Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 7

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eggshell planet

Eggshell planet (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 this article is much more developed than the version deleted in 2021 (so ineligible for

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Comment Although
  WP:NEO, To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term. There is no doubt the pop media sources discuss the term and concept in detail, so I think NEO is a non-issue here. Darcyisverycute (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Indeed, there's nothing inherently wrong with popular science sources. The concern here is that they all report almost exactly the same thing around the same time and are based on the university press release. Even though some of these sources are independent of the subject, they are not really independent of each other: per

  WP:N, It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. ^Complex/_Rational 14:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Thank you for the explanation. Looking at the pop media sources again, I'm inclined to agree with your reasoning, so I will retract my !vote. Darcyisverycute (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Whether the article is titled "Eggshell planet" or "Very thin lithosphere planet" it is too soon to have an article on this scientific topic. This is work by a single research group. Their paper, a model calculation arguing such planets are theoretically possible rather than a discovery, is a primary source. Wait until there are secondary sources in peer-reviewed journals. The press coverage is all based on the press release put out by the university:

Ogliore, Talia (November 10, 2021). "Tread lightly: 'Eggshell planets' possible around other stars" (Press release). Washington University in St. Louis. Retrieved January 8, 2024..

Universities love to do such press releases. All the sources in the current article are either from the authors of the original paper or date from the publication of that press release. StarryGrandma (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice against a later recreation if and when this becomes an actual, established scientific term rather than a concept from one research group that managed to get their press release churned. XOR'easter (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Google scholar only finds one paper using the term in this way, and that describes the research that spawned the press release that all the sources are based on.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul the Venetian

Paul the Venetian (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)

Paul the Venetian is one of the lesser known Masters in Theosophy. There is a serious lack of reliable sources from academic or historians that have covered Paul the Venetian. All of the sources on the article Bailey, Leabeater, Prophet etc are entirely unreliable. I would say per lack of independent reliable sources this article is not notable and should be deleted. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Unlike other Theosophy-related topics recently nominated for deletion (Master Hilarion, Lucifer, Coulomb Affair), for this topic I found no reliable independent sources that treat the subject in depth. Without such sources, we cannot write an article that adheres to Wikipedia's policies of neutrality and verifiability. Jfire (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this due to
  reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 19:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iqbal Mohammed

Iqbal Mohammed (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 couldn't find any mention of the subject in any reliable sources. None of his short films listed in the article received reviews or awards. Does not fulfill notability criteria. Broc (talk) 15:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Broc (talk) 15:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No mentions of his short films that I can find, working as a pharmacist isn't notable here. Also, sourcing used is simple announcements of the film's premier or primary items. Oaktree b (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The second source is _maybe_ acceptable, but the other two definitely are not
  WP:BLP. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Roady (Mousquetaires)

Roady (Mousquetaires) (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)

From this and its French WP article, plus a Google search, I couldn't find enough to show they meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 09:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Churchill, Renville County, Minnesota

Churchill, Renville County, Minnesota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article does not meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Minnesota. बिनोद थारू (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the 1967
  USGS topo map shows just a handful of buildings but there is a notation "town hall". --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Delete per James.folsom. This makes sense -- looking at many old maps, it looked like there was never a community there so this explains the town hall. Thanks for the information. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The townhall you see there is for the township and has nothing to to to with Churchill. The last standing structure from the town was a church that was razed 2008. It had been built in a small settlement called Churchill in 1890. Even knowing this information doesn't allow for the discovery of anything notable about the place. It's might as well be an archeological site now.James.folsom (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The 1920 Polk's says

  CHURCHILL, Renville county. A settlement n. w. of Hector on the C M & St P Ry the banking and shipping point and po which see for names

  That's all that I have. I cannot find anything joining the dots from the 1920s "settlement" to the 1995 co-op pig farm, or to Joseph Churchill from 1857, or to the 1916 Churchill Creamery, Hector that gets a passing namecheck in the History of Renville County. These are so far apart in history that they could conceivably be coincidental, and not even in the same place in the county. Uncle G (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • two links that might help. https://www.thehistoryhandbook.com/2021/churchill-methodist-church-near-brookfield/ and https://www.wctrib.com/news/renville-county-to-raze-churchill-church-building-has-fallen-into-disrepair-over-years There is a decent chance that creamery from 1916 is the same as the one mentioned in the first link.I recollect a news article saying Churchill faded out in the 1900s, so by 1916 the creamery would be associated with somewhere else. Note the cemetery is reportedly in Hector as well. *:James.folsom (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Churchill is listed as a settlement, village, or community in multiple sources, including several early 20th century history books. The name appears as both Churchill and as Church Hill, which is why some editors may have missed discussion of the settlement in two 1916 history books. I have expanded the article. More work will follow. Several of these sources include
  significant coverage of the community, including discussion of the church, creamery, rail site, school, and a major 1904 storm which damaged many buildings. Additionally, the Minnesota Department of Transportation estimates Churchill still has a population of 20. There is much history here between the late 1800s and 2008, when the Renville County Historical Society decided to end their stewardship of one of the last original buildings in Churchill. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment It is not notable because it exists see WP:GEOland"A feature cannot be notable, under either WP:GNG or any SNG, if the only significant coverage of the feature is in maps," and "Even the smallest geographical features usually may be found in numerous reliable sources: you can easily see creeks in maps, sand banks in navigation guides, hamlets in census tables, etc. There may be hundreds of them. They do provide reliable information about the subject. However this guideline specifically excludes them from consideration when establishing notability, because these aggregate sources tell us nothing about why a particular object is distinguished. Still, they do contribute to the satisfaction of the requirement of verifiability." Additionally, All of the references in that article that are not maps or gazetteers are also not applicable because they only mention Churchill in biographies, news articles and websites. If you read these sources you will notice the subjects in all of them are people, churches, creameries or storms. None of those sources have Churchill as the subject and this is inherently required for a source about Churchill to be significant. See WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention," and WP:SIGNIF. The notable subjects occurring in relation to Churchill, also do not make it notable. See: WP:GEOLAND "Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events." The best thing to do would be to move this to an article about the church.James.folsom (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Improvements make it clear this is was an actually existing populated community. Carrite (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There has been an incredible update and sourcing just this month. It went from a one-sentence blip, to full-page history content that goes back to 1876, complete with 3782 characters (603 words) from 15 sources, and a file map image of Churchill. Looks really good. — Maile (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Maile. The sourcing will continue. The Renville County Historical Society met for years in Churchill, and they have access to a ton of offline sources, which they are now sharing with me. I'm supposed to be receiving a package this week. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep former village Lightburst (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie Hack

Ellie Hack (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)

Was a soft deletion but was recreated. Hack fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per last AFD and salt. GiantSnowman 19:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As the article has only been soft-deleted once, salt seems very much like overkill to me. Nfitz (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep" There is one feature article in She Kicks magazine; all other sources of length are from the various teams so are not independent. She Kicks probably would not be enough for me except that I found many mentions where she made the only goal and/or the winning goal of the match. This coverage is from reliable independent sources. I realize these are mentions, not significant coverage (which is why I am not bothering to add to the article), but they demonstrate ongoing coverage of her career as well as the key role she has on these teams. If the decision is not to keep this article, may I suggest moving it to the draft space for more development? I suspect there are more sources, I just have not figured out what British newspapers or magazines cover women's football. Rublamb (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rublamb, the She Kicks page is a routine transactional announcement and does not contribute to notability (all signings/departures are reported, and these are derived from press releases from the football clubs so are not independent anyway). Match reports are also considered routine game coverage and discounted by NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are sufficient third person sources to justify that this article has notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Those are brief mentions in match reports which you know isn't significant coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The "feature article" in She Kicks is a 4-sentence (including quote) routine transactional release and does not contribute to notability at all. Routine match reports also do not contribute. No evidence of actual SIGCOV.JoelleJay (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Debate is leaning delete but relisting for another 7 days in case additional sources appear and to see if further contributors assist with forming a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Pro player. Carrite (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: Subject currently lacks the needed
  WP:GNG, not because they have a pro career or because they are a young player. It is reasonable to believe that this subject may receive additional coverage in the near future though, so putting this in draft space to allow interested editors to work on it seems like a fair solution. Let'srun (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I don't think there's any point in draftifying a one-sentence-plus-infobox stub article just in case more sources might appear soon. It's easy to recreate if they do. -- asilvering (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2024 (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!} 22:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Still playing for the Lewes football club per recent websites, but simply confirming she exists isn't enough. These are simply match reports on the team's website. Oaktree b (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there's (at least) two half-decent references in the article. She get's other coverage for matches, such as this. Nfitz (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That is a one-sentence mention in a match play-by-play. It does not count toward GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I never said it counted towards GNG, at least by itself. I did say there's two others. Nfitz (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Draftify (if that's what you want to do). The best source has three non-quote sentences and the rest of the sources are one sentence passing mentions in game recaps. That is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is a
  WP:Biography of a living person and I hope everyone realises that while articles from mainspace often get deleted, these WP:Articles for deletion discussions remain accessible on the Internet forever, permanently linked to their name. To the article creator and re-creator @Dwanyewest: Although you are probably have the best intentions in your advocacy of this player on Wikipedia, you also have to consider that an underdeveloped stub about a football player is sure to be a lightning rod for controversy, and triggering this type of extended discussion where various editors debate and dissect their existing media coverage simply fuels more chatter on the Internet that isn't all that positive. The fact that one of the most active Wikipedia editors from WP:WikiProject Football and associated task forces is recommending that this article is not only deleted but also "salted" underscores that another possible consequence is that the player would essentially not be eligible for their own Wikipedia article in the future. I'm not sure what the right solution is here – I initially recommended draftification to allow the article creator and other editors to further develop the article and publish it in the future when more meaningful coverage about the player is found – but if there aren't enough editors to get behind that, then maybe the solution is to simply delete it, just so we can put this protracted discussion to rest and try to minimise any further embarrassment and annoyance to the living person(s) to whom this name belongs. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: The first reference contains the only secondary source comment that her training is “regular”.
  #2, an interview, is entirely non-independent, #3 is very brief and non-independent, #4 brief routine mention of facts, #5 first three paragraphs are facts, not secondary source content, until paragraphs 4-5 that are direct quotes from her coach, not independent, and too close, #6 is sideline routine coverage of the game.
  #7&8 are just data, primary source material.
  everything reported could be summarises as facts in a table, there is no in depth independent secondary source coverage. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Agree with SmokeyJoe's source eval above. Sources in the article and found in BEFORE are mill sports news, database listings/name mentions, nothing that meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  08:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with the source analyses above by SmokeyJoe and JoelleJay. I don't think that SALT is needed at this stage, though. That said, Hack is clearly not in the public eye given that she has only played 2 games this season and 8 the season before in a second tier semi-pro league. She is still young so if she does work here way up to WSL and put herself in the public eye (and gain the
  WP:SIGCOV that would usually come with) then maybe we can look at restoring this in future, although I would prefer Draft and AfC at that stage, personally. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Caspian Oil and Gas Exhibition and Conference

Caspian Oil and Gas Exhibition and Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a conference run by the Azerbajain government to promote itself and its resources. There is no independent reliable sourcing on this subject. It is purely covered by outlets linked to the Azerbajain government. Thenightaway (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – per nom. In addition, there are unsourced claims + ref spam, so
  WP:TNT in spite. TLA (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was no consensus‎. Feel free to re-nom at a time when there might be any input. Star Mississippi 23:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Stalinsky

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

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

As per reasons elaborated in the message box: WP:NPOV, WP:NOTCV, WP:CITEKILL, WP:NOTADVERT, and egregious and consistent violations of the Manual of Style—MOS:PUFFERY; MOS:TERRORIST, etc. The article was written by Justinimg, whose only contributions on Wikipedia have been to this article, and to the article for Interface Media Group, with whom Stalinsky is affiliated. The account in question clearly either belongs to an individual paid by Stalinsky to write the two articles, or likely Stalinsky himself (WP:COI). Despite efforts by such users as Horse Eye Jack to remove the most egregious puffery, what is left still consists entirely of unreliable, one-sided, weasel-worded, unreliably-cited, puffed up advertisement. This stands unfixable due to WP:GNG; no independent and reliable sources exist, and those published in reliable sources are authored by Stalinsky himself, and most reliable and independent sources regarding MEMRI TV make unsubstantial references to Stalinsky, if any. yaguzi (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It appears that the article was written by Shadegarden in 2013. Justinimg expanded it in 2016-17. GoingBatty (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the 2013 article was 4 paragraphs and Special:Diff/654062278/789152138 is a tenfold expansion that removed all four of those original paragraphs and orphaned their sources in Special:Diff/728981405, it is not unfair to say that Justinimg (talk · contribs) wrote the article. Uncle G (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Radyo Katipunan

Radyo Katipunan (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)

There does not seem to be significant coverage by independent reliable sources. MarioGom (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. MarioGom (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The station is more of a community radio than a college radio. All the sources in the article are secondary. The first source talks about the station. The rest of the sources talk about the station's programming. That said, the article is good enough to pass
  WP:GNG. ASTIG😎🙃 10:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Meets
  WP:GNG per Astig's argument. Sources mentioned are reliable enough, secondary and in-depth IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Satid Sri-Uthai

Satid Sri-Uthai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:SPORTCRIT - no sources given. Just being on a team does not make someone notable by default. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. We aren't a database. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above; I was unable to find any meaningful in-depth coverage about this individual.
  Left guide (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete – Fails in
  WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Jews

Notable Jews (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)

We already have Category:Jews, it doesn't make much sense to list them all on a page. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Judaism. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Indeed. We also have articles and categories for individual subgroups like Mizrahi Jews and Category:Mizrahi Jews. -- asilvering (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: this looks like someone's homework. We have well over 2,000 Jews in the various Jews categories. Category:Jewish Nobel laureates alone includes more people than this article lists. I'm sure this list was well intentioned, but it doesn't belong here. Owen× ☎ 22:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. SilverLocust 💬 22:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete I created the site because it would be easier to research and learn more about these people. It's more convenient to have a page with these people in sorted categories. Sites like List of Israeli Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews are mixed and it requires more time to learn about the actual heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OctoGreeko (talk • contribs) 22:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OctoGreeko You are allowed sub pages to your user space. I have created User:OctoGreeko/Notable Jews work page - just work to your heart's content on that page, then it won't matter if the original list is deleted here. — Maile (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OctoGreeko It will be a lot less convenient when it has thousands and thousands of people on it! I hope Lists of Jews, which was linked below, helps you with what you're doing? -- asilvering (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. OctoGreeko (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Should be moved to userspace if the author finds the list convenient, but I agree it isn't doing any good in mainspace. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No set criteria other than "notable" would be someone who qualifies under the WP BLP guidelines. Ajf773 (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. It's also worth noting that in addition to the category, we have Lists of Jews. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These are usually quiet attempts to eventually either create an
  attack page or end up being derailed into one, which is the most likely result here. Categories handle it well already. Nate • (chatter) 23:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I'm sorry, but how exactly would I "attack" someone with a list? Why should anyone even consider this possibility? OctoGreeko (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Not you personally, but as someone who has to deal with list vandalism consistently there are bad actors that take articles like this and warp the original editor's intention into something else entirely. Nate • (chatter) 21:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand. OctoGreeko (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  content fork. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Samurai Troopers (Ronin Warriors) CD Dramas

Samurai Troopers (Ronin Warriors) CD Dramas (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)

While Ronin Warriors or Bandai_Namco_Filmworks#1980s may be a viable ATD, I'm not sure BLAR is the best course of action for an 18 year old article. There may be sourcing, but I'm having trouble finding any due to the age of this drama Star Mississippi 21:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. Star Mississippi 21:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:GNG - no sources given whatsoever. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Investments of Azerbaijan

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

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

This is a bizarre article. Half of the article is a badly written version of Economy of Azerbaijan and the other half mentions without any sources a few investments by SOCAR. If there is any content worth keeping, it can be merged with those two articles. Thenightaway (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Economy of Azerbaijan: No independent notability. Owen× ☎ 21:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is unlikely that people will ever search for "Investments of Azerbaijan" specifically, so there's no need for are redirect. Cortador (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with above. -- asilvering (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect to Investment in Azerbaijan#Azerbaijan Investment Holding. TLA (talk) 06:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan Investment Holding

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

)

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

This was an Azerbaijani state initiative from 2020 that a COI account immediately created a Wikipedia page for. There is no independent reliable sourcing for this organization. The article is solely based on Azerbaijani government communications. Thenightaway (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Investment in Azerbaijan: not notable enough for standalone article. Owen× ☎ 21:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge with Investment in Azerbaijan so that the information can be saved (but condensed a bit to make it potentially less biased) and the article can be recreated in the future (with hopefully no COIs) if someone wants to. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect as suggested. There is no any proof of notability. My very best wishes (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect‎ to Argus Press#Argus Specialist Publications. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Gamer

Computer Gamer (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 list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:GNG
  . Either way, I think it's worth having a redirect with a one-sentence blurb or so about the magazine, in case anyone wants to look up the magazine in the future and see a bit of info on it.
  This is what I found that addressed the magazine directly:
  • "Games Mag Closes", Crash No. 41, p.10 - Short article about it and ZX Monthly closing [1]
  • What Poke? Spectrum Arcade Players Handbook - A short blurb about it closing [2]
  • All other sources I could find that addressed the magazine directly were about one sentence long[3][4][5][6][7]
  • There are also two unreliable sources that I'm leaving here in case others see these magazines and think they are reliable - they look to be self-published e-magazines created by a YouTuber, with no editorial oversight[8][9] - Whisperjanes (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the publisher seems fine, the magazine was only around for two years, so likely won't have much more written about it at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support a redirect. EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them) (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CJ International House

CJ International House (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 separately notable enough for its own article imo; no academic or news mentions i can find about it.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete College dormitories definately don't meet WP:Geoland Run of the mill place that doesn't merit an article WP:run-of-the-millJames.folsom (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails
  WP:GNG - no sources given for why this place is notable. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete This is one of those articles which could be re-written to be notable if any additional sourcing exists, but given the language barrier I'm not sure if it does. SportingFlyer T·C 07:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sulaiman Shah

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

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

This individual is not notable, and does not receive

Was initially tagged for PROD with the above rationale, but the tag was later removed by

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, Mongolia, and Iraq. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:
  WP:ATD could be a redirect to the similarly named Suleiman-Shah or Suleyman Shah, who seems to be significantly more notable. A redirect (sans merging) to the siege article is also an option. Curbon7 (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. I don't think any ATDs are reasonable in this case. -- asilvering (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There is barely any coverage, let alone anything significant. The entry was unsourced until 2020, when an IP added some background information that doesn't specifically pertain to the subject. Aintabli (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Appears to be a minor figure in the siege, most of what's now in the article is about the siege and not this person. I can't find anything either. Oaktree b (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WQEK-LD

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

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

Subject does not meet the

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Advertising, Mississippi, and Tennessee. Let'srun (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It's the typical
  significant coverage. Surviving that 140-plus article AfD really says more about the inherent impossibility of such a large bundled nomination succeeding than on the merits (if any) of retaining this particular article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails GNG and NORG/CORP. Found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. No objection if a consensus redirect emerges, but I can't find one I think is useful.  // Timothy :: talk  13:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 18:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious (video game series)

Delicious (video game 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)

No indication of notability and referenced by primary sources (official websites and Facebook posts), tagged for nearly a decade. Looking through the

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Couldn't find any RS, seems like it may be
  WP:SPAMPAGE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I coudn't find RS either. Now, delicious is a difficult name to filter out. So if someone is more succesful than me, I am happy to reconsider. Until then, my conclusion is that this is not notable. gidonb (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even starting from their website doesn't give any help finding reviews - it's so non-notable they appear to barely have a marketing team? -- asilvering (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E-government Development Center

E-government Development Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The page is intended to promote a recently created "e-government" initiative by the Azerbaijan government. There is no reliable sourcing of this organization or anything that otherwise indicates that it's notable. Thenightaway (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  promotional material since creation. The two Azernews sources have significant coverage and seem that they could be independent, but none of the article's material is about that, and I can't find other sources. Possible language barrier to finding sources. Darcyisverycute (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: yet another non-notable Azerbaijani government body article created by a likely COI/SPA/UPE. Owen× ☎ 22:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University of Technology, Jaipur

University of Technology, Jaipur (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 notability guidelines. The only secondary source I can find beyond the routine coverage in the article (half of which is inaccessible regardless) is [10] talking about the university getting blacklisted for scholarship irregularities. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Asia, India, and Rajasthan. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your link doesn't work. --

vuo (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Fixed. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We have always kept universities established by statute. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article could do better, but its notability is not in question. --Bedivere (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Universities typically have inherited notability, IIRC. However, article is slightly
  WP:PROMO at the moment, could use cleanup. TLA (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

DZPA-FM

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

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. A redirect target could be Bandera News Philippines. MarioGom (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. MarioGom (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails GNG and NORG/CORP. Found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. No objection if a consensus redirect emerges, but I can't find one I think is useful.  // Timothy :: talk  13:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was merge‎ to List of women artistic gymnasts. Selectively as noted herein. Star Mississippi 18:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of current female artistic gymnasts

List of current female artistic gymnasts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This list purports to be a directory of currently competing gymnasts, but the newest reference is more than three years old. Most of the entries are redlinks, and many are probably children. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Lists of people. pburka (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Anything with "current" in the title will instantly become out of date. Those who think this list is important might like to suggest adding a column for "years active" to List of women artistic gymnasts, which currently has a column "Dates" which means "Date of birth (and death)". PamD 09:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any list with so many red links is also vulnerable to links turning blue incorrectly - as to Annie Young (politician, died 2018). I'll dab that link now. PamD 09:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, though of course the creator of that, and any, article, should have done a check of "What links here", to pick up on any stray unintended incoming links. PamD 09:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with List of women artistic gymnasts, merging only blue-linked articles that meet the list criteria. The target page could do with a bit of maintenance too. Ajf773 (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. ''Flux55'' (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with List of women artistic gymnasts, per above/nom merging only blue-linked articles that meet the list criteria.  // Timothy :: talk  13:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

)

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

No significant coverage in RS. Could be redirected to List of GMA Network stations. MarioGom (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. MarioGom (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails GNG and NORG/CORP. Found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. No objection if a consensus redirect emerges, but I can't find one I think is useful.  // Timothy :: talk  14:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Alex Ozols

Alex Ozols (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

]

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}}.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and California. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have recently created a page for the lawyer Alex Ozols. I understand your concern about the perceived lack of notability in the referenced cases and the absence of information about Ozols in the references. I would appreciate it if you could take the time to review the references more closely, as you'll find instances where the cases are indeed notable, and Ozols has been mentioned in reputable sources and TV news for his significant contributions. He is widely recognized for his legal expertise, particularly in high-profile cases involving individuals such as San Diego business executive Gina Champion-Cain, Cruz Marcelino Velazquez Acevedo, Marine Gunnery Sgt. Pablo Cortes, and Tieray Jones. Please refer to the sources listed below for your thorough review:

• https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-smuggle-mexico-totoaba-fish-bladder-restitution-2013nov03-story.html
• https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-xpm-2014-jan-02-la-me-ln-marine-shooting-20140102-story.html
• https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/sd-me-jones-lawyers-20161222-story.html
• https://timesofsandiego.com/uncategorized/2016/12/22/man-accused-2002-death-stepson-gets-new-attorney/
• https://truecrimedaily.com/2017/01/27/stepdad-charged-in-2002-murder-of-2-year-old-jahi-turner/
• https://www.courthousenews.com/mystery-remains-in-hearing-on-toddlers-disappearance/
• https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/jahi-turner-tieray-jones-dna-recording-phone-call-san-diego/124309/
• https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-ex-husband-pleads-guilty-service-dog-theft-2016mar15-story.html
• https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/district-attorneys-office-identified-the-wrong-man-how-that-mistake-could-ruin-his-life-forever/1966215/
• https://www.10news.com/news/team-10/man-says-he-was-charged-with-a-crime-he-didnt-commit
• https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/veterans-missing-service-dog-wasnt-stolen-ex-husband/2020282/
• https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/service-dog-stolen-from-vista-found-in-texas/509-c1eba849-ee10-410b-b888-c1a36256d6f4
• https://www.bet.com/article/ie80po/surveillance-footage-shows-teen-drinking-liquid-meth
• https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/gina-champion-cain-accused-loan-fraud-san-diego-business-investor/1964290/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schounrich (talk • contribs) 11:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• — Schounrich (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep There is no apparent justification for the claim that Alex Ozols lacks notability. He contributes regularly to various news outlets, with credible sources, including, providing ample biographical information. Putting aside specific details, Ozols is a legal analyst on national TV media, backed by legitimate citations from national newspapers. A comparative review of American media commentators and lawyers meeting Wikipedia's standards reveals that Ozols is on par with many listed individuals. I am open to enhancing the article to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines and seek guidance for constructive contribution, emphasizing the need for consistent standards to maintain the platform's credibility. I am receptive to improving the article based on your suggestions for a collaborative and mutually beneficial effort.Carindem (talk) 10:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• — Carindem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep I appreciate your attention to the notability assessment of Alex Ozols. Contrary to the suggestion that the references provided fail to meet WP:GNG, I would like to emphasize that Alex Ozols, a notable lawyer, has garnered substantial coverage in reputable news outlets and made several television appearances. These references extend beyond mere directory listings, providing a comprehensive view of his legal expertise. I am more than willing to offer a detailed breakdown of Mr. Ozols's notable cases and achievements, along with corresponding references, to demonstrate the depth of his impact on the legal field. You can find some of the links below that can verify the notability of Alex Ozols.

• https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/veterans-missing-service-dog-wasnt-stolen-ex-husband/2020282/
• https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/service-dog-stolen-from-vista-found-in-texas/509-c1eba849-ee10-410b-b888-c1a36256d6f4
• https://timesofsandiego.com/uncategorized/2016/12/22/man-accused-2002-death-stepson-gets-new-attorney/
• https://truecrimedaily.com/2017/01/27/stepdad-charged-in-2002-murder-of-2-year-old-jahi-turner/
• https://www.courthousenews.com/mystery-remains-in-hearing-on-toddlers-disappearance/
• https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-xpm-2014-jan-02-la-me-ln-marine-shooting-20140102-story.html
• https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/sd-me-jones-lawyers-20161222-story.html
• https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/jahi-turner-tieray-jones-dna-recording-phone-call-san-diego/124309/
• https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-ex-husband-pleads-guilty-service-dog-theft-2016mar15-story.html Pierrestik (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• — Pierrestik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete. Unfortunately, the "keep" arguments do not seem to be based on an understanding of Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
• The references cited in the article start with a biography written by Ozols himself, followed by an interview on the web site of a university to which he has a personal connection, and they continue with pages which don't even mention him, others which only briefly mention him or quote from him, non-independent sources, and so on... none of them are substantial coverage of Ozols in independent sources.
• 14 references are given above by Schounrich; those given by Pierrestik are just a selection of those from Schounrich, and add nothing new. All of them are just reports of court cases in which Ozols acted, and they vary from one brief mention of his name as a lawyer acting in the case to a few quotes from what he said in connection to the case. None of them is anything like substantial coverage of Ozols.
• Apart from the list of references, the comments from the three "keep" accounts include such statements as, for example, "you'll find instances where the cases are indeed notable", which is of course not the same as a lawyer acting in the case being notable, "Ozols has been mentioned in reputable sources and TV news", but being mentioned isn't enough. Then there are just assertions of notability without evidence, such as "has garnered substantial coverage in reputable news outlets", but as I have tried to show, no evidence of such substantial coverage has been provided. JBW (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I concur with the nom and JBW - there are no sources that satisfy all three of
  WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Disagree See my argument below that Ozols meets SIGCOV and is covered by RS. Stellarnelson (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep I read through both the keep and delete arguments. Now let me get to the nominator's comments:

1. GNG is a very vague guideline, and it certainly isn't clear that Ozols doesn't meet GNG.
2. As for SIGCOV, it isn't clear that he fails SIGCOV either. This is plenty of coverage, so we can't say that Ozols doesn't meet SIGCOV guidelines. Here's an excerpt from the article: "Alex Ozols has appeared as a television and print legal analyst for CNN,[34] MSNBC,[35] Fox News,[36] CBS News,[37][38][39] Crime Watch Daily,[40] Good Morning Britain,[41] One America News Network,[42] Newsmax,[43] Cinncinati Enquirer,[44] CBC News, ABC News and NBC News." These are all RS, not conspiracy theory or obscure spam websites.
3. There are 7 notable legal cases that Ozols had played key roles in, all with plenty of significant media coverage.
4. From a notability standpoint, Ozols certainly is notable enough, see my points #1-#4 above. Check Category:Lawyers from San Diego carefully, and you can see that Ozols is just as notable as many of the other lawyers in San Diego with their own Wikipedia articles. Furthermore, whether there are PROMO (doesn't look promo to me), UPE/COI issues remains to be seen, and should be dealt with separately.

Stellarnelson (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC) — Stellarnelson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@

WP:GNG is vague, but none of the experienced editors on this AfD have had any trouble interpreting it (every single one is voting delete). Rules-lawyering will not help you here. What will help your case is if you can find significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. I have no idea whatsoever why you think that excerpt you have quoted in your #2 point counts as significant coverage; it very plainly does not. Appearing as an analyst is not significant coverage of a person. Is there biographical coverage of this person or their cases in independent sources? That's what you need. -- asilvering (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

JoelleJay (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above, All I'm seeing here is
  WP:PROMO TLA (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atakum Dam

Atakum Dam (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)

Search for sources in Turkish produces no results. Dam not included in the official list of Turkish dams cited in the External links section. Dam likely to be known by another name but no basis for keeping this article. Mccapra (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Turkey. Mccapra (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is more than one dam in Atakum. But neither Karakavuk nor Kurugökçe nor the one above OMÜ (Aksu) are notable in my opinion. Chidgk1 (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I couldn't find any evidence of notability. Owen× ☎ 20:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although dams are notable structures, it is impossible to verify about this dam. Neither any source exits nor it could be verified by geographic coordinates in map. nirmal (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of GMA Network radio stations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DXYK

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

)

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

No significant coverage in RS. Can be redirected to List of GMA Network radio stations. MarioGom (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. MarioGom (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: Nothing found with SIGCOV that would support a stand alone article. Name mentions, promo, database listings, are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV. Redirect per nom as an WP:ATD.  // Timothy :: talk  04:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect‎ to GMA Network (company). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYSS-TV

DYSS-TV (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)

There does not seem to be any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. This could be redirected to GMA Network (company). MarioGom (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. MarioGom (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is one of the oldest TV stations in the Philippines outside Metro Manila, and it's one of the major originating TV stations of GMA Network. -Cutieboy2023 (talk) 08:49, 08 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind pointing out the independent reliable sources that support notability as a standalone article (not as part of GMA Network? MarioGom (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect: Nothing found with SIGCOV that would support a stand alone article. Name mentions, promo, database listings, are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV. Redirect per nom as an WP:ATD.  // Timothy :: talk  04:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. without a viable target as there was with gymnasts, no ATD Star Mississippi 18:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of current National Football League staffs

List of current National Football League staffs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a corporate directory of the various teams that make up the

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and American football. pburka (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Clear violation of
  WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The info here can be found on the team articles as is so no need for any type of merge. Let'srun (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I've found listings of teams staff useful at times when looking for articles to create; maybe we could project-ify this by moving to something like Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/List of current National Football League staffs? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NOTDIRECTORY of mostly non-players nor managers/coaches. Ajf773 (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect‎ to Theosophical Society Pasadena. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise (magazine)

Sunrise (magazine) (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 non-notable occult magazine, since being created in 2006 not a single reference was added to the article. I believe deletion is valid per lack of independent reliable sources. Not seeing any evidence this magazine is notable. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Spirituality, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Jfire (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• ATD: Redirect to Theosophical Society Pasadena to help the reader (and keep page history.)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was a redirect to HDMI#Licensing‎. TLA (talk) 05:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HDMI Licensing

HDMI Licensing (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 no sources Isla🏳️‍⚧ 18:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, Technology, and California. Isla🏳️‍⚧ 18:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete sounds like a potentially notable article (by the title), but you are correct, no sources that I can find. Geardona (talk to me?) 18:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to HDMI#Licensing as a viable search term. HDMI article also mentions HDMI Licensing, LLC. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to HDMI#Licensing: I can't see this getting expanded beyond its one sentence. Owen× ☎ 20:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per the above. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian blues

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

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

This article appears to promote specific bands. It doesn't provide any history of, or notability for, an "Indian blues" genre of music. Brian Kendig (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Brian Kendig (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:TNT. Nothing salvageable from this directory of non-notable musicians. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom Idiosincrático (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

DF Music Organization

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

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

No sources of information or official company resources MaxBokstf (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 17:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Organizations. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Russia, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete other than a few
  WP:SELFPUB, no sources at all. TLA (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was merge to Saiful Azam. Clear consensus. Also, there seems to already be most of this article's content under Saiful_Azam#Service_with_the_Pakistan_Air_Force_(1960–1971), feel free to add on to it if appropiate. TLA (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan-Israel Dogfight (1967)

Pakistan-Israel Dogfight (1967) (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)

It seems like a small incident in a much larger conflict and could be Deleted or at best Merged to Saiful Azam as it is already mentioned in less detail at Six-Day War. If the consensus is that it should kept, I think a different title might be appropriate as Pakistan wasn't a major participant in this war. This also might be a borderline contentious topic as while Pakistan isn't an "Arab" country, this subject did involve an Arab-Israel conflict. I don't deal much with articles in the contentious topic area so I thought a discussion would be best. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Aviation, Pakistan, and Israel. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. New article about two airplane downings on different days. Not on one military operation as the article suggests. The downings were by the same pilot and that is already mentioned everywhere, including in his biography. No need to rehash that yet another time as misleading
  WP:OR. gidonb (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to Saiful Azam - this article is about two incidents in which he was involved. Marokwitz (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Saiful Azam. Content worth keeping. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The information is already at the target and the merge suggestions, while well-intended, do not address the concern that we would create a redirect from a non-existent military operation. gidonb (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge only sourced content to to Saiful Azam. Completely unneeded CFORK.  // Timothy :: talk  04:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect‎ to Annie Besant#Works. RL0919 (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ancient Wisdom

The Ancient Wisdom (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 occult book written by Alice Bailey. No references for a stand alone article. Not seeing any reliable secondary sources that cover this book in detail. Deletion per lack of reliable sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC) Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this book is by Annie Besant, not Alice Bailey... Ingratis (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:ATD: Redirect to Annie_Besant#Works.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect‎ to Tallapragada Subba Row. Sandstein 19:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

T. Subba Row Collected Writings

T. Subba Row Collected Writings (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 non-notable Theosophy book with no reliable references on the article. There is no academic coverage of this book. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Tallapragada Subba Row there is no properly sourced material for a merge, the book is already in the target article. Even if some sources are found this is still an unneeded CFORK.  // Timothy :: talk  04:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 19:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WJDP-LD

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

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tennessee. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This is another one of those stations licensed in an early 2010s filing window that has only ever carried national services without really attaining
  significant (or any real) coverage. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete The owner's website is in Flash, and Edge Spectrum has pretty much been a tolling abuser since the mid-2010s, so this has no true N at all outside actually getting on the air before Edge got their hands on them. Nate • (chatter) 01:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WCTZ-LD

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

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tennessee. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nothing is here to indicate this station meets the
  WP:NBROADCAST was still a guideline. Let'srun (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: More-or-less another
  NMEDIA is actually surprisingly irrelevant — even in 2015, the tide had already turned against the notability of stations that had yet to go on the air, and that incarnation of the article was actually userfied, where it somehow remains to this day. (Though nominally about the same topic, the current article is not associated with the previous article.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect‎ to Annie Besant#Works. Star Mississippi 17:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Study in Consciousness

Study in Consciousness (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 non-notable work by

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Psychology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:LIBRARY or elsewhere. This purported review turns out to actually just be a reprint of the publisher's promotional description of the book. Jfire (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
  flap copy
  , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Newspapers.com.

   The review was published in 1905, so it is in the public domain

   . The review notes:

   A very remarkable book by Annie Besant entitled "A Study of Consciousness" has been recently published, and this volume is a valuable contribution to the literature of philosophy and ethics. Mrs. Besant regards the entire solar system as the field of human evolution, and her study of the unfolding of consciousness in human life through this vast evolutlonary space is one of such profound significance and wide scope that it may be truly regarded as an epoch-making book in latter-day literature. Mrs. Besant teaches that the solar system comprises seven great modifications of matter; that on three of these (the physical, emotional and mental) the normal evolution of humanity proceeds. On the two succeeding planes—those of wisdom and power, the distinctly spiritual life—or the life of the spiritual rather than of the bodily consciousness begins; whereas the two latter of the seven planes (the sixth and the seventh) are so spiritualized that the physical body must be discarded before the individual can enter on them. "The first five planes," says Mrs. Besant, "form the field of the evolution of consciousness, until the human merges in the divine. The two planes beyond the five represent the sphere of divine activity, encircling and enveloping all, out of which pour forth all the divine energies which vivify and sustain the whole system. They are at present entirely beyond our knowledge, and the few hints that have been given regarding them probably convey as much information as our limited capacity is able to grasp. We are taught that they are the planes of divine Consciousness, wherein the Logos, or the divine Trinity of Logoi, is manifested, and wherefrom He shines forth as the Creator, the Preserver, the Dissolver, evolving a universe, maintaining it during its life-period, withdrawing it into Himself at its ending."

   When one has achieved the higher evolution of the spiritual self he can not longer live in the dense atmosphere of any lower plane.

   This work is—perhaps inevitably—largely technical in its construction, but it richly repays a careful study. Mrs. Besant considers the formation of the atom, spirit matter, the sub-planes and the planes; the astral bodies, the desire-body, the thought-body, and other forms; the dawn of consciousness on the astral plane; the many aspects of consciousness, as the real and the unreal; the sub-consciousness, the waking consciousness and the super-physical consciousness. We find Mrs. Besant explaining that waking consciousness is limited and conditioned by the physical brain so long as one is in the physical body, and thus any injury to the brain interferes with its manifestation. "However highly developed may be a man's consciousness," says Mrs. Besant, "he is limited by his brain so far as its manifestations on the physical plane are concerned, and if that brain be ill-formed or ill-developed, his waking consciousness will be poor and restricted. As self-consciousness grows more vivid on the physical plane it enriches with ever-increasing rapidity the content of consciousness on the union?" Mrs. Besant notes, and she adds:

   "When the Self has grown so indifferent to the vehicles in which he dwells that their vibrations can no longer affect him; when he can use them for any purpose; when his vision has become perfectly clear; when the vehicles offer no opposition, since the elemental life has left them, and only the life flowing from himself animates them; then the Peace enfolds him and the object of the long struggle is attained. Such a one, Self centered, no longer confuses himself with his vehicles. They are instruments to work with, tools to manipulate at his will. He has then realized the peace of the Master, the one who is utterly master of his vehicles, and therefore master of life and death. Capable of receiving into them the tumult of the world and of reducing it to harmony; capable of feeling through them the sufferings of others, but not sufferings of his own; he stands apart from, beyond, all storms. Yet is be able ever to bend down into the storm to lift another above it, without losing his own foothold on the rock of the Divine, consciously recognized as himself."

   The exposition of the super-physical consciousness as given by Mrs. Besant in this volume is one of exceptional interest and value.

   "Super-consciousness is," she writes, "a great complexity, and covers a large number of phenomena. Dream, as said, is part of it; so are all the workings of the astral consciousness asserting themselves as premonitions, warnings, visions of happenings distant in space or time, vague touches from other worlds, sudden intuitions as regards character or events; also all the workings of the mental consciousness, lower or higher, that appear as intuitive grasp of truths, sudden insight into casual connections, inspirations—mental or moral—flashes of genius, visions of high artistic beauty, etc. These irruptions of the super-consciousness into the physical plane have the character of unexpectedness, of conviction, of imperious authority, of lack of apparent cause. They are unrelated, or only indirectly related, to the contents of the waking-consciousness, and do not justify themselves to it, but simply impose themselves on it."

   The closing of the avenues of the physical senses opens the avenues of the super-physical senses, and "distant occurrences are seen; vision pierces through physical barriers, far-off speech becomes audible." This book is one of intense interest and of exceptional importance to all students of philosophic thought and the phenomenon of life.

2. "In Occult Realms. Mrs. Besant's New Book on Theosophy Is Out. "A Study in Consciousness" She Calls It—Good For Scientist and Layman Alike".
   Newspapers.com.

   The review was published in 1905, so it is in the public domain

   . The review notes:

   "A Study in Consciousness," Mrs. Annie Besant's newest book on theosophy, is one of the most important contributions to the science of psychology put out in many years. Any book from the pen of this famous writer and lecturer on the occult would attract the instant attention of the earnest student. But a production such as the present one, which is the result of ripe experience in a realm that holds vital interest to the thinker, is bound to leave a strong impress upon the literature of the day. With the wave of advanced thought that is spreading over the Western world becoming more pronounced year by year, and the great scheme of theosophy being grasped more clearly, the mysteries, so-called, of the "other side" of life and the "science of the emotions" taking on a new meaning, there has arisen a demand for a wider exposition of the "Wisdom Religion" adaptable to the use of the public. In her new book Mrs. Besant apparently seeks to fill this want. The result is an array of facts and a fund of experiences that will appeal not only to the student of the occult, but to the general reader. She analyzes the forces of will, desire and emotion, shows the effect upon the human being when these powers are left to work at random, and the mighty factors they become in the evolution of man when intelligently directed. In a fascinating manner the writer describes the creation of the atom, and in speaking of the work of the "shining ones," says:

   "There was thus a vast work of preparation accomplished before anything in the way of physical forms, such as we should recognize, could appear; a vast labor at the form side of things before embodied consciousness, save that of the Logos and His Shining Ones, could do anything at all. That which was to be human consciousness at this point was a seed, sown on the higher planes, unconscious of all without it. Under the impelling warmth of the Logis life, it sends out a tiny rootlet downwards, which pushes its way into the lower planes, blindly, unconsciously."

   The book while worthy the time of the closest student is yet so illuminated that the "lay member" may enjoy and profit by a perusal of it. "A Study in Consciousness" is from the press of the Theosophical Book Concern, Chicago.

3. Trew, Corona G. (July 1945). "The Drama of Consciousness: Another keynote book reviewed at the London Shadow Convention in December: A Study in Consciousness". The Theosophist. 66 (10): 146–147. Retrieved 2024-01-08 – via Internet Archive.

   The review notes: "The sub-title to this great work of Dr. Besant's is "A Contribution to the Science of Psychology," and it is often overlooked, yet it gives the key to the attitude required of the student in approaching this work. Most works on psychology—dealing with human consciousness in its varied manifestations—start with the individual, man the thinker, here and now. Almost more than any other science, that of psychology in the West today tends to be empirical, working from experimental observations. In contrast to this, the greatness of A Study in Consciousness is that it starts with universal principles and causes—the First Cause and the beginning of all manifestation. Thus in the opening pages one is introduced to the study of the One Universal Creative Consciousness and the field in which That acts, as a necessary preliminary to any understanding of individual human consciousness. There is presented a magnificent stage panorama, the scenic background, upon which the drama of the unfoldment of consciousness is to be played. The Introduction and first chapters deal with this vast dramatic background."

There is sufficient coverage in
reliable sources to allow Study in Consciousness to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]