Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 12

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 just not seeing consensus here. There doesn't appear to be consensus that the awards are enough, but there is good-faith disagreement as to whether the sources are, and I'm not seeing a strong reason to give less weight to either side. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decadent (band)

Decadent (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)

To quote the article lead:

"Decadent (Korean: 데카당) was a South Korean indie rock band. The band formed in 2016 and disbanded in 2019. Their only studio album, Decadent (2018), was nominated for the Best Modern Rock Album at the 2019 Korean Music Awards."

So we have a band. Formed. Disbanded soon after. Recorded an album. Nominated for an award. Didn't win. No chart placement, no enduring impact or influence. No critical reception. No notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BAND.

And, yes, a WP:BEFORE shows some initial press release derived music media coverage and nothing whatsoever beyond that. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Korea. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Two of the sources in my view are significant enough coverage to pass GNG and thus make it a notable subject. Wikipedia doesn't care about how long a subject was around for or what the critical reception was. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There are already reliable sources, and even if they don't win major awards, they can prove their notability by nominations. This is written in
  WP:MN). Even if the band broke up after only three years of formation, the duration of their activities itself doesn't matter. (If there are sources that can prove their notability) 올해의수상자 (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Wait--you mean the "the Penta Super Rookie" award? Come on. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a competition hosted by
      WP:MN paragraph 8 says that even a nomination for a major award can prove its notability. But rather, I don't know why you describe it as “no award” 올해의수상자 (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • And UPDATE - 2018 EBS Hello Rookie mentioned in the article is also a major competition, and there's the source that they came in third place. I’ll add this later 올해의수상자 (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Things don't become "major awards" just because you say so. Drmies (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know how to answer this… You know that most people here said the Korean Music Awards as a major award, right? 올해의수상자 (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • 올해의수상자, please don't do that passive-aggressive stuff: we're not on Facebook, so that whole "you know that...right?" is uncalled for--thank you. You haven't mentioned that award here: we were talking, I thought, about the "Penta Super Rookie Award", and you brought up the "EBS Hello Rookie Award", neither of which appear to be noteworthy. And with that one nomination, you have a band that meets one of the criteria--and please note that the guideline doesn't say "is notable if it meets one of the criteria". It says may. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hello,
                WP:Band guidelines are applicable, but I think three are (1, 8, 9). And there's a reason why I wrote about it earlier. 올해의수상자 (talk) 03:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
                ]
• Delete. Simply not notable. No two albums on a major label, no hits, no awards, nothing really per GNG besides minor coverage. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I proved somethings with the guidelines of
    WP:MN. No label and no hit, you are right, but not the other two. 올해의수상자 (talk) 04:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete per nom and Drmies's reasoning. To the deletion reviewer, I would be happy for a weak keep if there is charting on SK national chart (i.e. Circle Chart) or on Billboard charts in SK or other countries and/or there is winning of a actual major awards of which there isn't other than absurd article creation of "major competition" as counterargument. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It appears, by sources now in the article, that
  WP:NBAND#C1/GNG is met. Such sources include [1][2][3]. Note that it seems like the album is also notable, but since they only had one major album might as well follow NOPAGE and keep it all in one article. —siroχo 22:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Looking like a No consensus closure right now. Very divided opinion on this band.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per Drmies' reasoning. The band's demonstrated notability isn't there, and neither does it seem that the awards/accolades it has are suitable enough to demonstrate its notability. GuardianH (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This band was definitely a popular band in Korea in the late 2010s, and of course, it was limited to Korea, and it is right to have a source that they were famous in order to prove that they were famous. However, I can't see why they say they're not famous even if they bring a reliable source according to the part required by

  WP:Band

  .

  • Not everyone can have knowledge of articles, which is why there are guidelines like
    WP:Band. When I just say "they're famous" it's not credible, so I'm showing it with reliable sources. But I'm showing they're famous in South Korean indie scene, with reliable sources and awards, but it's not right to comment on deleting simply. 올해의수상자 (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I thought this was enough, but Now I've added more reliable sources. I thought everyone would say keep because the band's notability conditions are met, but I didn't know the discussion would be this long. 올해의수상자 (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sources to add today are reliable sources (4 or 5 I think), especially in the case of Seojeongmingab and Lee Kyeongjoon are professional music critics (you can see the articles like [4], and [5], This article supports that they are influential critics in Korea), and they both are committee of the Korean Music Awards. 올해의수상자 (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I lived in South Korea during their time of fame, and I know they are a famous band in the late 2010s. So I added some reliable sources to the article today. Also,
  WP:Band criteria. 올해의수상자 (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  For everyone information, OP was the one that created EBS Hello Rookie Contest btw so Drmies' reasoning above make sense now. They can't just say it's "major" just because they created an article and/or an article already exists so it automatically become "major" lol. Just my thoughts. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Paper9oll It's not just because the article was made. I'll talk about why this competition can be considered a major.

  1. This competition is hosted by a state agency.

  2. The competition is broadcast on South Korea's major broadcasting stations.

  3. Every year, the competition is covered in a reliable sources, like news

  To sum up, it's "a competition hosted by a public institution, broadcast live, recognised and influential." Even if one of these conditions is met, people usually say it's a major competition. But it has all three. This doesn't make sense if it's not a major competition. 올해의수상자 (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And he didn't know much about this competition. And when he and I talked, this article itself didn't exist. Then I would like to judge again, @Drmies 올해의수상자 (talk) 06:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fyi, my comments is NOT a reply to your comments. Nor did "when he and I talked" happened nor am I interested on such. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't have to answer it 올해의수상자 (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment And, chart can't be the only criterion in Korean indie music. Korean music charts have always been criticized for not properly reflecting marketability and for being too vulnerable to hoarding and marketing outside of music. (You can find this criticism at the following these links [6] [7] [8]) And, that's why "K-Indie chart" have actually been created for the indie music market since 2020 ([9]). Of course, I agree with that charts are also one of the reflections of popularity, so I'm not saying this is wrong, but I'd like to say that indie bands are hard to judge their reputation by just the "charts". That is why I am referring to reliable sources, major award nominations and major competition. It's all included in
  WP: Band. It is a sad reality that I have to put forward only this part to prove the reputation of indie musicians, but there is not much information about Korean indie in English Wikipedia, and I think this part should be pioneered. 올해의수상자 (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: I'll write down a description of the source. There are major and minor references here, but I think it met for
  WP:Band
  . And I wrote the words "major competition" and "prominent professional music critic," and I also prepared a link to them to show that they are often judged that way in Korea, not that I unilaterally claim.

1. [10] Major reference - an interview with the band.

2. [11] Minor reference - this is a critical article about rock festivals in 2019, where a very small reference of the last festival they planned just before disbanding.

3. [12] The record they were nominated for the 2019 Korean Music Awards

4. [13] Major reference - an article about them, interviews with them as well.

5. [14] Major reference - Herald Corporation article, featuring them.

6. [15] Major reference - article by webzine Weiv, and the writer Na Wonyoung is a prominent professional music critic. (link with reference to him (Na Wonyoung) [16][17])

7. [18] Controversial - main or minor references depend on people's judgment. This is an introduction to Marie Claire's 2017 Korean indie albums.

8. [19] Minor reference - article about the Pentaport Rock Festival Super Rookie final winning 3 teams performing at Pentaport Rock Festival. It's an article that the band is one of those three teams, and the reference isn't long.

9. [20] Major reference - a band-themed article. And Seojeongmingab, who wrote the article, is a prominent music critic. (link with reference to him (Seojeongmingab) [21][22][23])

10. [24] Controversial - main or minor references depend on people's judgment. One of their songs was made into a stop-motion music video, and there is an explanation about it.

11. [25] Minor reference - about the EBS Hello Rookie Contest they participated in, but not too long

12. [26] Major reference - also about the EBS Hello Rookie Contest they participated in. There's a long story about them. Of course it's up to people to decide whether to judge for a major competition, but I would say this is a major competition based on the reasons I wrote it down. (The source that this competition can be seen as a major competition [27][28])

13. [29] Minor reference - this is an article about the solo career of a band vocalist. The reference to the band is not long.

14. [30] The record they were nominated for the 2020 Korean Music Awards 올해의수상자 (talk) 09:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a borderline case. Interviews with the band are not
  WP:THREE is satisfied here. First, the VOP reference is six paragraphs dedicated to Decadent's career and the evolution of its musical style. Second, there's the Herald Economy. The second half is an interview with the band, but the first eight paragraphs are an introduction written by the journalist. Third, Weiv is another piece that delves into the band's musical style to a degree significant enough that I believe meets the threshold of "significant coverage". This seems like enough to satisfy any concerns about notability. ✗plicit 02:48, 20 October 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 Hip hop music#Origins. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kool DJ Dee

Kool DJ Dee (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)

Semi-advertorialized article about a hip hop musician, not

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Bearcat (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to a subsection in the history of hip hop might be in order. I find only trivial mentions of this person [31], [32] and [33]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  He's even mentioned in a few items in Gscholar, mostly name drops, but a law journal among others, discussing the legality of sampling music tracks. Oaktree b (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Oaktree on the merge idea. He has contributed to hip hop but he doesn't have the independent sources or media coverage to warrant his own Wikipedia page. Maybe a merge with a page on early hip hop pioneers? Hiphopsavedmylife (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails GNG. Is a pioneer really a pioneer if no-one has given him significant coverage calling him a pioneer in the past 50 years? Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. If you would like to see a selective Merge here, please supply a target article and a particular section would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective merge to
  KH-1 (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  That seems ok. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with
  WP:ATD-M Lightburst (talk) 01:34, 19 October 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!} 07:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ajfan Rasheed

Mohamed Ajfan Rasheed (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)

Can't seem to find anything substantial when searching for this guy, moreover he has never won a BWF sanctioned International tournament, so fails WP:NBAD by far margin. Participation in Olympics is no longer considered enough to be considered notable. zoglophie 07:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Maldives. zoglophie 07:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since subject fails
  WP:NSPORT. -The Gnome (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Most important sportsperson from the Maldives at the 2012 Summer Olympics. Florentyna (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is that enough to get away with GNG? I think not. Just by being a flagbearer, he is not passing those guidelines as per my research, still need some good sources that talk about him in depth. zoglophie^•talk• 20:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the Olympics. zoglophie^•talk• 20:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• There appear to be some results searching his name in Maldivian. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @BeanieFan11:This is just stating the match results in National Championship, this is about a tournament an academy named after him is organising, no biographical details at all. This again is all about match scores. All other sources are the same, either databases or match results. None of those sources in Dhivehi are enough for GNG.

  zoglophie^•talk• 10:23, 11 October 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!} 23:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per The Gnome's reasoning. GuardianH (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. I found the source analysis persuasive and there was no rebuttal to it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphitech AS

Dolphitech AS (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 to meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Norway. Bestagon ⬡ 13:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review my article. I noted your kind feedback and have already added a number of book citations in order to present a wider selection or sources. I tried my best to limit any type of 'promotional' style, but would warmly welcome your guidance or direct edits to improve or remove any inappropriate content. Szchanghong (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The book source that you added appears to be an academic article that was written by a Dolpitech staff member, but doesn't directly discuss the company. I also removed an internal sharepoint link that wasn't accessible to the public from the article. I'd encourage you to review

this for the kind of coverage that I would like to see for a corporation. Bestagon ⬡ 14:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks again! I will work harder to identify significant, reliable and secondary sources. The link you provided is very clear. Szchanghong (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if the article is kept, it should be moved to
  WP:NCCORP. Wikishovel (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Thank you! In the hopes that the edits are accepted, I have moved the current content over to the page Dolphitech. Please advise if there is anything else I can / need to do to keep things in line, and thank you for the kind guidance once again! Szchanghong (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, I think I messed it up - please kindly assist in the speedy deletion of the page I created and I can use the proper MOVE option 9which I am now researching) with my apologies. Szchanghong (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move articles that are in the process of an AFD discussion. It messes up the tool that closes the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry - thank you for checking on my work! Szchanghong (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - References must meet the standard of
  WP:ORGCRIT. Outside of some industry publications, there is nothing that meets that standard. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep vote in here. A lot of editing has occurred since its nomination and I want to be sure the changes have been assessed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Thanks, Liz. I took a look at the edits made since the AfD started and still do not see anything that would qualify under
  WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:49, 1 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!} 23:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is the sort of subject that Wikipedia should have more coverage on, although the article probably needs some clean up. Nothing exemplary but has coverage such as this article https://ffi-publikasjoner.archive.knowledgearc.net//handle/20.500.12242/1162 on the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment website and mentions in a number of scientific reports. They appear to be doing interesting work in the field of nondestructive testing. Yes, rather niche and uninteresting to most people, but important nonetheless. - Indefensible (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That reference does not meet

WP:ORGCRIT. Can you point out the ones that do? There is not guideline to keep a page just because "Wikipedia should have more coverage of it." In order for that to happen, we need to have the sources that meet guidelines.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We need more opinions and assessments here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

1. Business Weekly, routine announcement with information being supplied by the company. It is an announcement of it opening a new location. The wording is even promotional, which indicates churnalism of a press release – “Established in 2009 in Gjøvik, Norway, Dolphitech was formed from a desire to push the limits of non-destructive testing. Driven by a multi skilled R & D team of experts from academia and industry, the company is constantly exploring the capability and application of cutting-edge ultrasonics, bringing proven solutions to market that are easy to deploy and simple to operate.” – Also, this is churnalism (see assessment of reference #9 below).

2. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing via ScienceDirect, an academic paper which has a single mention of one of the company’s products. Nothing about the company itself so not significant coverage.

3. Forsvarets forskningsinstitutt, another academic paper. This one talks about comparison of two of the company’s DolphiCam and that they come from the company. Nothing in-depth about the company itself.

4. Windpower Engineering & Development, Churnalism. This is from a press release which can found (in whole, or “churnalized”) here and here.

5. Composites, more churnalism and not independent. In addition to being a routine announcement, the author of this piece is employed by the company which shows it was likely a press release or that they supplied all of the information for the publication.

6. Manualslib, this is a user manual for one of its products. I do not see how this could be used for notability.

7. Unable to access. This is a sharepoint document titled “THOR Release Notes” which indicates it is not independent.

8. Reinforced Plastics via ScienceDirect, another academic paper. This one states at the top “Jan Olav Endrerud of DolphiTech describes the development of such as system.” Not independent and the article itself is about its DolphiCam and not the company.

9. BINDT, more churnalism or a routine announcement for the company opening a location in the UK. Note that this is the exact same information as reference #1 above.

10. The Epi Centre, same churnalism as #1 and #9. Same information about a routine announcement, same date range, and information likely supplied as a press release or solely from the company.

11. Unternehmensregister, I will concede that I have no idea what this site is or what it is representing for the article. However, there is no content and not in English so I cannot navigate. On its face, I see nothing about the company.

12. CR.gov, a PDF with a listing of a bunch of companies, simply verifying the existence of this company. Nothing in-depth.

13. Dolphitech, this is the company’s “contact” page of its website. Not independent.

14. Book, a book excerpt which on its face appears to be significant. However, it does not talk about the company, just the project. In addition, the authors of the except have email address listed which are to the company (not independent and not significant about the company).

15. Book, another book but this is NOT about the company. I cannot even find where it talks about the product.

16. Indian Defence Review, More churnalism and routine announcement. Reads like a press release and is even marked being writing by “IDR News Network.”

For those who believe that the article on the company should be kept because of the product, that should never be the case. Notability is not inherent. If a product is notable, it should stand on its own. Same for the company. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgi Kobiashvili

Giorgi Kobiashvili (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. Article contains a lot of puffery and the sources aren't adequate to establish notability: a link to his blog, a couple of links to a profile on LatestLY and a press release. A search for more sources mainly brings up social media, like LinkedIn. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 23:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, India, and Georgia (country). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No indication of notability. Fails to meet criteria of

WP:GNG. Not enough sources to confirm intrinsic value of an article. ContributorMix (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• • Keep - This article fits in every standart of biography of an entrepreneur, and by this logic wikipedia has to start deleting all articles about entrepreuneurs. I want to say some words about notability, Indian news agencies are writing articles about this person, he appears in Indian media, even has published an article. His work is spreading globally. About sources, it is not an actual problem, adding sources is the less difficult problem after all of this "charges" for this article, it needs time, and every of users is able to do it, instead of putting some requests in the head of article.----ჯეო4WIKIMessage Me_{Contributions} 15:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Those are too general. If you want your argument to be taken into account, be more specific. Suitskvarts (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE failed to show WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLP require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  01:01, 12 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!} 23:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet
  WP:NBIO. More of an advertisment than an article. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 02:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Entrepreneur means businessman, so routine. Having a blog isn't notable, rest of the sourcing is puffery. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete References seem exaggerated, feels like advertising, doesn't meet
  WP:GNG.Dcotos (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Does not meet our guidelines for inclusion. Lightburst (talk) 16:26, 19 October 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 23:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Korean ruling class

Korean ruling class (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 too broad in scope, and has a lot of issues with prose, POV, and sourcing.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; it's also essay-like and seems like original research. jengod (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for not being encyclopedic. Suitskvarts (talk) 13:56, 18 October 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 Outpost Gallifrey. As this will still leave the history, anyone interested in doing a merge can do so at their convenience. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who: Podshock

Doctor Who: Podshock (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)

Podcast doesn't appear to be notable, no serious sources. William Graham ^talk 22:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. William Graham ^talk 22:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or maybe redirect to
  WP:WEBCRIT. TipsyElephant (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Partial Merge to Outpost Gallifrey, which has sentence about this but could do with a bit more. —siroχo 01:45, 15 October 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 23:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Giridhara R Babu

Giridhara R Babu (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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've restored a fuller but unsourced version from the edit history to facilitate scrutiny. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Top citations in GS are 218,201,188,172,152; several of these are Covid related; if one takes those out, the top ones are 218,152,142,139,113. Some of these are highly co-authored, but others are not. A few years ago, I'd have said this was enough to meet WP:PROF but with the inflated counts that GS now returns I'm not sure. His academic profile page [34] does not appear to list any elected fellowships or similar. It may be a case of too early career? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:NPROF - Altenmann >talk 18:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom fails
  WP:NPROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:27, 18 October 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.

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 fails

• If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. Y She has been covered only for having been kidnapped as part of the Re'im music festival massacre.
• If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Y She is a tattoo artist who has never been any sort of public figure.
• If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. Y Although the massacre as a whole is clearly significant, her role in it was not substantial, as she was one of hundreds of casualties. The use of or in the guideline means that this is sufficient to fulfill this criterion.

The video clip that made Louk famous is covered in a paragraph at

]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

• Redirect to Re'im music festival massacre § Hamas's assault as nominator. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, Judaism, Israel, and Germany. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect /undecided/ per nom.—Alalch E. 21:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - this is definitely a
  WP:RECENT comes to mind. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• speedy redirect as per nom --Tomatoswoop (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

• Delete: Now we're going to see these memorial-type articles, like we did with the war in Ukraine... This person was not notable before the incident, they aren't notable at this point in time either. Very much a run of the mill individual Oaktree b (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:PAGEDECIDE).—Alalch E. 01:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Em um dos vídeos mais chocantes da ofensiva do Hamas sobre solo de Israel…

The 22-year-old tattoo artist was seen in one of the most distressing videos of the weekend bloodshed…

etc.

RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first source linked above includes "confira também" (Google translate: check it out too) links to: "Influencer diz que não faz sexo há 2 anos porque homens se intimidam com beleza" (an influencer discussing her sex life) and "Estrela pornô preocupa ao atingir marca de 900 cenas após quase morrer em filme" (worries of a porn star), and a story about people eaten by a bear, so this seems to be a

WP:DAILYBEAST, which has no consensus for reliability and describes the event as "one of the most distressing videos of the weekend bloodshed." Beccaynr (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep per many precedents for articles on victims that can be found in categories such as Category:Terrorism victims and Category:Murder victims. She is not just any casualty, but the one who has become the face of this conflict in media, comparable to Rachel Scott for the Columbine High School massacre. —Lowellian (reply) 01:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The

  WP:BLPBALANCE,

  The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

  Beccaynr (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Redirect to
  WP:NOTNEWS. Beccaynr (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC) - add redirect target to comment Beccaynr (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  AVOIDVICTIM says: "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." The issue is whether the coverage is sourced, neutral, and on-topic. It means "avoid secondary victimization (through poor coverage)", not "avoid writing about victims". —Alalch E. 04:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Coverage appears to be poor because it is limited, repetitive, and sensationalized, so

  WP:AVOIDVICTIM seems to further support a redirect in addition to the nom's rationale to pare this topic back to a neutral and on-topic summary at the redirect target. Characterizations of this subject as "the face of this conflict in media" or "one of the most shocking moments of the Hamas offensive" or "the most recognizable out of hundreds of casualties" do not appear well-supported by reliable secondary sources at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Redirect to Re'im music festival massacre: Rationale per nom, and notability (of the event) should be passed on to the notability (of the subject) here. – robertsky (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I also note that the article was

  WP:BLAR before by the nom and was reverted by the author almost immediately, therefore the AfD here with the intent to redirect instead of delete I suppose. – robertsky (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Move to
  Kidnapping of Shani Louk or redirect to Re'im music festival massacre § Hamas's assault. I'm between those two. While Shani Louk had many news articles dedicated to her in multiple languages, her story has not really developed enough to differentiate her from all the other kidnapped victims. I'm leaning towards redirecting to the festival massacre, and reassess the situation later if the situation develops. AdrianHObradors (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to the music festival for now, per
  WP:NOTNEWS. If additional sources appear in a few years, then we may want to reassess at that time. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Move to
  Kidnapping of Shani Louk and keep, as the kidnapping clearly received significant coverage by multiple sources. Skyshiftertalk 09:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to the music festival for now, per
  WP:MEMORIAL just in case. Unlike previous cases of Hamas abductions (Gilad Shalit et al.) there are just too many co-victims in one specific sitting for her to be singled out. And unless there may be other factors that make her subsequent status more notable (which I will not discuss since others might get the wrong idea about me), I believe it must remain so. Borgenland (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Events, Terrorism, Internet, Israel, Palestine, and Germany. —Alalch E. 15:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Re'im music festival massacre. Even if we choose to ignore the BLP sensitivity issue that is very much at play here, crimes such as kidnappings are not inherently notable, even if they are widely covered for a brief period of time. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to target suggested above, per Beccaynr. Additionally, as mentioned by Alalch E,
  WP:NOPAGE suggests that even if the event received coverage, it can be covered on Wikipedia within in the wider scope of that article (and this is appropriate per BLP1E). —siroχo 17:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - BLP1E and it isnt even close. nableezy - 22:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keeo The face of the terror attacks. Hektor (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to
  Kidnapping of Shani Louk, as it is widely covered by different sources, and her kidnapping is a notable and shoking part of the Re'im music festival massacre tragedy. The article should be focused on her kidnapping, as that is what is notable. PatrickChiao (talk) 09:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete or redirect - no evidence of notability outside of events here.
  Iskandar323 (talk) 10:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep An important international event, regarding the kidnapping of a German citizen to Gaza, which involves leaders in Europe and the world. In addition, the abduction video of Louk the published all over the world, and was used by Hamas's propaganda, as part of the psychological warfare, which warns of what is to come for Israeli women, as soon as the Palestinians defeat Israel. Luke's story has been published on every international media channel, including
  New York Times etc. ℬ𝒜ℛ (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment The article has been viewed almost 60,000 times in the past two days. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's

  currently in the news (which no one contests). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Recent retrospective coverage, e.g. Slaughter at a Festival of Peace and Love Leaves Israel Transformed (NYT, Oct. 15) does not mention Louk; Seven days of terror that shook the world and changed the Middle East (Guardian, Oct. 14) includes three sentences; What we know about the hostages taken by Hamas in the Gaza Strip and the efforts to free them (Journal.ie, Oct. 15) three sentences; Israel’s darkest day: the 24 hours of terror that shook the country (Guardian, Oct. 13), one sentence; there is also Die verzweifelte Suche nach der kleinsten Spur (

  WP:NOPAGE at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC) - updated to fix error, as noted below Beccaynr (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [reply

  ]

@Beccaynr: The Die Zeit piece is a retrospective piece about Shani Louk's case in the context of the broader hostage situation and has "Shani Louk" positioned on top of the title.—Alalch E. 16:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From my view, the Die Zeit piece, based on a Google translation, seems to emphasize the limited information available about Louk at this time, and a focus on the broader hostage context without specific reference to Louk. The piece includes interviews with her family members, in the context of limited information available and various reasons why information is limited. Beccaynr (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The headline is not what you said, that is only the subheadline. The headline is "The desperate search for the smallest trace" next to a portrait of Louk's mother, clearly referencing the widely publicized case of Shani Louk. So widely publicized that there's no need to even state the name, but for those readers who have missed the news, there is "Shani Louk" spelled out on top of the headline. About 80% of the article is about her case. —Alalch E. 22:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noting my error copying the title - I adjusted my comment above to fix it. Beccaynr (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, thanks for the correction. —Alalch E. 23:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the Re'im music festival massacre, per above. Ornithoptera (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to
  Kidnapping of Shani Louk and keep - same as per Skyshifter. Pg 6475 ^TM 13:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep An important international event, gained ginat public recongnizion around the world. dov (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to
  Kidnapping of Shani Louk. The kidnapping itself was notable, though the person may not be by herself. --Lenny Marks (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep She has become a symbol linked to the attacks that occurred on the first day, more specifically to the Re'im music festival massacre. She is already relevant enough for her biography, which is also available in
  Omayra Sanchez (who were not public figures before their deaths, but became iconic figures that should be covered encyclopedically). Salvabl (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The suggestion that she may become a Floyd or Sanchez is classic

  notability fallacy called out at WP:Arguments to avoid. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Exactly. That is complete non argument and you seem to be drawing conclusions on evidence that doesn't exist. It is complete

WP:OR. She is no more a symbol that any other person involved in this war and per above, it is a argument to avoid Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 08:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I understand your point, but I just mentioned Floyd and Sánchez to illustrate that it is not always necessary to be a public figure before. Determining/measuring the level of relevance is always difficult. Floyd's relevance and Sánchez's relevance are not at the same level; however, I consider that both require encyclopedic coverage. On the other hand, you have state that "She is no more a symbol that any other person involved in this war"; I respect your point of view, but I have to say that she (Shani Louk) is the only kidnapped person in this war whose name is known to me, because she has had a significant coverage, superior to the coverage that has been given to other civilians involved in this war. Salvabl (talk) 10:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. Professional historians would never create such an article like this, because it is far too soon to determine if she historically significant and that is reflected in how poor the references are.

Your statement make no sense and is a completly arbitary and non-standard way of looking at notability. The fact her name is known is not histrically significant and no reflected in modern history and how is it documented. scope_creep^Talk 19:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The references don't support this
  WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 08:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and move to
  Kidnapping of Shani Louk. Had this been a one-off this article may have survived. However, she is one of thousands victimized in a major event and it is likely that she is not the only one undergoing the experiences described at this moment (consider every atrocity dispute in related talk pages). Borgenland (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @Borgenland Hello, you've already !voted in this AfD (October 13). Please strike one or the other comment.—Alalch E. 17:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Gosh I totally forgot about that one. I’d like my first comment removed. Borgenland (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't worry about it. I've struck it. (I don't think it should be deleted entirely.)—Alalch E. 17:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to
  Kidnapping of Shani Louk and Keep as her case has received significant publicity and global media coverage, more than any other single victim, making it notable.Jogarz1921 (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per BLP1E. Thanks ToeSchmoker (talk) 10:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep and move to Kidnapping of Shani Louk. In addition to the wide coverage this has received, including coverage on multiple national-level news broadcasts, editors claiming
  WP:CRYSTALBALL, but I'm sure whenever news of her whereabouts surface, given the high-profile of her brutal kidnapping, there will be more sustained international coverage to augment here. Longhornsg (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The objection is that Louk's role in the

  RSP-yellow) that adds essentially no new information that was not already known shortly after the kidnapping (the stuff cleanly summarized the paragraph at the massacre article), was absolutely not the intention of that criterion. If BLP1E is insufficient to prevent articles in textbook cases like this, it has been nullified to the point of uselessness. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  According to

  WP:THESUN. The source also discusses other missing and kidnapped people. Beccaynr (talk) 20:15, 19 October 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.

Road crime unit

Road crime unit (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)

Weird fork article, no sources, "road crime unit" as an entity completely non-notable (I'm sure there are many individual "road crime units" but the concept / entity as a whole does not need an article. Elshad (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Police, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources or claim to notability. Reywas92^Talk 23:01, 12 October 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.

Thys Nywerheid

Thys Nywerheid (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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa. UtherSRG (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Greenman (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 20:42, 12 October 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.

Texas Shootout

Texas Shootout (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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, United States of America, and Nevada. UtherSRG (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Can't find enough in my BEFORE to even recommend a a merge/redirect, but I am open to revising my vote if someone finds better sources (please ping me if this happens). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 20:38, 12 October 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.

Şanlıurfa Belediyespor

Şanlıurfa Belediyespor (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)

Are clubs at this level notable? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 20:36, 12 October 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 Glossary of motorsport terms#L. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leg (rallying)

Leg (rallying) (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)

Isn't "leg" a general term used in lots of races? Why does rallying deserve a separate article on this? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to
  broad concept article about the concept of "legs" in various games, sporting events, travel, etc. —siroχo 17:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's nothing of value on the article, there is already enough on both rallying and glossary of motorsport terms. This article is getting 0-2 readers a day.

Rally Wonk (talk) 21:15, 16 October 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 Wikt:Outside. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outside (Alaska)

Outside (Alaska) (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 soft-redirected this to Wiktionary (

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Alaska. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: No comment on the article itself, but I strongly disagree with the notion that
  WP:ATD-R make it clear this is allowed, though it can of course be contested. Curbon7 (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: This seems like clear dictionary (not encyclopedia) material to me. As such, deletion or soft redirect as an alternative are appropriate. Cnilep (talk) 08:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll do some additional research in historical records and other material to see if I can find additional references, but right now, I support a redirect. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  talk) 05:19, 14 October 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 (non-admin closure) Lightburst (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)‎.[reply]

Leonard J. Waks

Leonard J. Waks (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)

Does not pass

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Distinguished professorship; Lifetime achievement award from
  WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Clear pass of
  WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Keep. I'm not sure about the distinguished professorship, but citation numbers look like they might be a pass of
  WP:DINC. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The GS citations look healthy for a low-citation area (264,153,136,103,74), all single authored, with a fairly slow drop off thereafter. Reviews of the subject's several books with major publishers have also been presented. Meets WP:PROF and AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per editors above who know what they are talking about. Johnbod (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:MAJORITY is not an argument, I'm afraid. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Phooey! But since, for once, the editors who don't know what they are talking about haven't turned out, further discussion is unnecessary. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. I have no opinion on the Draft article or what should happen to it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine Wren

Sabine Wren (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)

Another one that is entirely universe plotline and should be kept on wookiepedia. Propose revert to previous redirect MicrobiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•cultures)} 19:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sabine Wren is a major character with notability extending beyond the in-universe plotline. The article should be marked as a stub with much potential for expansion, as it does not consider most of her storyline in Ahsoka. Also, Comment:

Draft:Sabine Wren still exists, so it appears that something has messed up in the conversion of the draft to mainspace. TNstingray (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

 Comment: @TNstingray The current content in the article was directly copied from the draft article by IP user 81.34.93.251 (without attribution), who then proceeded to blank out the draft (although its content has been restored later). I think a history merge might be applicable here if the current content in the article was to be kept.

(Side note: Should the AFC submission template on the draft be removed? The "review in progress" one was added by the IP user mentioned above.) Jolly1253 (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC) (Update: The template has been reverted back to "review waiting". Jolly1253 (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep. secondary SIGCOV in
  1. Karen M. Walsh's Geek Heroines: An Encyclopedia of Female Heroes in Popular Culture [46]
  2. Ken Napzok's Why We Love Star Wars: The Great Moments That Built a Galaxy Far, Far Away[47]
  3. Derek R. Sweet and Dominic J. Nardi's The Transmedia Franchise of Star Wars TV [48]
  4. Jason T. Eberl, Kevin S. Decker and William Irwin's Star Wars and Philosophy Strikes Back: This Is the Way [49]

Agree with need for history merge.

—siroχo 21:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per Siroxo's booklist, an abundance of online references (a few of which I've added), as well as the fact that this character returned the Mandalorian Darksaber to royalty and created the artwork (Wren phoenix crest) that was the basis for the Rebel Alliance logo that is used all over Star Wars movies and spinoffs, she is significant enough to have her own page. LovelyLillith (talk) 05:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sabine Wren is a major character with huge notability in many Star Wars productions.

Merlyn26 (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sabine Wren is yet another character in Star Wars. She has not been a main protagonist of any project yet, and has not gained a cult following or have been of significant importance to Star Wars universe to be notable. F.Alexsandr (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Each of these points is demonstrably false. She is a main protagonist of Rebels and Ahsoka, has a significant following, and is of significant importance within the Star Wars universe to be considered notable. TNstingray (talk) 20:42, 19 October 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 Karpno, Bytów County. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kraklewo

Kraklewo (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)

A bot-created article by Kotbot, a bot run by retired user Kotniski. The location in the article is empty forest.

The only source in the article is a link to the Teryt database (the Polish equivalent of

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to
  WP:GNG otherwise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:24, 17 October 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 Idea Factory. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Otomate

Otomate (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; fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 19:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Idea Factory. Possible search term. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 19:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Idea Factory. More appropriate as a subsection there. (There's hardly a subsection's worth of info in the article anyways.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Idea Factory per others due to lack of notability/content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Idea Factory per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:23, 14 October 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 23:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hawk Ravine, California

Hawk Ravine, 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)

Although listed in GNIS as a "populated place", I can't find any evidence this site ever was populated, thus failing

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. No opinion as to notability, but I did find a decent article from
  The Folsom Telegraph dated 23 August 1890 that details a coal mining business established in Hawk Ravine in 1864 that was active still in the 1890s. Presumably the employees of the mine were residing in Hawk Ravine.4meter4 (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Could you provide a link? When I was doing my

  WP:BEFORE I found another Hawk Ravine in Nevada County. That's not the one described in the article...would be nice to know which one the Folsom paper is referring to. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Sure. I accessed through the wiki library: https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/474798284/?terms=%22Hawk%20Ravine%22&match=1 Hope this helps.4meter4 (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I found the article and it's not clear which Hawk Ravine it's talking about. But regardless, it's a passing mention; the article simply gives it as a location and is mostly about the effort to restart a mine. We can't determine anything more without OR, so I stand by my claim that the location is not notable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it a "passing mention" for

WP:SIGCOV. However, if there is more than one Hawk Ravine, California I agree that it's not clear which "Hawk Ravine" is being referred to. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

GEOLAND only gives a pass to legally-recognised populated places. GNIS is not evidence of legal recognition under

WP:GEOLAND, nor is this article. A populated place cannot just inherit the notability of a mine within it. FOARP (talk) 10:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

4meter4, thank you for adding soruces. Going forward could you please provide a link to the source, even if it's paywalled, so that others can find it more easily? Thanks. –dlthewave ☎ 00:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dlthewave I am accessing through the wiki library and that gives urls that are not accessible to the wider public and are not appropriate for inclusion on a wiki page. I'm not sure how I could get a url link that isn't connected to the wiki library. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realized that had changed. As a workaround, you can login through your free personal newspapers.com account after opening it from Wikipedia library and take a clipping of the article. Then, go to the non-Wiki [www.newspapers.com] page, login, go to your Clippings and you'll find the clipping with a shareable link. Not the most elegant solution but it works. –dlthewave ☎ 02:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It says "Under the Guidence of James I Felter of Sacremento" from that we can infer it is the one in california. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both are in California, one in Butte County and one in Nevada County, NE of Sacramento. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, when i read this I thought it was California State & Nevada State. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• as it stands, delete The problem that is obvious to me is that there's nothing here that is inconsistent with Hawk Ravine being, well, a ravine, which is to say a larger area more or less identified with a physical feature. GNIS is bad at this because the people drawing up the maps weren't all that good at it either, so going back after the fact and trying to puzzle out what the map makers meant is even less reliable. This is exactly why passing references made to locate businesses or whatever aren't any good, and in the case of a mine, more often than not the mine isn't in the town if there is one because people don't want to live in the middle of an industrial site. We know that there's some place called "Hawk Ravine", but we don't actually know what it is; we need sources that spell out what it is in enough detail to make it clear that the authors aren't just making the same kind of assumptions that are showing up here. Mangoe (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mangoe. Reliable sources describe a mine and geographic feature, not a populated place, neither of which meet our notability guidelines. –dlthewave ☎ 00:59, 14 October 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) 18:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Bakr

Naomi Bakr (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)

Does not meet the expectation of coverage set out in NSPORT. Subject has two caps for Egypt, but there is no coverage of the subject except for a profile from UC Irvine and a profile in the Orange County Register. Enos733 (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Egypt. Enos733 (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:04, 18 October 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 23:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Osowo Małe, Gmina Lipnica

Osowo Małe, Gmina Lipnica (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)

A bot-created article by Kotbot, a bot run by retired user Kotniski. The location in the article is an empty field with a couple of what appear to be barns nearby.

The only source in the article is a link to the Teryt database (the Polish equivalent of

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seriously, all these articles based on database entries that say only "X is a place at Y coordinates and Z elevation" need to stop. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WeirdNAnnoyed. If a town/village is not notable enough for more detailed information then it is undeserving of a page Yoblyblob (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  WP:IINFO, but that's another discussion. FOARP (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete - Coordinates point to a single farm. –dlthewave ☎ 01:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Pl wiki has a footnote about former names, suggesting some kind of historical significance, even if mostly etymological at present. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. FOARP (talk) 08:40, 17 October 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Baseball Confederation

Atlantic Baseball Confederation (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 summer collegiate baseball league fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Baseball, and New Jersey. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In searching newspapers.com there is quite a lot of independent secondary coverage from the present back to 2002 in the
  WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Do these sources provide reports beyond routine game coverage? It's hard to evaluate these sources when they are not present in the article. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]