Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 9

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Daisuke Miyashiro

Daisuke Miyashiro (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)

Very poorly sourced BLP with no signs of passing

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Argentina. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:47, 10 November 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.

Fernando Suárez (footballer)

Fernando Suárez (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unreferenced non-notable association football player bio. Article does not meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Paraguay. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:46, 10 November 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.

Damián París

Damián París (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 association football player. Article does not meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Argentina. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:46, 10 November 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 14:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos Lima

Marcos Lima (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 bio of an association football player who does not appear to meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There doesn’t seem to be much, if any, WP:Notability here. This doesn’t rise to the level of meriting his own article. Go4thProsper (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:46, 10 November 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MadStone

MadStone (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 was able to find reviews from only two outlets: IGN and WiiWare World. The latter was folded into Nintendo Life, so the NL review is just a duplicate of that one. QuietCicada - Talk 14:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada - Talk 14:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It got a
  WP:OFFLINE review in Nintendo Power: Link and Club Nintendo: Link. As Wikipedia does not ignore sources just because they aren't online, the article seems notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep with the sources given in the above comment. seems ok Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 9 November 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.

Ivan Shavel

Ivan Shavel (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)

Shavel appeared to have a very brief pro career and I can't find any significant coverage per

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belarus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:46, 10 November 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.

Astra Planeta

Astra Planeta (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)

Seems to be a

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 13:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article needs work, but P Aculeius, has found a reliable source for this topic. Paul August ☎ 15:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources only mention the planetae, which are covered at

  discuss 00:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep. Working on it today—needs more sources, and the list will be reworked—but why nominate it for deletion while it was being rewritten with viable sources? That's really unhelpful. P Aculeius (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of your sources mention the term astra planeta outright? The sources you've added don't seem to, and it appears you're rewriting the classical planet article now. We discussed deleting it before you began the rewrite specifically because the term itself doesn't make sense and because it appears to be a creation of the admin of theoi.com. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!

discuss 00:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The title is nonsensical, probably because the article was written without the aid of reliable sources. It can easily be moved to a more appropriate title, and should be—I meant to rewrite and source what I could before moving it, to better justify deprodding the article this morning. Unfortunately, the article was hastily nominated for deletion after I deprodded it, and before I could revise more than the lead section. AfD is not a substitute for a discussion about the article title.

I believe you'll find that this does not duplicate the contents of "classical planet". That's a broad article that discusses the general awareness of the seven planets (including the sun and moon) in various cultures throughout history, barely touching on the knowledge or suppositions of Greek and Roman astronomers, and consisting primarily of tables showing their names in the ancient near east, and cultural/astrological associations from medieval Europe to the present—including astrological symbols, the names of days of the week, and alchemical associations.

This article narrowly focuses on the planets as understood and described by Greek and Roman astronomers, and barely touches on astrology, leaving all of the other topics for "classical planets". Thus far I've really just mined one detailed source, and checked some of the Greek writers it cited specifically enough to cite directly. Other sources are certainly available; I haven't checked Harper's, which sometimes duplicates the structure of articles in the DGRA with variably greater or lesser detail; but there may be further material worth including in the DGRBM under the deities or the writers cited in the DGRA article. It's also likely that modern astronomical sources would be good to cite, at least to compare the Greek observations with current knowledge; but I didn't have time to do that. If someone reads German well, I'm sure some useful details can be found in PW. P Aculeius (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And, I've now moved it to what seemed like the obvious title, so where "astra planeta" came from and whether it can be supported by any good source seems like a moot point. P Aculeius (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove. The article adds nothing to the already existing Classical planet article, unless you count (A) a phony Latin title, and (B) the unsourced notion that these five particular planets were treated as members of a different class than the other two planets. Rwflammang (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The title should no longer be an issue—after spending much of the day rewriting this article, I've moved it to a more appropriate title supported by reliable secondary sources. It does indeed add a great deal that isn't covered by "classical planet", and would be out of place there. Merely because this article could fall under the same scope doesn't mean that it should be merged into it, given that most of that article concerns anything but the discussions and suppositions of Greek and Roman astronomers. There's no good reason to combine the contents of this article with tables showing the names of the planets in various near eastern cultures, the names of days of the week in European cultures, astrological symbols, association with alchemical materials, and soforth. As for the notion that the first five planets were treated differently than the sun and moon, that is both discussed and sourced in the article as it now stands; some scholars did regard them as another type of thing, others didn't. It's a minor point, and really not relevant to AfD. P Aculeius (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect it seems this article is not really related to the original Astra Planeta article now buy something different entirely. It was originally proposed for deletion because the term was a

discuss 01:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Reviewing the article last night and this morning, I decided to look for more information before deciding whether the article should be deleted or not. I didn't find the individual names listed separately in the DGRBM, but I did find all of them listed in the "Planetae" article in the DGRG—which said a great deal of what was in the article already, but more clearly and without a lot of the fluff that probably originated at Theoi.com or whatever sources were consulted by that site's authors.

It seemed apparent to me that the "Planetae" article was about the same subject, just much better and more scholarly. What was called for was to rewrite/replace the messy, unsourced paragraphs with something coherent and organized. But I think it's still the same subject; I don't know where the title "astra planeta" came from, but it's probably just a misunderstanding of something said in a source like the one I used to restructure the article today. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns up in a valid source eventually, although it doesn't seem to be the best or most widely-used name for the subject.

And technically we don't have to wait for anything—the nominator could choose to withdraw the AfD nomination. But it's not a huge deal if it sits here for a week, as long as we're not still fighting about neologisms and hoaxes—it was always a valid subject, just based on a poor source and badly confused under a name that obviously isn't ideal. But valid articles created under bad names are nothing new, and the way to deal with them is by moving them to better names—or if there's disagreement about what the name should be, then a talk page discussion. In this case, the best name seemed obvious, and it wasn't already occupied by another article. There's no advantage to be gained by dynamiting the article, just so that nobody can ever see what it originally looked like. Nobody's harmed because some previous version of an article that was poorly written and sourced is still archived somewhere—even if it's deleted, there's still an archive, just not one visible to or accessible by most editors. And as poorly written as it was, the previous version doesn't need to be hidden away. P Aculeius (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The name "astra planeta" is almost certainly a botched translation of "wandering star" by a neopagn who doesn't understand Latin. As I've mentioned, it does occur in some scholarly sources -- but these sources seem to have used theoi.com and the Wikipedia page.

As to whether I can withdraw the AfD -- I actually can't, so long as there are "delete" votes. So @

discuss 09:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Consider my vote stricken. I can't really recall how to do that formally. Rwflammang (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have obviated both of my objections, (A) and (B), and added quite a bit of information to boot. Issues involving any potential merges or name changes should be discussed seperately, i.e. elsewhere. I am sorry that your rather outside-the-box solution to these problems caught me unaware. Rwflammang (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Due to the work of P Aculeius this article is well worth keeping. I don't see any problems with it being separate to Classical planet, as that article seems to be different in content and scope. To what degree this actually constitutes a "keep" of the "Astra planeta" article is debatable, as the current article is no longer really about the same topic, the supposed group of mythological personifications who are children of Eos and Astraeus (an invention of Theoi.com). The original article should have been deleted, but with the recent changes it now covers a genuine encyclopedic topic, and there is no reason for this current article to be removed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this new

discuss 01:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The subject of the article as it stood before I started working on salvaging it seemed to be the same as the current subject of the article. It was just buried in a mess of disorganized and unsourced details, some of which seemed random or improbable—additions to the basic topic from Theoi.com or somewhere else. But the core of the article was always the five (or seven, or ten) planets discussed in Greek and Roman sources, so I don't think it's relevant that the old title was potentially a neologism (we don't know for sure, and the point is moot now).

A hoax would be if the subject were made up out of thin air, or if the authors made up the details as they went along. But the subject clearly wasn't made up, and if the details came from a poor source, that still doesn't make it a hoax. The solution was to replace poorly-sourced and slightly incoherent or nonsensical material with what scholarly sources had to say on the topic. It doesn't matter that the previous fluff is still part of the article history; if poorly-sourced, unsourced, incorrect, or incoherent points made on Wikipedia rendered articles forever contaminated, we wouldn't have an encyclopedia at all. We don't need to cover up poor research; the goal is to improve the encyclopedia, not hunt down and erase heresy. P Aculeius (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I believe Wikipedia has a duty to "cover up" poor research if it is misleading and I believe that our article has misled a number of people, even in scholarly and academic publications. Put simply, there is no such thing as the "astra planeta" and we should no give any currency to such an idea. Here I'm concerned about the redirect, rather than the Planetae article which is undoubtedly worth keeping. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!

discuss 10:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Since no articles link to the redirect, I've deleted it. Paul August ☎ 14:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, and it looks like @

discuss 14:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep but do not redir. The original title had me all geared up for Delete, but the rewrite and new title make for a strong article with real potential for improvement over time. Even a redirect on 'Astra Planeta', though, needs to die quick and quiet. Bad neo-Latin is like fingernails on the blackboard of my soul. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was ‎ keep. Consensus emerged that the rivalry is sufficiently described as such in the sources provided by Frank Anchor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diamondbacks–Dodgers rivalry

Diamondbacks–Dodgers rivalry (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)

Having frequent divisional matchups does not make this a notable rivalry Spanneraol (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arizona and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's maybe a paragraph of content here that's useful and that can be mentioned on the team articles. The rest of the content can be found on multiple articles. This is mostly FANCRUFT. Nemov (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes
  WP:GNG with several sources independent of either team that describe the teams as rivals and have small levels of detail of a rivalry that is more than a simple routine mention. Sydney Morning Herald LA Times Christian Post KPNX. Frank Anchor 14:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Those sources are describing instances of conflicts between players on the teams and labelling them as a rivalry. As I discussed in another deletion discussion, though, sports journalism such as this has a promotional goal. It is explicitly trying to ramp up interest in the games between the teams. We retain the ability to decide the best way to cover important events in a team's history. I do not feel that Wikipedia is best served with independent rivalry articles to cover every pair of competing teams that have had instances of conflicts between their players. isaacl (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  These sources pass GNG because they are significant (i.e. describe the teams as "rivals" beyond more than simple routine mentions), reliable (coming from notable media outlets), and independent (not directly affiliated with MLB or either team). GNG does not have any stipulation that sports journalism which allegedly has a promotional goal and explicitly [tries] to ramp up interest in the games between the teams should be excluded. Further, the above sources describe history of this series as a rivalry as a whole, rather than focusing on a single moment or brief series of moments. Frank Anchor 16:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Some sports journalism articles are non-promotional, while others are promotional, either in whole or in part. They have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. isaacl (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I originally was expecting to vote delete, but there appears to be enough
  WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I agree with your point. The Diamondbacks-Dodgers rivalry has garnered significant coverage, with reliable sources to make neutral claims. And while I may be a D-Backs fan, I have made notable contributions to articles like these following the 2023 postseason which are written from an unbiased and neutral point of view. I do also like the compromise you suggested: if the article is deleted, it should at least have a redirect to the MLB Rivalries page about D-Backs VS Dodgers. RainbowRunner2000 (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Frank Anchor's sources and also some additional sources I found here: 12News, ESPN, and Chicago Tribune. Conyo14 (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The 12News source is the same as the KPNX source. I don't have access to the Chicago Tribune article. The ESPN article is a game account from 2019 where there was a disagreement between players and the benches cleared, and the article also refers to the pool incident from six years before that. I feel the use of the term "rivalry" is in the general sense of "tempers were raised by player conduct", and is more promotional than analytical of an inter-franchise rivalry. The press likes to expand the concept of rivalry to cover any case where there is a physical encounter between players, as it attracts readers. isaacl (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I rechecked the Chicago Tribune link and it worked fine for me. Maybe disable JavaScript. Also, I did not realize the 12News and KPNX articles were the same. Finally, the ESPN article... perhaps you're right, but you cannot deny that media always builds up these kind of incidents. Then along with, player and coach spouts, the two teams can become rivals along with fans fueling further hatred. This article is also not super recent compared to the 2023 editions I'm getting hit with. I'll continue to search though. Conyo14 (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Found another: OC Register. I will admit that rivalry articles should have some scrutiny surrounding their beginnings. Especially since it's mostly FANCRUFT. However, if SIGCOV exists, then it's a little hard to deny this. Conyo14 (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The Tribune article was paywall blocked for me earlier; maybe some free limit cleared just now as I was able to see it. That article is about Kurt Gibson complaining, and the author is arguing that these events are manufactured controversies, not an indication of rivalry. The OC Register article (which I was only able to read for a few seconds before the paywall block came in) covers the pool incident.

  Yes, I agreed that the sports press promotes these incidents, as per its promotional goals. Wikipedia editors can decide, though, that there's a better way to cover team histories than giving independent articles covering incidents between every pair of teams, which amounts to providing a degree of promotional coverage for them. isaacl (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Considering the recent playoff matchup between the two teams and the historical battle of free agency; I feel like the rivalry still has some relevance. Considering the pool incident in 2013, the sweeps for both sides in the NLDS; you still have a decent case to argue that it still presents animosity between the two. PontiacAurora (talk) 05:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just meeting each other in the playoffs a few times does not make a historical rivalry. You could make articles like that about every playoff or divisional opponent, doesn't mean you should. Spanneraol (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the 2013 pool incident is a notable contribution to the stiff contention between the teams. Granted, the rivalry may not be overly historical considering the D-Backs are still one of the newest expansion teams (debuting in 1998), but the fact there are often split crowds at Chase Field when D-Backs play the Dodgers at home goes to show how high the stakes are when they face each other. RainbowRunner2000 (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or it just shows that a lot of Dodgers fans live in the Phoenix area. Spanneraol (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move to
  Dodgers–Diamondbacks rivalry: Pretty one sided rivalry, it seems more like the Diamondbacks wishful thinking, but Frank Anchor and Conyo14 refs above show this meets GNG per WP:NRIVALRY. I also found [5], [6], [7], so I think this makes the article well past WP:THREE. The reason for the move is obvious.  // Timothy :: talk  03:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Rivalry article names have to be alphabetical. I think it's a MOS:TITLE thing, but don't quote me on it. Conyo14 (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless there is a team from Los Angeles, then the LA team is always first ;)  // Timothy :: talk  03:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One Missed Call (TV series)

One Missed Call (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)

Appears to fail

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to One_Missed_Call_(2003_film)#Sequels_and_remake, where it is mentioned.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. TH1980 (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to
  WP:BEFORE was done in Japanese here, if any at all, but this is part of an ongoing trend of this editor listing nationally-televised Japanese series for deletion. There doesn't appear to be any effort here to change course despite the fact that these articles are not being deleted, and I find I am unable to keep up with the repeated nominations even though the deletion requests are not going through (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rasen (TV series), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kagerō no Tsuji: Inemuri Iwane Edo Zōshi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love of My Life (Japanese TV series), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kekkon Dekinai Otoko). Dekimasuよ! 03:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or !merge if that's the decision, I'm ok with it going that way. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Unless we can find Japanese language sources, I can only find items about movie online. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Dekimasu was right - there was a review out there. Notable per a British magazine review cited in the Spanish Wikipedia article. (The German, Japanese and Chinese articles were inadequately referenced). I have added it to the reference section.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:00, 10 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lesly Moncayo Fajardo

Lesly Moncayo Fajardo (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 GNG and NBAD. Timothytyy (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Colombia. Timothytyy (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - can't find any suggestion of meeting
  WP:GNG looks to be failed. BWF has no professional matches registered at all, which is hugely damning, let's be honest. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete Delete for the reasons mentioned above. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:54, 9 November 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) 13:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luisa Valero

Luisa Valero (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 GNG and NBAD. Timothytyy (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Colombia. Timothytyy (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clearly doesn't meet
  WP:GNG on its own. I note that BWF says that she played 8 matches in her professional career and lost every single one. I'm not seeing any reason to consider this person to be a notable sportsperson under the new higher standards. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Unless we can find more extensive sourcing, this is all I bring up [8], trivial mention. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 9 November 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.

Mert Tunço

Mert Tunço (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 GNG and BASIC as no SIGCOV found. Fails NBAD too. Timothytyy (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Badminton and Turkey. Timothytyy (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:44, 9 November 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.

Céline Tripet

Céline Tripet (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 GNG and BASIC as no SIGCOV found. Fails NBAD too. Timothytyy (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Badminton and Switzerland. Timothytyy (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Coverage in .ch sources is simply match reports, I can't find anything substantial. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 9 November 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.

Yusuf Ramazan Bay

Yusuf Ramazan Bay (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 GNG and BASIC as no SIGCOV found. Fails NBAD too. Timothytyy (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Badminton and Turkey. Timothytyy (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kalia, Togo

Kalia, Togo (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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and failing

WP:NGEO. Hongsy (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - Google Earth: there is nothing there - no village, no road, no house. Clearly an erroneous entry in the gazetteer used as a reference.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. (Please ping me if any reliablle sources are identified.) 20:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Persecution of Germans (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)

To be frank, this might be the single worst article I've ever read on Wikipedia. The bulk of it was written over 15 years ago and hasn't changed much since. It is a mess of unsourced assertions,

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and History. Grnrchst (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Anti-German sentiment as per suggestion above. Cortador (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Anti-German sentiment; there isn't much substance here to merge. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, or probably better to redirect directly, to the "Anti-German sentiment" article. Article doesn't seem to have much worth keeping to be honest. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Anti-German sentiment per above discussion. We don't need 2 articles on the same topic and this is the weaker of the 2.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Anti-German sentiment, keeping whatever is worthwile.--Srleffler (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Anti-German sentiment, rather than merely redirect. That article is a much more substantial one on much the same subject, but this one has a little additional material. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (selectively) as above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:03, 14 November 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.

Mohammed Al-Marri

Mohammed Al-Marri (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 can't find any significant coverage in Arabic, no evidence of

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:46, 10 November 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. Two relists and, as per Stifle's last, there is no consensus for any action here - either relating to the article being deleted or indeed the article being reframed as about the event. Further discussion about the latter should take place on the talk page. Daniel (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Issam Abdallah

Issam Abdallah (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)

Seems like a pretty clear case of

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies, Journalism, Israel, Lebanon, and Palestine. An anonymous username, not my real name 14:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator comment: Obviously this is very much not a BLP; I meant to cite
  WP:BIO1E, whose rules are essentially the same. An anonymous username, not my real name 02:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Keep: WP:BIO1E states that "When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." Given that there is no article about the killing of Issam Abdallah, this policy does not seem like grounds for deletion to me. Since Abdallah was an accomplished journalist who provided breaking or exclusive coverage of other significant events, it seems more appropriate to write an article about his life as a whole, rather than the event which led to his death. An article about him also fits better within several category pages such as Category:People killed in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war and Category:Deaths by Israeli airstrikes. I do think that other sources should be added to the article highlighting his other journalistic work - specifically, the Reuters articles about the 2020 Beirut Explosion and the surrender of ISIS fighters which he provided notable photojournalistic coverage of. Unbandito (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is very much a notable topic here, whether or not the page is more about the man or more about the event.

Iskandar323 (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator comment: @
  Iskandar323: I still don't see why this individual needs his own article. The event is certainly notable, but it killed others as well, and that even if it had only affected him, the article would still be best focused and named for an event, not styled as a biography. Could we perhaps discuss moving instead? If there is any support for this idea, I am willing to clean up the article to be better suited to whatever title it is moved to. Anonymous 02:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  He was the only journalist killed in the incident, while six other journalists were injured. I agree that a page for the event could exist, but I am not convinced that adapting this biography is the best way of creating such a page - not least since there is now an extraordinary amount of coverage out there about Abdullah, and it warrants a standalone page.

  Iskandar323 (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I still don't understand why adapting this biography wouldn't be the best way to go about such an endeavor. No matter how much coverage Abdullah gets, it is still primarily about the circumstances of his death and the reactions to it, not about his life, which is discussed in one obituary. Anonymous 14:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you actually done a

  Iskandar323 (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Yes, and I performed a few more searches just now since you brought it up. I have consistently failed to find anything published before this month about Abdallah. I don't want this article to be deleted, but I do want Wikipedia's standards of notability to be upheld. Anonymous 00:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We've established that the event of Abdallah's death was notable. He is also credited for his photography in Reuters articles from the 2020 Beirut Port Blast and the 2019 surrender of ISIS fighters at Deir-Ezzor, as well as other articles. [9] [10] [11] [12]

  If his previous work as a photojournalist is not notable, this is not a sufficient argument for deletion. The article should, at most, be renamed something like "Killing of Issam Abdallah". If it were, it could still be linked under relevant categories such as Category:People killed in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war and Category:Deaths by Israeli airstrikes by keeping the links in those articles as they are. Unbandito (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, and I admit that I was mistaken in nominating this for deletion. I think that moving is indeed the best course of action. However,

  WP:JOURNALIST, as they do not qualify as secondary coverage. Anonymous 02:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I'm not 100% opposed to renaming it as something like "Killing of Issam Abdallah", but I'm not a huge fan of such titles either. All in all, that's best left to a naming discussion. But I still think the real solution here is to create a page on the shelling of the whole journalist team on the border, which has now been the subject of considerable external investigation. And these probes aren't just about Abdullah or his killing, but the entire incident. Incidentally, if you want to wrap this up quick and move onto an RM then you can always withdraw this nomination given that there has been no support for it thus far.

  Iskandar323 (talk) 04:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• The page was created by a banned editor (
  WP:CSD#G5. —Kusma (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The speedy tag was removed because I overlooked Iskandar's nontrivial expansion. —Kusma (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails BIO1E as a biography, fails NEVENT, NOTNEWS, LASTING as an event. No objection to a consensus redirect.  // Timothy :: talk  08:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per BIO1E as TimothyBlue points out. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 10:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but move the page to "Killing of Issam Abdallah." RisingTzar (talk) 12:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to clarify, I agree with TimothyBlue & Researcher in that this does not qualify as a biography. It is more suitable as an article solely on the killing, similar to what was done with Killing of Shireen Abu Akleh. RisingTzar (talk) 12:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move to
  WP:BIO1E they will see it is not a valid deletion rationale, and that what it calls for is covering the notable event instead of creating a biography (The general rule is to cover the event, not the person). Every BIO1E delete argument is a misrepresentation of policy and should be ignored. This is widely covered and meets GNG in spades. Among the sources showing in depth, sustained coverage are Oct 29: RSF initial report: Reuters journalist was killed in Lebanon in 'targeted' strike, Oct 14: Reuters journalist killed in Lebanon in missile fire from direction of Israel, Oct 13: Israeli attack in southern Lebanon kills journalist, wounds several others, Oct 13: Journalists Killed and Maimed in Israel-Lebanon Border Strike, Nov 6: Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza war, Nov 6: A deadly month for a press at war. Oct 16: UNESCO Director-General deplores death of journalist Issam Abdallah in Lebanon Oct 13: A Reuters cameraman is killed and six other journalists are injured near Lebanon’s southern border.. This has received sustained coverage since it occured, and it will continue to do so as Reporters Without Borders has launched an investigation and will be presenting findings in the future, which will lead to more coverage. nableezy - 13:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  WP:LASTING  // Timothy :: talk  14:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I have shown lasting coverage up until today. Making that, while an actual deletion rationale, one that is inapplicable, and can only be used if one refuses to look at the sources showing lasting coverage. Why are you refusing to look at the sources showing lasting coverage?

  WP:NOTNEWS is about routine coverage, are you under the impression that, according to Reporters Without Borders, a professional army targeting a group of reporters is a routine event? nableezy - 14:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The notability is extremely clear, and it's pretty obvious that if this content were at

  Iskandar323 (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  One more from the last 18 hours, BBC on another Israeli strike killing a journalist includes on Abdallah

  In Lebanon, prominent Reuters journalist Issam Abdallah was killed when covering Israeli rockets fired over the Israel-Lebanon border on 13 October. He was part of a group of journalists near the border town of Alma al-Shaab in southern Lebanon when he was hit by a rocket. Six other journalists were also injured in the strike.

  Shortly before Abdallah was killed, he posted on Instagram a picture of himself wearing a helmet and a flak jacket with the word "press" written on it.

  Six other journalists, including from Reuters, Al Jazeera and Agency France-Presse, were wounded. One of them, Reuters video journalist Maher Nazeh, said the teams "were filming missile fire coming from the direction of Israel when one struck Abdallah as he was sitting on a low stone wall near the rest of the group", according to a report published by the news agency.

  IDF spokesman Richard Hecht said the army was "deeply regretful for the incident" and was "actively investigating it" without saying that Israeli military was behind it.

  The claim that this does not have sustained, in depth coverage is quite simply not true, and if somebody repeats that false claim after having the evidence presented to them then their !vote should be given exactly 0 weight here. We can either argue based on substantiated facts or we can make things up to achieve whatever result we want, such as, as a totally random example, suppressing material on Israeli strikes on journalists. I will choose the former option, and I welcome discussion with anybody else that does so. nableezy - 14:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I agree with fellow Wikipedians' assessment of the article as a BIO1E. EytanMelech (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  BIO1E is not a deletion rationale. nableezy - 14:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes it is  // Timothy :: talk  14:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, and anybody can read

  click and read themselves. nableezy - 14:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  1E does not give a pass on satisfying notability criteria because the subject was involved in an event. It does not say there should be a stand alone article about the event if the subject fails BIO.

  It states, "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person" and when this is evaluated as an EVENT instead of a BIO (which fails 1E) it fails

  WP:LASTING

  .

  No objection to a consensus redirect  // Timothy :: talk  20:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have shown lasting coverage from the time of the event until now. You have simply proclaimed it fails without any evidence and while ignoring the evidence that refutes your position. You have also claimed a policy that says news coverage of routine events applies to a non routine event that has sustained in depth coverage. I leave it to a closer to evaluate the strength of those arguments. nableezy - 11:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. BLP1E is a weak argument to me when Reuters publishes an extensive obituary. He may have been a Reuters employee, but news orgs don't routinely publish obituaries for non-notable employees; this, combined with the other coverage, is more than enough for me. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think it's worth relisting to tease out whether there is a consensus in favour of making it an article about the event rather than the person. If I closed now it would be as no-consensus with no action.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and keep current title. When the body of article extensively covers his killing and the aftermath/investigation, then it can be renamed or a spinoff article. But right now, this is a short article on a notable journalist who certainly is topic of increased interest due to his killing. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TimothyBlue. \\ Loksmythe // (talk) 15:55, 16 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bashir Abubakar

Bashir Abubakar (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

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 10:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I have fixed some malformatted syntax in the nomination. No opinion or comment on the article itself at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Bashir Abubakar is a Nigerian public figure a Nigerian custom officer who rejected millions of Naira who received National Award.from president of the Federal Republic Of Nigeria Muhammad Buhari he Contested for Governor in Kaduna state. keep the article Pape2023 (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - clearly notable. I just added 6 refs including two BBC News items.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: While there are concerns of uncited texts, deletion is not clean-up. I see multiple coverage in independent reliable sources. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  keep

  It has independent reliable source.Bashir Abubakar is a public figure he is eligible to be in Wikipedia. Pape2023 (talk) 11:52, 11 November 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 Bids for the 1992 Winter Olympics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Albertville bid for the 1992 Winter Olympics

Albertville bid for the 1992 Winter Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

Contested PROD. There's nothing much on the page which isn't already stated on Bids for the 1992 Winter Olympics and I'm not seeing sufficient coverage to meet the GNG. It is possible it exists because I don't speak French - however I don't see that we need multiple forks with the same information. As an ATD we could redirect to 1992 Winter Olympics given that much of the information is also repeated there. JMWt (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Olympics, and France. JMWt (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to
  WP:NOPAGE. —siroχo 09:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge per siroxo. Does not meet NOPAGE criteria as needing more than the Bids article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. --Egeymi (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Taj04 (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rewa–Bhopal Vande Bharat Express

Rewa–Bhopal Vande Bharat Express (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)

Rewa - Bhopal Vande Bharat Express page should be deleted as there is no confirmation regarding it is confirmed or not. Secondly, government had already extended Rani Kamlapati (Habibganj) - Indore Vande Bharat Express till Rewa Rani Kamalapati (Habibganj)–Rewa Vande Bharat Express Taj04 (talk) 06:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, India, and Madhya Pradesh. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: Redirect to Rani Kamalapati (Habibganj)–Rewa Vande Bharat Express. It is the best way. In case if the government starts a train on the same route, redirect can be removed.1.39.114.158 (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  if possible so redirect it permanently till gorvernment introduce. earlier same thing before you one person also did this change but again this page was made. So request to redirect the page if possible. Taj04 (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per above: feasible search term. There is nothing official about the future of this service. But there are chances that this will be introduced in near future. Thilsebatti (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So request to close this delete discussion and Redirect this link till further government notice. ~~ Taj04 (talk) 01:48, 10 November 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!} 05:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BestPrice

BestPrice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable company that does not meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Vietnam. Jamiebuba (talk) 06:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Not finding any SIRS sources in English language. —siroχo 09:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Websites, Cambodia, and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An article on a company, created on a new account's 11th edit. Distinguishing this from similarly named companies in Greece (which was the subject of the previous AfD), India, etc. BestPrice Travel is clearly a company going about its business in the Vietnam-area travel market, and gaining sector top-10 awards, etc., which fall under trivial coverage at
  notability. AllyD (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]