review of maps is often helpful (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intake, Inyo County, California where map review solved a rather odd situation) but we can't just judge notability based on maps or structure counts. It is rather arbitrary to try to judge notability by how much seeming was/is there from a map perspective, and is frankly a form of original research. Hog Farm Talk 20:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hog Farm, I don’t know if this place is notable or not. I do think maps, photography and satellite imagery should be part of the mix in evaluating these places. My instincts tell me this place is probably not notable but I want to see what other information turns up here. Looking at old maps, this place grew up with Edwards AFB - it may have been a failed development. There are multiple unbuilt, unused roads. We’ll see. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              • No. Giving us your subjective opinion and then even worse asking us for our subjective opinions too, and not even checking whether "fly-in" is true by simply applying the verifiability policy and seeing that the source said no such thing and that Carlossuarez46 just added that conclusion taken from thin air (which I've seen done in many Carlossuarez46 substubs, alas) are utterly the wrong approach to content. Uncle G (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • And you're still getting it wrong. "My take" from looking at Google Earth or aerial photographs isn't how to construct an article. The only use of looking at maps is to tell us what to look for when the article doesn't even say, or when we know that Carlossuarez46 just pulled things out of a hat when dumping GNIS data, and sometimes to check that a source found is talking about the same place and not another place by the same name. Uncle G (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm with Hog Farm, except that a Rand McNally commercial atlas puts this under the umbrella of California City, California, and other things just give this as a prose list of minor residential places that are "rural and low-population density" in the Antelope Valley. Rand McNally says ("RMC Place") that this is simply an entry in the California Rivers and Mountains Conservancy database and points to California City ("incl. with California City (Inc. Place)") for details. I think that we should follow the Rand McNally lead and redirect to California City, California. Uncle G (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Uncle G, I’m confused. You criticized me above for using decades worth of USGS topo maps plus satellite imagery with strong language like ”totally wrongheaded and daft”. Now you’re using a Rand McNally atlas? What’s up with that? —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, I'm using its gazetteer, which has Rand McNally's description, in words, which I even quoted outright right in front of your nose there, not a subjective analysis of "scruffy-looking place deep in the middle of nowhere" or "I see no sign of airplanes or a runway". Do you really not understand the difference between your own subjective guesswork and consulting an authoritative source? Asking me for my subjective guesswork instead of what I read in a source shows that you are still utterly wrongheaded here. We don't do this. It's daft. Think about what would happen if everyone evaluated subjects this way.

          We don't know what the thing is. We know from long experience that Carlossuarez46 just made up things, perhaps helpfully intended (in the knowledge that "unincorporated community" is meaningless when you are saying it in hundreds of thousands of data-dump articles) but still outright made up from whole cloth. So the obvious approach is not to squint at photographs and guess and tell us how something is "bleak" and "scruffy", but to consult a gazetteer. They tell us what things on maps are.

          Uncle G (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Keep. I'm inclined to keep unless there's a better argument to fold it into something else. I'm not sure if this lies within the North Edwards, California CDP, but there are definitely references to "Aerial Acres" as its own community. There was a local newspaper, not online, called the Boron Enterprise, that i see a reference to being the only paper that cared about Aerial Acres and other local communities. Total aside, i must also give props to A. B., for his color commentary "I don't want to hurt any residents' feelings but Aerial Acres is a bleak, unpromising place....the name makes sense since Aerial Acres looks like the sort of isolated place where alien abductions occur."--Milowent • hasspoken 13:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Relisting. The discussion here is very interesting but I see fewer editors have weighed in with an opinion on what should happen with this article. We have two rather weak Keeps, a Delete and a Redirect suggestion. I'm not counting "votes", just stating where consensus stands right now.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • USGS
      maps? That's repeated aerial photogrammetry and goundtruthing by an American federal agency. Is all this not from "an authoritative source" as you put it?
    Is it just because the United States Geological Survey presents data graphically and Rand McNally uses prose?
    As I wrote previously: "I do think maps, photography and satellite imagery should be part of the mix in evaluating these places.". Each AfD is a puzzle to solve and we all bring different pieces.
    And as for my language like "scruffy" which you still make such a big deal of, what
    WP:PG
    ?
    I continue to think this is just a very old subdivision.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    3 more comments:
    • I’m not finding much official guidance specifically about using maps as sources. There is
      WP:RSN
      either, at least not for high quality maps (I’m using a mobile device so I may be missing something on WP:RSN).
    • WP:MAPCITE
      is very good however it is an essay. I think my usage of maps is in line with the essayist’s views on maps.
    • I will note that Google Earth images are reliable however all the labels they associate with the image are very unreliable and should never be used. Perhaps they use GNIS?
    —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability (geographic features)#Settlements and administrative regions says one of these can make a populated place notable:
    • "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low."
    • This is not a legally recognized place.
    • "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the
      GNG
      . Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources."
    • I'm not seeing anything that meets GNG. Not even alien abductions.
    If something comes up to establish notability, ping me -- I may be traveling this week. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I made a comment on the "Boron History" page on facebook asking about news coverage of Aerial Acres and got this response: "Not much is written about Aerial Acres from what I found in old clippings it was known as "Poor Man's Paradise" Aerial Acres was made up of homesteads established somewhere between 1916 to 1918, (this was before North Edwards was developed. It did have a small airstrip at one time. Aerial Acres was part of California City and annexed in the late 1980's/ early 1990's and it went back to Kern County and California City got Wonder Acres."--Milowent • hasspoken 13:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Relisting again. After User:Milowent's latest comment, I think Redirection might be a suitable outcome but closures are based on consensus, not the closer's opinion. Milowent, are you still standing by your Keep opinion?
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    ●Keep- per
    WP:GEOLAND 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:35, 12 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. The WordsmithTalk to me 03:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    David Barry (jailor)

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

    Fail

    WP:GNG. No more sources found in online which can pass GNG. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 02:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 12 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) 02:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Erin Mikalsen

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

    The subject seemingly played one game for the

    WP:GNG in my opinion. I found this article from the Jamaica Observer, which is a good start, but everything else that came up in my searches are passing mentions (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 01:57, 12 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) 02:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Nikol González

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

    The subject, a Venezuelan women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet

    WP:SIGCOV I found was this, which are mostly quotes from the subject. Otherwise, it's all passing mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 01:46, 12 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 14:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael J. Fitzgerald (writer)

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

    Non-notable writer. Self-promo article, no independent sigcov provided to establish notability. Jdcooper (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

    The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Gnyana Sudha Vidyalaya Bidar

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

    Unreferenced for 8 years. No coverage to meet

    WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Delete per nom. I could find no reliable or significant coverage for this school online through Google, Google Scholar, Google Books etc. Most hits on Google Search were either short advertisements/admissions listings or social media information. Fails
    The Night Watch (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete No information on the article. No sources mentioned as well. Not notable. killer bee  05:24, 12 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) 02:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Indonesian schools abroad

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

    Reviewed during NPP. From a wp:notability standpoint, there are no references which cover the topic as such. Regarding being a list article, there is really nothing that says what it actually is. What is an "Indonesian school"? Without that, IMO, besides failing wp:notability it really has no specific defined content or sourcing that included schools meet that non-existent criteria. North8000 (talk) 01:26, 12 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 Colonial Clash. Daniel (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Bill Knight Trophy

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

    fails

    WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 00:57, 12 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) 02:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Doehling–Heselton Memorial Trophy

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

    fails

    WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 00:33, 12 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_December_12&oldid=1190848011"