Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< October 25	October 27 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 05:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret H. Sedenquist

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

I found this article because the owner of Imbrifex Books apparently paid at least one editor to create and edit a slew of promotional articles. It turns out there have been socks involved (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CharlesSquid) and one of the suspected socks created this article. Margaret H. Sedenquist is the mother of the Imbrifex Books publisher and I'm sure she was an amazing person but the article as it stands is referenced by an obituary likely authored by the family and some references that aren't really references.

a Los Angeles Times article that merely mentions her name[1]
a Pasadena Star-News article that also only mentions her in passing and has a quote from her[2]
another Pasadena Star-News article about local events that carries four paragraphs about the local Women's Civic League giving Sedenquist a Woman of the Year award but only two of those four paragraphs are devoted to Sedenquist.[3]

It look like there is only one reference where she is sole subject of the article[4] but it is a local business paper announcing her talk at the local Rotary Club and she is being interviewed. I think that makes it fail WP:INDY as a source.

She appears to have been very active locally and probably a nice person but I don't think it meets WP:BIO right now. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable individual. Some of the sources cited appear reliable and also found this one[5] which is not yet cited in the article. AllNotAll (talk) 06:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. I thought this would be an easy keep, but I didn't find anything that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Obit, looks like the below source from AfD is sourced from this obit.	1. "Margaret H. Sedenquist 1927 - 2021". San Gabriel Valley Tribune. Retrieved 1 May 2021.
mentioned in sentence near end of article.	2. ^ Drake, Sylvie (February 21, 1986). "Pasadena Playhouse Reopens In April With 'Arms And The Man'". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on October 20, 2023. Retrieved February 15, 2013.
Mention with quote, fails WP:IS, WP:SIGCOV	3. ^ Jump up to:a b Williams, Janette (August 11, 2011). "Five Acres children's home leader Bob Ketch to retire after 34 years at the helm". Pasadena Star-News. Archived from the original on August 19, 2011. Retrieved February 15, 2013.
Promo for an event they were speaking at, fails WP:IS	Pasadena California, Hotels,CA Real Estate,Restaurants,City Guide... - Pasadena.com". www.pasadenanow.com. Archived from the original on August 7, 2019.
Promo for an event they were participating in, fails WP:IS	5. ^ "Patt Diroll: Honoring those who help the community". Pasadena Star-News. May 15, 2011. Archived from the original on May 18, 2011. Retrieved February 15, 2013.
Fails WP:IS, WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.	6. ^ "Margaret H. Sedenquist Scholarship".
	from AfD
Reprint of what appears to be an OBIT in a press release, all the normal problems with an OBIT	https://chu.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-chu-recognizes-2021-congressional-women-year-hometown-hero-edition

See the nom's comments for what their BEFORE found, mine found nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV. Ping me if WP:IS sources are found with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, it really seemed like this would be a Keep, but it needs WP:IS sources with SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 00:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A.D. Hopkins

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

Imbrifex Books paid an editor to create and edit a slew of promotional articles. One of which was already deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Reed) This article has the same issues. It exists to promote an Imbrifex Books author and subtly makes it look like it meets WP:AUTHOR with a slew of references. The problem is the bulk of the references are articles written by Hopkins himself and not about Hopkins. The only references that appear to be about Hopkins are two articles about Nevada Press Association honors he received. I don't think those two are enough for WP:AUTHOR. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Florida, Nevada, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While he won an award, I do not think it is major enough to establish notability. Most of the references that are from reliable sources are the subjects own articles. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garsha Rezaei

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Cannot locate anything significant in a WP:BEFORE search and the references on the page are basically directory listings for his songs. CNMall41 (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Iran. CNMall41 (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to move this back to draft space, since Maryahamdon unwisely moved this into main space, but hey, this is also a way to handle it. Note: an article on this person was created before, by User:Wmozart1, a blocked sock; I looked at the deleted edits and they're different enough from this one. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I considered the same initially but seeing that it was already declined at AfC prior to the move, thought it best to let it be decided at AfD. Cheers!--CNMall41 (talk) 07:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost none of the sources are deemed reliable, and no significant coverage can be found in them, per WP:GNG. Fails WP:SINGER as well. -- Arian (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soma Bhadra

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

One independent source, one passing mention on Google News. Can't see how this is notable in any way. Also fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Engineering, Environment, West Bengal, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is one local newspaper mention: https://www.valleycenter.com/articles/water-board-to-seek-re-bids-on-reservoir-liner-project/ OmegaMantis (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the subject is notable enough, as she is a CEO of a company and has been mentioned by multiple sources. OmegaMantis (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:OmegaMantis, I assume your are arguing to Keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry for not being clear enough. OmegaMantis (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any independent sources with more than a passing mention of the subject, either in the article or elsewhere. Doesn't seem to me that the article meets WP:GNG. Tollens (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search has also not found support for WP:BASIC notability. She is quoted in Smithsonian Magazine in 2017; a preliminary research proposal she made to the Valley Center Municipal Water District (VCMWD) board is briefly reported in the local Valley Center news in 2014; she was the 2021-2022 San Diego section winner of the CWEA Member Awards (Select Society of Sanitary Sludge Shovelers); CWEA also announced she joined the 2022-23 CWEA Board of Directors on their website. She has a profile at the Women's Media Center WMC SheSource (bio page) but I have not found secondary coverage of her writing. She has an established career, but the independent and reliable secondary coverage needed to support an encyclopedic article according to the notability guideline does not yet appear to be available at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 06:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph C. Kush

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

Notability MicrobiologyMarcus^{(petri dish•cultures)} 19:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MicrobiologyMarcus^{(petri dish•cultures)} 19:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment leaning Keep. There are three highly or moderately highly cited papers in GS with a relatively slow drop off (360,214,121,94,78) and GS is estimating an h-index of 21; I don't know where that falls for this field. His CV [6] is listing (co-)edited books Technology implementation and teacher education: Reflective models (Information Science Publishing; 2010) and Intelligence Quotient: testing, Role of genetics and the environment and social outcomes (Nova Science Publishers; 2013), the latter as sole editor, although we have tended to undervalue editor contributions. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would help things if the nominator offered a fuller deletion rationale that demonstrated they had done a BEFORE rather than simply typing one word that doesn't distinguish what specific problems exist with this article and its sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 1 Atlantic Square. Daniel (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2 Atlantic Square

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

Contested prod. Appears to be a WP:MILL office building with no individual notability. Sources have been provided since prod but only confirms that it will have corporate clients and a restaurant, which is no different to countless other such premises in every city IMO. Smaller counterpart to 1 Atlantic Square (which does have media coverage due to height and tenancy so appears to meet WP:GNG), see no reason this smaller building cannot simply be mentioned in that article as part of the project. Crowsus (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Crowsus (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Business. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is many office building everywhere. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I base this on the Wikipedia:Good articles/Art and architecture. GA does not require notability, but has their own criteria: Well-written, no OR, Broad, Neutral, Stable, Illustrated . I'm just saying that if GA might accept this by its own review, then I don't feel comfortable deleting this fairly new article based on "no individual notability". That's a bit of opposite POVs here, and I find this article interesting. — Maile (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment you could a very detail good article about yourself but it will be removed because of lack of notability rules. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every article on Wikipedia requires notability. Crowsus (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a valid reason for keeping the article. Whether an article is well written has no bearing on whether it should be kept at AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lewis_(baseball)_(2nd_nomination) for example, which was a featured article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment. The closer just said "merge". This does not mean anything regarding consensus. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1 Atlantic Square. Not really enough here for independent notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. I saw this as a prod and didn't contest, it seems borderline G11 to me (not the most deletionist of editors), because the coverage is mainly primary and in the absence of indept secondary coverage, the depth of detail feels promotional. Would not object to a slender merge in the sense of retitling 1 Atlantic Square to include and namecheck no 2, but not including this depth of coverage based on primary sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its a very interesting building indeed and I feel it'd be a shame to lose the article as a source of info about it. Failing that, Redirect; either way it has to stay. and that rhymed so you know its true_ : ) ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 21:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1 Atlantic Square. Get the impression this is an advert with its lead including "flagship development" cited from a marketer of the office space and the citing of worlds (sic) most "prestigious" companies. Sources mainly PRIMARY or from connected parties and thus not independent. The GlasgowLive source is about both nos. 1 & 2 Atlantic Square, which lends support to the two being treated in one article. Doesn't seem independently notable on sourcing under GNG. The buildings are similar with their retained facade and construction; no need for a separate article for this one. Rupples (talk) 11:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

André Lacroix (cyclist)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV, sources exist [7] but not enough. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, Peru, and United States of America. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of A Certain Magical Index characters#Kuroko Shirai. There does not appear to be any explicit objection to a redirect, and unanimous consensus that the page not be retained as a standalone article. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kuroko Shirai

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

Doesn't appear to meet the WP:GNG as written. I was only able to find a few articles, mainly this list article, and a few others which say she was added to an updated version of Dengeki Bunko Fighting Climax. I'm sorta on the fence about this, so I'm bringing it to AfD for some additional eyes. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 18:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 18:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_A_Certain_Magical_Index_characters - there's nothing here beyond what's there, and there's not enough substance to support a separate page. Night Gyr (talk/Oy)
Delete: Fails GNG with no significant coverage. As an aside the other characters linked in the info box (Toma Kamijo) and (Mikoto Misaka) should probably be put up for AFD as well. Their articles read like WP:PROMO WP:FANCRUFT to me with minimal sourcing and what is there is trivial or routine coverage you can expect from just about any fictional character from a popular media.Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Memorable side character for fans, arguably - but not encyclopedic material, not as it is written, nothing in my BEFORE. There is half a paragraph of academic analysis/plot summary here. I also found "A Certain Scientific Railgun: 10 Things You Never Knew About Kuroko Shirai" listicle on CBR, but that's low quality source. I a afraid that's not enough to meet WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not enough WP:SIGCOV found WP:BEFORE. A redirect is fine for WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to List of A Certain Magical Index characters per WP:TNT and thats before we consider the notability issue. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 01:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lost in the process; manually relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clyde _{[trout needed]} 22:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 05:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Hale Arts Magnet School

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

Conducted WP:BEFORE search and the only significant coverage of this school appears to be from The Day, a local newspaper. There's no evidence that the previous Nathan Hale Grammar School and Elementary School, which may or may not be notable on their own, have any link to the Magnet School other than a shared name. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Connecticut. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I Have found quite a few sources and done a complete rewrite using only referenced information. There are no longer any sources from The Day, and no mention of any of the previous schools. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PaulGamerBoy360. I do not believe that the sources you've cited establish notability. Please see the below source review:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
NCES			Only provides factual, statistical information about the school	✘ No
SchoolDigger		? Appears to just pull from federal data, but ownership and standards of site are unclear	Only provides factual, statistical information about the school	✘ No
Niche		Allows schools to claim their page, contains user-generated reviews	Only provides factual, statistical information about the school	✘ No
DonorsChoose	Fundraising website	?	Three sentence description about the school	✘ No
Public School Review	? Appears independent, but their about page has an email for becoming a "partner"	? Appears to just pull from federal data, but ownership and standards of site are unclear	Only provides factual, statistical information about the school	✘ No
newlondon.org	?	?	? Link is broken	? Unknown
US News & World Report	Per WP:RSPS	Per WP:RSPS	Only provides factual, statistical information about the school	✘ No
ElementarySchools.org		Pulls federal data and appears to be relied upon by known RSes	Only provides factual, statistical information about the school	✘ No
GreatSchools.org	Independent non-profit organization	Has standards for ratings	Only provides factual, statistical information and numerical ratings	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Voorts 22:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I Disagree With Your Analysis, this is what I have Come up With:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
NCES	Government Site	Government Site	Database	✘ No
School Digger		~ Sources listed on this source are reliable, this source itself is questionable.		✘ No
Niche	~ The Academics Section is Independent	Acedemics From Official Data Sources		~ Partial
Doners Choose	Fundraising Site	Information is from The NCES		✘ No
Public Schools Reviews	? Has a FAQ about how to become a partner & gives a link to contact them about becoming one(unsure what "partner" means in this context).	"Since 2003, Public School Review has been providing rigorous data analysis of USA public schools. By regularly analyzing and updating numerous public data sets from federal and state education agencies"	Many Facts Listed, as well as multiple graphs.	? Unknown
School Website			?	✘ No
USN			Multiple Paragraphs and Graphs	✔ Yes
ElemantarySchools.org		info from NCES	Multiple Paragraphs & Graphs	✔ Yes
GreatSchools			Multipe Graphs & Information from Databases, as well as a Few Paraghraphs	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I think the crux of our disagreement regarding the four sources that you've identified as qualifying for GNG is that I do not think graphs, statistical information, and paragraphs summarizing that information sums up to "significant" coverage; I view that as more akin to a database with a brief summary of what's contained in the data. As an aside, I think the "independence" of those sources is arguable since they largely include the same statistical information from the same source (i.e., the federal government). If an article were written on the New London School District, I think this could all be merged into that. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, RE Public Schools Reviews, on this page, #3 on the FAQ is "How can we partner with your site?" and provides contact information to do so. It's not clear to me what "partner" means, which is why I marked the independence as questionable. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have changes the independence of "Public schools reviews to Unknown" - thanks for leading me to that FAQ, but i still stand by the other part of my analysis. I will try to find more info. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found 2 new Sources:

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Lyman Allan Art Museum			✘ No
Connecticut Education Association	Independent of the School itself.	~ Full Paragraphs(about teacher)	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the Connecticut Education Association article, then I don't think it's significant coverage of the school, but rather of the teacher who won the award. The remaining sources currently cited in the article also don't contribute to SIGCOV (e.g., the Seussical article) because they're merely reporting on routine events. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is there are quite a few articles about the school in The New London Day That I can't access due to a paywall, if any editors have acces to The Day It would be helpfull for an analysis on those. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, there is no inherent notability. This must pass WP:NCORP which requires in-depth coverage that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Nothing here satisfies that requirement when using WP:SIRS to assess the references. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP. Agree with Voorts source assessment. Their are only 3 sources above that Keeps claim for WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV, and those three (as noted) as database style records with basic stats, which fails WP:IS and WP:SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 00:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. User:Let'srun 02:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rowan Vargas

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted in July 2022, and no evolution in subject's notability since then. Fails WP:GNG with no significant, in-depth coverage. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Vargas is a former professional footballer who got many caps with professional clubs, and now is managing a professional club, if that is not notable, then I don’t know what the concept of notability means anymore. I’ll include more references hoping it could be enough to keep the article alive.

Merlyn26 (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Merlyn26: Please provide GNG-passing references here so we can better evaluate the keep arguments. Remember that notability isn't based on WP:NFOOTY anymore. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just playing the game doesn’t qualify you for an article. Not notable and I vote delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage means no article, regardless of whether he was a professional Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to TechShop#Maker Nexus. Daniel (talk) 05:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maker Nexus

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

Subject fails WP:NCORP. Most of the citations are not independent of the subject. Others (like the journal article) are mere mentions. The Palo Alto Daily Post is LOCAL. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and California. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with redirect I created the article. It has become obvious to me that this topic does not meet the requirement for a separate article. Comfr (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify. Subject fails WP:NCORP and there are a lot of WP:PEACOCK terms in it and some of it reads like an advertisement. Searches reveal no sources that are reliable or independent from the subject. Seawolf35 (talk - email) 22:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Struck delete option, draftify will give the creator time to improve it and remake when ready Seawolf35 (talk - email) 02:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. I made a mistake when I created this article. My search for sources turned up many, many results, and I incorrectly assumed that some of them would be good. I should have known better. Comfr (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of editing will make the subject notable. I have spent several days searching in vain for reliable independent sources, and I don't expect that such sources will appear any time soon. The subject is one of several alternatives to the failed TechShop, and it is already mentioned in the TechShop article. Noisebridge is the only alternative with it own article, because it came into existence long before TechShop failed. I would have changed the article back to a redirect, but I could not because other editors had contributed to the article. See the talk page.Comfr (talk) 05:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago, I discussed press coverage with the management of Maker Nexus. I learned that the production of medical supplies to contain covid was the only time the the press showed any interest in Maker Nexus. Maker Nexus day-to-day operations are not notable. Comfr (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After almost a week, we seem to have a consensus that the subject is not notable and should not have a wikipedia article. Because I created almost all of the content for this page, and because no one has objected, I removed the content, and reverted to the redirect. I do not have any strong opinions about what happens to this page, and I will accept decisions of others. Comfr (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TechShop#Maker Nexus as Comfr recently did in good faith. I've undone that redirect since this discussion is still ongoing. —siro χ o 05:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to International Four Days Marches Nijmegen. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valkhof Festival

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

A decade without refs is enough. No secondary sources obvious in google (but I admit to no speaking Dutch). PROD'd twice. History of apparent COI. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor technical comment: the festival was originally named "de-Affaire" then renamed the Valkhof Festival. I moved the de-Affaire article to Valkhof Festival but when I look at the article, my browser renders "Valkhof Festival" as "valkhof Festival'. At this AfD, the title is properly rendered as Valhof; the talk page title is Talk:Valkhof Festival.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are secondary sources. De Gelderlander for example is a respectable regional newspaper that covers the event, see here.Then there is this, in english. The article needs an update and a facelift, I´d say. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or draft; just notable enough, yet would severely benefit from a cleanup. It currently just constitutes some general uncited information and an ugly list of lineups. Maybe move to draft? 𝕎.𝔾.𝕁. ^{(chat | contribs)} 12:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rewrite, rework, expand. It's still in existence and there is undoubtedly plenty of material to add, though I don't think it needs a complete lineup for every year. Articles for deletion isn't the place for cleanup, I don't speak Norwegian, and somebody who does will need to edit this but it's not appropriate to delete it. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do speak ~~Norwegian~~ Dutch and I might look into how to improve this article this afternoon. Anyway agreed, no need for deletion. 𝕎.𝔾.𝕁. ^{(chat | contribs)} 15:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsuited for mainspace in its current state, and I can't find sufficient sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Of the two sources provided in this discussion - a regional newspaper isn't enough to satisfy WP:EVENTCRITERIA, the crack magazine article is a single paragraph, there is no in-depth coverage. If there is undoubtedly plenty of material to add then where are the sources? Polyamorph (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft and require WP:AFC reviewer approval for restoration to mainspace. BD2412 T 21:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to International Four Days Marches Nijmegen. Way too detailed coverage for a local festival that is part of a larger series, the Vierdaagsefeesten. If someone wants to create an article on the "Vierdaagsefeesten", as a spinoff of International Four Days Marches Nijmegen, with Valkhof in it, that would be fair game. The current is not set up right and draft will not fix it. For now redirect to the parent of the Vierdaagsefeesten where both the Vierdaagsefeesten and Valkhof are mentioned. gidonb (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stuartyeates, A. B., Ruud Buitelaar, Polyamorph, Bookworm857158367, BD2412, and User:W.G.J., can you all live with this solution? gidonb (talk)

Stuartyeates, A. B., Ruud Buitelaar, Polyamorph, Bookworm857158367, BD2412, and User:W.G.J., trying again! gidonb (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. I would add one of the images to the parent article and mention the Commons categoriesCategory:Vierdaagsefeesten - Wikimedia Commons and Category:Valkhof Festival - Wikimedia Commons Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can do both (have a redirect and a draftspace or userspace draft). No objection to purely redirecting, however. BD2412 T 16:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Gidonb - good idea. I support it. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Century Financial

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

Routine coverage of a large company used to source the article, no sourcing outside of routine business dealings found. Oaktree b (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, Companies, and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a WP:REFBOMB of corporate spam, no sign it passes WP:NCORP. Anyone thinking to keep it, please name the three most convincing references - David Gerard (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NCORP. References are passing mentions or routine announcements and not anything that meet WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not passed by WP:NCORP at all. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Big O#Setting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Megadeus

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

Fixing AfD nomination based on IP request. No comment on the merits. Statement from IP - "Does not seem to be WP:SIGCOV, though I would settle for a merge " and "Found nothing substantial from my WP:BEFORE." AfD was started by IP but not completed in order to create discussion page. CNMall41 (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Anime and manga. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Big O#Setting. Unfortunately it seems like complete plotcruft. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some to List of The Big O characters some to The Big O, the latter being the redirect target. —siro χ o 22:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Nothing here suggests this concepts meets WP:GNG and deserves a stand-alone article. Wikipedia =/= Fandom (WP:FANCRUFT...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Big O#Setting - Some light merging might be warranted to add a bit of information on the titular Big O itself to the setting section, but the rest of the entries of the article are basically the "monsters of week" for the series that are not notable enough to be covered separately from the summaries of their appearances in the Episode List. I don't think merging anything to List of The Big O characters as suggested above makes much sense, since none of these entries are actual characters. Rorshacma (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different Merge/Redirect targets listed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Big O#Setting as WP:ATD. If there is a better way to organize this information, the rest can be handled through editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tapps Games

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

Reviewed under NPP. Previously deleted. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Of the references, all are miles from GNG type except the closest which is a medium length interview of the founder. Of the others, 1 just supports 1 factoid, two are about individual products of theirs and one is a facebook page. North8000 (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Metacritic is the only green source per sourcebot, but it's a game review, not about the game company. All I can find is this [8] but it's in Brazilian Portuguese, so unsure if it's a RS. Regardless, once source doesn't make this notable (and it very likely isn't a RS anyway). Rest is venture capital reporting (about how they raised money). Oaktree b (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed not a very good source. Skyshifter ^talk 03:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brazil mentioned. Unfortunately it's a Delete. Couldn't find any significant coverage sources about the company. Skyshifter ^talk 03:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Desarrollos Industriales Casanave SC-2005

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

Unnotable proposed variant of the FN FAL, does not seem to have materialised, no external sources found, not worthy of separate article. Elshad (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Firearms and Peru. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or if a citation is added then merge into FN FAL. Flurrious (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joulepoint

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

Press releases do not make a notable article. Sohom (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Andhra Pradesh. Sohom (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to self, Hyderabad is not in Andhra Pradesh anymore you dummy Sohom (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. Sohom (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What makes the article not meet the General Notability Guideline? It is a burgeoning EV development company in India. The company partners with the central government there as well as the railways (also managed by the central government), it provides the same function as Chargepoint, but in India Thistheyear2023 (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, in short, we don't care about anything other than if the company has reliable, in-depth, third party sources covering it, in this case, almost every source you have added is a press release and I could not find anything else of note while looking for additional sourcing, thus my statement at the start pointing out that the article is potentially non-notable Sohom (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not seeing significant coverage even after a Google search. Does not meet WP:GNG.Fbiagent010 (talk) 07:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pezhman Noor

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

Non-notable. Some sources contain brief trivial mentions and some are paid articles/reportages (like Jamejamonline and Isna). Possible paid editing (per article creator's other articles) Arian (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Iran. Arian (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG as no reliable sources appear to cover the subject at all. --estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing found for sourcing we can use. Sourcebot only "hits" on the second citation, with a yellow, so iffy. Oaktree b (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Discussion of the available sources clearly favored deletion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Babak Badkoobe

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

Non-notable per WP:GNG. Sources don't show significant coverage (most of them are about how he has a facial resemblance to another famous actor) and some of them are simple trivial mentions. Possible paid editing (since the original editor has created similar articles for non-notable people) Other articles by this user should be checked out as well. Arian (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, and Iran. Arian (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I think the strongest point in the keep favour is the co-production of the movie Dressage. The last name should be changed to Badkoobeh, but the romanization is not consistent (i.e. Badkobe), which might contribute to difficulty in finding decent sources. I think the overtly fan/peacock language needs to be removed but there is potential if someone, ideally a Persian speaker, is willing to put in the work. Kazamzam (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His real name is Hassan Badkobeh. He has Notable works such as Dressage (film), fa.wiki from 2016 Rockman2001 (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maliner (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Promo Interview, primary, fails WP:IS	1. "آیا بازیگر قدیمی تلویزیون پسر اکبر عبدی است؟". Retrieved 16 August 2023.
Promo Interview, primary, fails WP:IS	2. ^ "همه زندگی‌ام با تلویزیون عجین شده". jamejamonline. Retrieved 16 August 2023.
Promo Interview, primary, fails WP:IS	3. ^ "فردی که به خاطر شباهتش به اکبر عبدی بازیگر شد". YJC. Retrieved 16 August 2023.
A quote from subject about a film. Fails WP:IS, WP:SIGCOV	4. ^ "یادی از سریال نوستالژی و محبوب دهه 60". Retrieved 16 August 2023.
Promo Interview, primary, fails WP:IS	5. ^ "خاطره بازی آقای بازیگر از بازی با شهلا ریاحی". tabnak. Retrieved 16 August 2023.
Dup of #3 above	6. ^ "فردی که به خاطر شباهتش به اکبر عبدی بازیگر شد". asriran. Retrieved 16 August 2023.
Promo Interview, primary, fails WP:IS	7. ^ ""پورمحمدی" پرداخت زیاد برای دعوت مهمانان را ممنوع کرد/برنامه تحویل سال شبکه یک موفق‌تر عمل کرد". yjc. Retrieved 16 August 2023.
Promo Interview, primary, fails WP:IS	8. ^ Jump up to:a b "بچه‌های فیلم‌ها و سریال‌های دهه ۶۰ کجا هستند؟ +تصاویر". cinemapress. 29 April 2017. Retrieved 16 August 2023.
Database page	9. ^ "ليست كامل عوامل فيلم سفر جادويي (1369)". sourehcinema.
Promo Interview, primary, fails WP:IS	10. ^ "فردانیوز". fardanews.
Database page	11. ^ Dressage - Fajr Film Festival
Brief promo for upcoming appearance	12. ^ "یکی از مجریان نوروزی شبکه یک مشخص شد". jamejamonline. Retrieved 16 August 2023.
Name mention related to another subject, fails WP:SIGCOV	13. ^ "انيميشن "نوازنده" آماده پخش از تلويزيون شد". farsnews.

BEFORE (also searched for for Hassan Badkoobe and Babak Badkobeh and ) showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 23:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. thank you. I added a few more resources. Please check these items if possible Rockman2001 (talk) 08:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE, still, and apparently irrevocably. TimothyBlue's work, as above, is flawless. We can accept a wish for a future inclusion -The Gnome (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was This has been going on at Draft:Madhab Chandra Jena since August 2022 and here since 2015, when it was create-protected before. There is a procession of quite obvious block-evading multiple accounts in the edit history there and at Project:Madhab Chandra Jena (sic!). It was obvious even before I got to the SPI case page. I'm deleting this on sight, revoking the account's privileges, and create protecting both this and ମାଧବ ଚନ୍ଦ୍ର ଜେନା (AfD discussion) where this turned up in a language other than English. Uncle G (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Madhab Chandra Jena

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

Could find zero reliable in-depth sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. 🌹FatCat96🌹 Chat with Cat 17:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 🌹FatCat96🌹 Chat with Cat 17:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG, the same conclusion has been raised repeatedly at Draft:Madhab Chandra Jena since January. There's also a pending SPI against the creator at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Omkrishnajena. Belbury (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'd speedy this as a stub. I have no sourcing in the article either... Gsearch brings up nothing, other than a hit on the name for a person on parol from prison. Oaktree b (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is also another version of this article created by the author AfD' at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ମାଧବ ଚନ୍ଦ୍ର ଜେନା. BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE are not WP:IS, WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing // Timothy :: talk 05:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO, could have been moved to draft under WP:DRAFTIFY, little point though since it will not pass BIO anyway 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Omkrishnajena 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly check the facts before deletion.As per policy of Wikipedia the scholar criteria, books criteria and other criteria should be checked.It pains when somebody puts the allegation of undisclosed payments without facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banambar (talk • contribs) 08:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see there is no any hidden fact, peacock terms, it's written neutral point of view, if anything is there like this editors are free to remove that portion very quickly.Nothing can be perfect in very first attempt,there is always a scope for improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banambar (talk • contribs) 08:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly check the websites in Google,books written,scholar,wp ref,wikimedia and other images etc. part then take decisions for deletion.deletion should not be done as a doubt on somebody it should be done as per the Wikipedia criteria and policy.when I checked all the references as as sited above I feel it should not be deleted rather it should be improved by the editors like us— Preceding unsigned comment added by Banambar (talk • contribs) 08:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the article to improve the structure of the article.Kindly help for improving the article further or suggest for further improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banambar (talk • contribs) 13:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir I have added the Wikipedia references, trying to improve the article,Kindly help with your valuable kind suggestions to improve the article further Banambar (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Richard James Hayler

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

nominated the article for deletion as the sources used (mostly Ancestry.com ) are unreliable and are not suitable to establish notability. Did check to find coverage about the subject of the article and found nothing that meet Wikipedia criteria for notability. No in-depth coverage from reliable sources FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all cites in the article are from genealogy websites like Ancestry which are unreliable. No coverage beyond that. -estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of significance. Kazamzam (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sourcing in Gnews, newspapers or books. Working on the Royal Yacht could perhaps be notable (and that's a big if), with no sourcing in RS and none found, this one's a bust. Delete for lack of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's something else peculiar here: note the references to Queen Victoria. She died in 1901, but the events are claimed to have happened in 1907. Using my British Newspaper Archive subscription I can confirm that the story from the Sussex Agricultural Express exists and has been quoted correctly, but the quote in the article is the entirety of the story rather than just an excerpt. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 22:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable; no reliable sources found. Quuxbazbarfoo (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a member of the crew of a Royal Yacht doesn't ensure notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero notability. But you have to love someone in 1907 being described as a "marine engineering technician"! No, he was a stoker. The Queen is question was presumably Queen Alexandra, not Queen Victoria. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zain Masri

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:SNG, WP:BASIC. Existing media citations serve as a form of promotion. Charlie (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Jordan. Charlie (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could be the same person [9], [10], but I'm not sure. The wiki article is about what looks like a tech executive, the sourcing I find is about a young person preserving embroidery; their ages could be about the same. Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maliner (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- She is the same person Oaktree b mentioned in the sources. Masri is the one of the first women from her country to hold such a key position in Google and is known for her contributions to the technology industry. She has been also the subject of a documentary. There are also sources in Arabic language. Jabralgi (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sourcing found seems fine. Oaktree b (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems to me to meet WP:GNG. Tollens (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shreya Gupto

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

Article fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. Charlie (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Charlie (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maliner (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO, nothing to indicate this meets WP:ENTERTAINER.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Promo	1. "Shreya Gupto Who Took The Digital Arena By Storm Has A Superb Cameo In Rajinikanth's Darbar". 10 January 2020.
Interview, primary	2. ^ "Being on Camera is a Great Stress Buster: Shreya Gupto". 28 August 2019.
Promo interview	3. ^ Jump up to:a b "The Lockdown Diary: Shreya Gupta". 10 July 2020.
Promo	4. ^ Jump up to:a b Suthar, Manisha (4 February 2019). "Shreya Gupto and Vishal Vashishtha in Filter Copy's sketch 'Why To Date Bengali Guy'". Archived from the original on 4 June 2019. Retrieved 4 June 2019.
EXCLUSIVE promo	5. ^ Jump up to:a b c "Exclusive: Chennai girl Shreya Gupta to work with Riya Sen in Ragini MMS 2.2".
Database page with two sentence promo bio	6. ^ "shreya". The Times of India. 11 November 2020.
Mention Fails WP:SIGCOV, does not address the subject directly and indepth	7. ^ "'Characters are made queer so that makers feel progressive'". 3 November 2020.
Mention Fails WP:SIGCOV, does not address the subject directly and indepth	8. ^ "Stories On Lesbian Relationships Without Any Male Protagonists Sharing the Spotlight". 8 April 2021.

WP:BLP require strong sourcing. Ping me if WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth are added to the article; two sources that clearly meet WP:IS with WP:SIGCOV adressing the subject directly and indepth combined with #'s 7 & 8 above would pass WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 01:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. While it was initially asserted that the subject meets WP:NACTOR, this was called into question on the basis that sourcing was promotional in nature, and discussion of sources strongly favored deletion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naina Sarwar

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. Charlie (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Charlie (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is notable according to guidelines ; passing WP:NACTOR for at least 3 significant roles in notable films; and has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, which was not the case at the moment of the 1st Afd..-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Might pass ACTOR with proper sourcing. Most of what I find is the thinly veiled promotional articles [11], [12], common in India, that don't help with the RS. If we can find better sourcing about her movie roles, I'd revisit. Oaktree b (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems ok [13] as it's a review of the film, confirming the role. But we need more than this. Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: i think she passes the criteria WP:NACTOR but we need more reliable sources. the new indian express look like notable Worldiswide (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 04:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. fails WP:GNG. DJ InstaMalik (talk) 08:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Everything found, and thankfully it's not much, stinks badly of promotional purpose. Oaktree b's olfactory powers are well directed. -The Gnome (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO/CREATIVE. Nothing in article or keep votes provides WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, BEFORE showed promos and name listings, nothing meeting SIGCOV. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Promo interview	1. "Naina Sarwar makes a mark in all South Indian languages". New Indian Express. 8 April 2023. Retrieved 11 November 2023.
Promo interview	2. ^ "Naina is Destiny's Favourite Child". New Indian Express. 4 August 2015. Retrieved 11 November 2023.
Name listed, nothing meeting SIGCOV	3. ^ "Kolanji movie review: Father-son bonding, lacks strong story". Deccan Chronicle. 27 July 2019. Retrieved 11 November 2023.
Name listed, nothing meeting SIGCOV	4. ^ "Eeswar's second film 'Suryapet Junction' completes the shoot!". The Times of India. 22 September 2022.
Promo interview	5. ^ "Naina Sarwar is set for her Telugu film debut". The Times of India. 23 August

BLPs require strong sourcing, might be a case of TOOSOON. // Timothy :: talk 14:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Bowdoin–Yarmouth shootings

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. This mass shooting has had little enduring impact. User:Namiba 16:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Maine. User:Namiba 16:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has only been a few months. There is plenty of coverage of the initial event, and more is certain to come from the investigation and prosecution. - SimonP (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a news story with no lasting WP:EFFECT. All sources are breaking news. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien, I've updated the article. Notability determinations depend on sources that exist in the real world, not just the sources already cited in the article. There were multiple articles from the Associated Press (indicating that this was national news) and other publications that aren't breaking news. I wonder if you'd like to check again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SimonP. JeffSpaceman (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SimonP. Calienteramen (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now per everyone else, though this article could use some more expansion. Corgi Stays (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per SimonP. TH1980 (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Trial to come, so not dormant yet. WWGB (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per enough coverage of the event. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, no one has explained how this article meets Wikipedia:Notability_(events). There is no depth or duration of coverage, no lasting impact or widespread geographic impact. It is barely even discussed in local media at this point.--User:Namiba 20:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba, I was adding more sources while you were typing this. One of them is several thousand words long. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: many Wikipedia articles have not much impact, so does that mean we need to delete most Wikipedia articles? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Jam City (company). Daniel (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Yguado

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources used as references are either rewrites of press releases, profile listings, or tangential to the subject. I am of the opinion that this article does not pass WP:GNG. This article was also WP:BLAR-ed for a similar reasoning but subsequently reverted. – robertsky (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Video games, Technology, California, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirect to Jam City (company). WP:NOTLINKEDIN and this is just a professional profile, with no indication of notability present in the article, regional businessperson award notwithstanding. —siro χ o 23:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that Josh Yguado is the main subject of several articles (good independent sources) I've just added to the page. While I'm not sure that this article will expand beyond a stub format, I do see the subject's noteworthiness. The awards are usually notwithstanding, so not terrible not great that some award is there and it may be removed from the page. --VertyBerty (talk) 08:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good attempt, but in my opinion, the sources that you have added here are not of WP:SIGCOV of the subject. Other than Bloomberg, which I don't have access to and therefore unable to make a proper evaluation (however, from the opening paragraph, I do not think there will be sigcov about the subject. do let me know if I am wrong), the rest are about JamCity or post-myspace business activities in general. Nothing specific about the subject. – robertsky (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cause he is a significant figure in the tech industry, co-founder and CEO of Jam City, and an investor in the professional esports company Cloud9. --Rodgers V (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodgers V are any sources (independent, reliable sources that are of significant coverage of the person) that can be used in the article? – robertsky (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jam City (company) - Doesn't pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. The news story about him being named CEO seems to be the only significant thing written about him. The sources added by User:VertyBerty are not significant coverage in my opinion. --Mika1h (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mild keep te subject's role as co-founder and CEO of Jam City, as well as an investor in Cloud9, establishes his significance in the tech and gaming industries. The depth of coverage in existing sources has been questioned; however, the criteria for notability require significant coverage, which reflects his impact, not exhaustive coverage. The potential for the article to be expanded with additional information over time, as the industries evolve, makes me think that this is the reason why there is no consensus for the page's removal. NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep leaning towards keep due to the businessman's founding experience with Jam City and Cloud9, coupled with the minimal yet non-trivial media coverage. --BoraVoro (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, noting that this is a stub article which I believe sets the bar for SIGCOV lower than if it was on its way to being featured article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jam City. Marginally notable at best. Possible COI issues.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A. B., Jam City or Jam City (company)? Cabayi (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ Cabayi: thanks for asking. Jam City (company)

—-A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jam City. I don't think the sources demonstrate significant coverage here; aside from the source directly about his connection to Jam City, most of the citations are not about him directly (the Forbes article, for example, is about ex-MySpace executive DeWolfe, and Yguado is mentioned in a sentence of context for a quote he offered.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Fuchs, Jam City or Jam City (company)? Cabayi (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jam City (company), sorry for not disambiguating. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Croatia women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia Domazet

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

Redirect to List of Croatia women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least ten caps for the aforementioned national team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Croatia. JTtheOG (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 15:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First American Scientific Corp.

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

Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 15:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine filings and press releases; nothing else found that was independent of the company itself. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete citations are SEC filing and financial info. Nothing can be found in a google search.Fbiagent010 (talk) 06:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All I see is WP:ROUTINE coverage, nothing that would pass WP:NCORP. Jacona (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Carcassonne (board game)#World Team Carcassonne Online Championshi. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World Team Carcassonne Online Championship 2021

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

It does not appear that any sources outside of carcassonne.cat, the championship organizers, have written about this topic, making each of its editions fall short of WP:GNG. I attempted to search for sources online in English, Catalan, Spanish, Portuguese, and French. In my searches, I did not come across anything suggesting that they or their organizers would meet GNG if considered in aggregate. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly failing WP:GNG. That said, a brief summary of the fact that these competitions exist, using the available primary sources, arguably could be added in a section at Carcasonne, without all the excessive detail of tables full of non-notable competitors, which is not encyclopedic information (WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT#DATABASE). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carcassonne (board game)#World Team Carcassonne Online Championship. There's no obvious need to delete the page history, even though I don't think these events need separate pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per WhatamIdoing. Please ping me if more sources that would count toward WP:N are found. Hobit (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as there are not enough sources at the moment but I think that together notability would be met.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It seems like, aside from Deletion, there are opinions to Redirect or Merge but I'd like to see a more conclusive consensus before taking action on a bundled nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Liz's last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would agree with a merge but there seems like a whole lot of non-notable detail which would make the target somewhat lopsided WP:UNDUE if this was done with every competition year. Redirect also seems a bit pointless if there is little/no content at the target. Maybe if there were a few/poor sources but when there’s nothing I think the onus is on interested editors to justify why there should be even be a redirect JMWt (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WhatamIdoing is fine as ATD, but we shouldn't delete history here, some of it could be useful to expanding (post-facto merge) or a future split of the broader (not annual) topic from the Carcasonne article (eg. I could imagine a future Competitive Carcasonne article covering § Tournaments and World Championships and more. —siro χ o 05:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KDS Micronex

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV. Blatant brochure advertising article. scope_creep^Talk 15:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO. Most references are passing mentions and article is clearly self-serving. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Solid Waste Association of North America

AfDs for this article:

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

This was a 2021 keep, but the sourcing identified does not appear to meet WP:ORG level depth and independence required. Note, the reason it appears to be an A7 is CV, which was addressed. The issue is the lack of sourcing upon which to build an article. Star Mississippi 15:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and United States of America. Star Mississippi 15:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and Caribbean. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maliner (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable since it doesn't satisfy WP:AUD. All of the SIGCOV is by publications named "Waste News 360" or similar. बिनोद थारू (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already made a trip to AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not pass WP:ORG due to a lack of needed sources. Let'srun (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Cutler (wrestler)

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

No notable pro wrestler. No in-deep coverage about him HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OP — Czello ^(music) 11:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Additionally, the opposition to the PROD appears to have come from the article's subject, and was very possibly not a challenge to the article's actual suitability for deletion. Tollens (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of The Walking Dead (comics) characters. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luke (The Walking Dead)

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

Only sources for notability in the article is casting news. All information I can find are talking about the episode he returns in or speculating on his fate, either way note enough to establish notability. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if more sources are found, otherwise merge to List of The Walking Dead (comics) characters. BOZ (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Walking Dead (comics) characters a merge is not necesarry as all of the comic information is already there. A fictional character should typicly redirect to the series page. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No reception, no analysis. Does not meet WP:GNG as written and nobody suggests there's a chance it might. Generic name makes BEFORE harder than usual. Ping me if anything is found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only thing ive found is routine episode coverage and casting news.Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BEFORE doesn't find much of a reception in reliable sources. Redirects are cheap, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Walking Dead (comics) characters, merge wouldn't improve the target content. // Timothy :: talk 01:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Walking Dead (comics) characters#Richmond, Virginia, I couldn't find sources to pass WP:GNG and the character has an entry in the section of that article. Suonii180 (talk) 01:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 17:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gyan Prakash Upadhyaya

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

Being an Indian Administrative Service officer is just a government job and doesn't automatically confer notability as per WP:SNG. Also, the individual clearly does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Charlie (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Charlie (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would imagine the more significant role would be his position as member of his nation’s cabinet rather than merely an IAS officer. I know US cabinet members pass WP:NPOL, and I can’t see a reason why cabinet members from other nations shouldn’t either.4meter4 (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NPOL Lightburst (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm not sure this meets the letter of NPOL: this individual is a bureaucrat, not a politician in the conventional sense of a holder of elected office. However, his position appears to be that of the highest-ranking bureaucrat in a state government, if I understand the minutiae correctly, and as such he is holding a statewide office: so I think he meets the spirit of NPOL. The coverage is very sparse, so this is a "weak" keep only. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails in WP:NPOL ,Indian Administrative Service officer is just a job not a notablity criteria Worldiswide (talk) 05:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of available reference material may be more helpful than a debate over the specifics of the job.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sourcing used is simply confirmation of the appointment to the job. Nothing for sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Daniel (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bassel al-Assad Stadium

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

There are only two articles in this disambiguation. The disambiguation should be deleted per WP:ONEOTHER: If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. (This means that readers looking for the second topic are spared the extra navigational step of going through the disambiguation page.) Toptanazikov (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations. Toptanazikov (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: neither has been identified as the Primary Topic, and page views don't show a massive difference. PamD 07:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Could make Bassel al-Assad Stadium (Homs) primary and add a hatnote. The Homs article had a lot more traffic in the past and still has a little more. Flurrious (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maliner (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samajwadi Pension Scheme

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

This is a piece of political propaganda that lacks independent notability. However, the current state government, led by Yogi Adityanath, rebranded this program as the "Uttar Pradesh Pension Scheme." It is suggested that the page either be deleted or undergo a name change, with an impartial vote needed to decide. Charlie (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Charlie (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maliner (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 09:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamari Beti Uska Kal Scheme

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

This is a piece of political propaganda that lacks independent notability. Charlie (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Charlie (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maliner (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Does not meet WP:GNG. For what I can find, it's a relatively obscure regional initiative that has no independent notability. The article really fall down on sources, as all of them seem to fall into the WP:PRIMARYNEWS bucket. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I-SPARSH Scheme

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

This is a piece of political propaganda that lacks independent notability. Charlie (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Charlie (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maliner (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zero coverage in Gnews that I can find and the article is hard to understand, appears to be a poor translation of the native language prose. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ansari Financial Services

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

Based on routine coverage. Advertisement. LKBT (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and United Arab Emirates. LKBT (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Al Ansari Financial Services is a 57 year old publicly listed company on the Dubai Stock Exchange[14], with licenses from UAE and Kuwait, Central Banks (not easy to obtain btw). For peer comparison,[15] Al Ansari is also historically relevant as part of UAE/Emirati founded financial companies landscape, no different than the UAE companies[16] listed UAE Exchange or banking articles. The Ansari article is also more relevant compared to the private company Century Financial published articles on Wikipedia which is a private investment company selling products. Al Ansari article has been written/described in a plain non-promotional tone.

User:MMuzammils ^{[ TalkBack | Contributions ]} 07:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please use your own words with letters typed or transcribed individually in your rationale; this reads as blatantly machine-generated. Nate • (chatter) 20:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is my personal writing style, in this age of ChatGPT, I guess everyone is guilty until proven innocent. User:MMuzammils ^{[ TalkBack | Contributions ]} 17:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The '''Keep''' rational is simple, the company has a decades long track record, like any other regional bank, it's regulated by the Central Banks of UAE and Kuwait, and it's also publicly listed on the Dubai Stock Exchange. It's not some new commercial entity that needs Wikipedia for advertising purposes. This company is also notable as an Emarati founded company, because it was part of the early financial landscape of UAE, and helped UAE become a financial hub. Unlike companies of Western Branches or franchises. It's the home grown local equivalent of UAE's Western Union. I have grown up in the UAE and am witness to it's local impact, unlike the people who have nominated it for deletion. If we are to start nominating "government regulated listed" companies for deletion, then by the same measure/logic many other UAE based banks and Western companies on Wikipedia will require a re-write or deletion. I feel this deletion is somewhat targeted because Ansari is a non-Western Emarati company not familiar globally.

User:MMuzammils ^{[ TalkBack | Contributions ]} 17:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note, this is one of the oldest financial companies predating the official banking era in UAE. User:MMuzammils ^{[ TalkBack | Contributions ]} 18:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PROMO website copy. Nate • (chatter) 20:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The shares going up 16.5% is routine business news. None of the rest is helpful for GNG. The company could be notable with a long history, but we have no sources for this. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maliner (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Added to 'History' section, Al Ansari donated a total of US$20 million, once in 2012, then again in 2021 with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, external references were added, fyi, the official website has no press linking to these events. User:MMuzammils ^{[ TalkBack | Contributions ]} 22:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can only cast one "vote" in each AFD so I'm striking this duplicate vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I would expect plenty of good sources for a company that has been listed for 57 years (from analysts covering this sector, competitive analysis, analysis by financial experts?) and perhaps there are good sources in languages other than English but right now, I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing

Do the $20 Million dollars in donations to the region add no credibility?

The company went public in this year, this region doesn't have much coverage of private companies.

Yes, coverage in Arabic is available.

Ansari have received a number of awards from government and industry bodies, they were not mentioned in the article, to avoid portraying any promotional feel.

https://alansariexchange.com/awards-accolades/ (Third party references are available)
Government awards are in bold. Rest are industry specific awards.
- MEA Finance’s Best Remittance and Foreign Exchange Service Provider (2023)
- MEA Finance’s Best User Experience in Payments in the UAE (2023)
- Sheikh Khalifa Excellence Award (SKEA) – 20th Cycle: Gold Category (2023)
- Fastest-growing Multi-Currency Travel Prepaid Card programme in the UAE (2022)
- Consumer-Friendly Company (2022)
- MEA Finance’s Best Remittance and Foreign Exchange Company in the UAE (2022)
- Seamless Awards for Improved Omni-channel Experience of the Year (2022)
- Dubai Appreciation Award for Community Service in the Corporate Category (2022)
- Smart Industry Award (2022)
- Dubai Quality Appreciation Award (2022)
- Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum Customer Excellence Award (2021)
- Rated as the top Fintech App in the UAE, GCC and the second in the Middle East Region, on the Forbes Middle East list of the Top 15 Fintech Apps (2021)
- Al Ansari Exchange tops Forbes’ list of the most prominent transfer and exchange companies in the Middle East (2020)
- The Dubai Chamber Advanced CSR Label (2020)
- Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum Business Innovation Award (2019)
- Sharjah Excellence Award (2019)
- Best Money Exchange at the Asiavision Excellence Awards (2018)
- Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum Business Excellence Award (2017)
- ShjSEEN Award for Top 10 Businesses – First Place in the Financial Services category (2017)
- Dubai Human Development Appreciation Award (2017)
- Golden Shield Award by the Arab Organization for Social Responsibility (2016)
- The Filipino Times Awards – Preferred Remittance Centre of the Year (2015 & 2016)
- Al Ansari Exchange is among Forbes Middle East’s List of Top Companies in the Arab World (2015)
- Sheikh Khalifa Excellence Award – Silver Category (2014)
- Sheikh Khalifa Excellence Award – Quality Appreciation Certificate (2011 and 2004)
- Winner of Superbrands award for 14 consecutive years (2005-2018)
- Best Remittance Services Provider in the Middle East and North Africa by IAMTN (2010)
- ISO 9001:2015
- UAE Web Awards in the eCommerce Category (2006)
- Dubai Quality Award in the Financial Sector (2004)
User:MMuzammils ^{[ TalkBack | Contributions ]} 16:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some brief replies to MMuzammils. We are simply following our criteria for establishing notability - especially WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. So when you ask me what I think about the $20 Million dollars - you're missing the point. What you and I *think* is irrelevant. What we need to see is an independent third party writing independent content (not relying entirely on PR and company announcements or interviews/quotations) discussing (in-depth) the $20 million dollars. Similarly, "coverage" which is made up of PR and Announcements doesn't go towards establishing notability regardless of volume. Going public, in and of itself, does not establish notability but its worth highlighting because (in general) there's a greater likelihood of a public company getting noticed and written about. Finally, awards are generally not useful for establishing notability (unless they're notable awards) nor is getting included in a "Top XX" list. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Astros–Yankees rivalry

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

There's very little coverage to support an entire article dedicated to a rivalry between these two teams. Their matchups in the postseason are already adequately covered elsewhere. Nemov (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Nemov (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Frequent playoff matches can always create a rivalry, but you still need reliable sources to prove it, not just WP:FANCRUFT. At the present time both the Yankees and Astros have not met consistently enough to warrant their own article, and subsequently, pass GNG. Conyo14 (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article does not demonstrate a "rivalry". It is a history of Astros-Yankees matchups. Similar pages could be created for all possible MLB matchup histories, but it would be FANCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject appears to contain enough WP:SIGCOV with which to pass the WP:GNG, including from CBS Sports [[17]] and the NY Post [[18]]User:Let'srun 15:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - New York Post is redlisted as generally unreliable at WP:RS/PS / WP:NYPOST. Some editors have supported making an exception for sports coverage, but that has not achieved consensus.
― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. I clicked on this expecting to vote "delete". As someone who was raised on MLB in the 1970s and 1980s, the idea of a Yankees-Astros rivalry struck me as absurd. Having clicked on the sources cited by User:Let'srun, I'm not so sure -- those are two major media outlets clearly defining it as a rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New York Post is only considered semi-reliable. CBS Sports is a good source for this, but otherwise, it still does not pass WP:GNG. Conyo14 (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sports journalism has a promotional aspect to it, and thus uses the term "rivalry" to cover a broad set of cases, as any two teams that compete against each other can be said to have a rivalry. As there's no official definition, it falls to editorial judgement to decide on what version of the concept is best suited to be described in a stand-alone article. Personally, I feel the concept that meets English Wikipedia's standard of having an article is a sustained competition over years to be recognized for superiority, encompassing fans, players, organizations, and to some degree, the broader citizenry of the associated geographical areas. For better or worse, though, there isn't a simple test to determine this. isaacl (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it's called WP:GNG, with the mentions of "rivalry" or synonyms therein. We don't have WP:NSPORTSRIVALRY though it would be a neat project to do. Conyo14 (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional coverage isn't suitable for demonstrating that the general notability guideline has been met, though, and some sports coverage is promotional: it is explicitly written to ramp up interest in the players, teams, games, competitions, and so forth. This means it will play up conflict, bestow monikers on people and events, and use non-neutral language, for instance. We retain the ability to use editorial judgement to decide what is the best way to cover important events in a team's history, and Wikipedia may not be well-served by having independent rivalry articles for every pair of competing teams. isaacl (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a rivalry for sure as the teams meet consistently in the playoffs, but this is partially influenced by New York and Yankee fan media being much stronger nationwide about a rivalry than say, Royals-Cardinals, and the rivalry outside of a certain situation involving wastebaskets seems to be the Yankee fans being annoyed about another team being better than them lately...and the Houston/Astro side being more 'just get better then' than anything else, along with the Yankees' futility as of late. Outside NY media beyond the AL playoffs, there's not much to be found about these teams playing. Nate • (chatter) 16:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that Houston based media (in this case, the Houston Chronicle) has also labeled the Yankees as a top rival, so coverage exists in both markets [[19]]. Let'srun (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Cbl62, but it is not just the Post and CBS. The Daily News also calls it a rivalry [20]. As does Newsday (in one article a Yankee player calls it "obviously a big rivalry", and both teams' managers call it a big rivalry) [21] [22] [23]. While normally I would be skeptical of a rivalry of short duration like this, the resentment the Yankees (and their fans) still harbor from Houston cheating their way to beat them in the 2017 ALCS makes this more significant than most rivalries of similar duration. Rlendog (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Daily News is semi-reliable, so we chalk that to a partial. As for the Newsday articles #4 is ROUTINE, #5 Interview of a player, so it's technically not independent, #6 I'd say is quite significant. I might change my !vote as a result. Conyo14 (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For me for something to be considered a rivalry there needs to be a long historic narrative. A few months ago a similar article was deleted from the same author for the Astros/Braves. Those two teams have a much longer history, but they weren't traditional rivals. The Braves and Dodgers have played a lot against each other the past few years, used to be divisional foes, but it's not a historic rivalry. There needs to be more than a few playoff series to justify an entire article. Nemov (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In most cases, including Braves/Astros and even Braves/Dodgers I agree with you. But in spite of those teams being in the same division for a while and in an undivided National League before that, and perhaps some playoff games, there is nothing particularly unusual about their interactions. But Astros/Yankees became unusual with the 2017 cheating scandal and then they continued to have high level playoff interactions since with that as a background. Rlendog (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason there's any coverage is because it's the Yankees so it's covered from multiple angles. The Dodgers lost to the cheating Astros and there's no need for an article either. Nemov (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a full article about the cheating scandal plus reactions. It's moreso the WP:SIGCOV quite a few meetings may have sparked a rivalry. Conyo14 (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The cheating scandal itself is covered elsewhere. But it also created an environment that made subsequent Yankees-Astros interactions far more intense than it other would have been, raising them into rivalry territory. As for "The only reason there's any coverage is because it's the Yankees," that is hardly a valid deletion rationale. Our notability guidelines are based on the coverage of the subject, with no exception for coverage involving Yankees. The Yankees and Dodgers are somewhat different in this issue because the Yankees and Astros have had more subsequent interactions to generate a rivalry beyond the initial cheating scandal. Rlendog (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You can write an article like this for every team matchup that has faced each other over many years... doesn't mean we should. To be worthy of it's own article it needs more long term and cultural significance.. for example Yankees/Red Sox, Dodgers/Giants, Cubs/Cardinals are significant historical rivalries.. this one is not. The "rivalry" as it is has only existed for a few years... it needs to extend over decades for it to be notable. Spanneraol (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What guideline is that, exactly, that a rivalry has to exist over many years? Let'srun (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's included in this article that's not included elsewhere? This brief mention on the New York Yankees article pretty much covers it. Per WP:NOPAGE, there's not a clear explanation for why this article should exist when it only covers stuff mentioned elsewhere. Nemov (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Scope of article is centred on a WP:CFORK of Houston Astros sign stealing scandal. WP:NOTEVERYTHING also applies. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yolande Leacock

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

Contested prod. I would argue fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Articles exist but are routine coverage not extensive [24], [25] and [26]. Not sure if combined they could be argued to be enough. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Trinidad and Tobago. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete, created by an abusive (now permablocked) user who created numerous other articles on non-notable tennis players. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a low level but notably important player for Trinidad Tobago. She was just in the Trinidad news this October as the first player representing Trinidad Tobago in the Pan American Games. There is enough notability to keep. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first part is not a valid reason to keep. One article is also not sufficient for GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would think a "notably important player for Trinidad Tobago" is quite a valid reason. It's why she has been in several articles about her in the Caribbean area. To each his own I guess on importance and we'll see what consensus thinks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. WP:BLP states these articles need strong sourcing, 3 refs in article are a database record, an interview, and an unfound ref that fails V. BEFORE showed database records, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV for a WP:BLP addressing the subject directly and indepth. Keep votes provide no sources to eval or guidelines, nothing more than ILIKEIT. // Timothy :: talk 16:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete should be notable but I can't find long enough articles about her. [27] is typical of what there is Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lohum

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

previously deleted and moved into draft. Draft:Lohum Cleantech. Advertisement of Lohum. GregChi (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. GregChi (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per, WP:RSP, I did an analysis on the sources used in this article, ignoring those NOT on the list.

Forbes (Reliable source)
The Times of India (Situational source)
Financial Times (Reliable source)

These sources are a minority, not counting duplicates. The rest of the sources do not count to notability. It is kind of written like an advertisement, but we can always WP:BLOWITUP if it passes notability. (I have some end crystals and obsidian in my offhand, don’t mind the Minecraft reference.) But given a google search on the article, there is not much reliable sources so I’d say delete it. Ping me if any reliable sources (aside from the ones on the article) are found. Brachy08 _(Talk) 03:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have erased several subsections on the firm's products, as these were promotionally worded ("easy-to-integrate into your systems for seamless value discovery", etc.), but they are here if anyone wants to review them for this AfD. AllyD (talk) 06:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The information in the draftified version gives a clearer summary of this battery recycling start-up in various respects. However, sticking to the question of notability, despite all the chaff of partnership announcement references in this instance, there are several substantial pieces about the company (Forbes India 22/3/21, Business India 13/12/21, Times of India 10/3/23), possibly sufficient for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 10:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey AllyD, are you seeing some "Independent Content" any some of those? Which ones? I'm just seeing stuff based on interviews and regurgitated company info. What am I missing? HighKing⁺⁺ 12:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Maybe I'm missing something, lets see if anyone can point to something I might have missed but for now, I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to How I Met Your Mother (season 1)#ep2. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Giraffe

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

Not every episode of every TV show is notable. A note in TV Critic alone does not suffice: they write up everything. An internet search shows that there is no other relevant secondary material available. Drmies (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An WP:Alternative to deletion would be redirecting this to How I Met Your Mother (season 1)#Episodes (an WP:Anchor could also be created to link directly to the relevant place in the list). TompaDompa (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to How I Met Your Mother (season 1)#ep2. References are currently too thin to support an article, but episode titles are reasonable search targets. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frank W. Gaskill

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

Little indication of notability. Basically a CV. WP:NOTLINKEDIN. PepperBeast (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is bordering G11, it can go. Kazamzam (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I came across this in the orphaned articles tag. It doesn't seem like it's near to meeting any notability criteria. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Child.ua

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

It is based on primary engaged and non-authoritative sources, releases, announcements; has signs of abuses of WP Promo; a significant part of the statements is not confirmed by the sources at all, there is no significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. DreamlarT (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wilderness Films India Ltd.

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

Fails to meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Having 4.38 million subscribers on a YouTube channel also fails to establish notability for a company. Charlie (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Charlie (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Micro Labs

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

Fails to meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. A single controversy from an income tax raid does not warrant notability either. Charlie (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Charlie (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 08:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslan Shostak

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

It seems like the person's notability is in question, as the page is filled with press releases and other paid news. Additionally, there is a possibility that the author of the page may be a UPEditor (nature of their edits speaks by itself). DreamlarT (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I've been in this situation — I've never edited articles for a fee, except for those under contract with the Wikimedia Foundation, as noted on my user page on Meta. Regarding the Article about Ruslan Shostak and his charitable foundation, he himself is a notable businessman, the founder of huge national retail chains. The foundation he founded, in particular, after the start of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, organized the evacuation of almost 2,000 orphans from Ukraine for a temporary stay in Turkey. There are more than enough neutral and reliable sources about both Ruslan Shostak and Ruslan Shostak Charitable Foundation, especially in Cyrillic. --Perohanych (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has a promotional tone and seems to employ the tactics of reference bombing—a practice where numerous references are used to give an illusion of notability, commonly referred to as WP:Mill in Wikipedia's terminology. It lacks verifiable and reliable third-party sources from established news organizations. Due to these concerns, the page fails to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe article does meet the Wikipedia's notability criteria WP:ANYBIO - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". He is Chevalier of the Order of Merit — "for significant personal merits in strengthening interstate cooperation, support for state sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, significant contribution to the popularization of the Ukrainian state in the world". The person has significant coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources. There are dozens of such sources. Every statement in the article is based on reliable sources in authoritative publications. The article reads as an objective encyclopedia entry. Please let me know the exact wording of the article that you believe appears to be promotional material, and I will be happy to remove it. --Perohanych (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 04:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree article is in need of significant overhaul but subject himself appears notable. In addition to the point raised above by Perohanych, a simple search turned up a number of recent independent news articles about him (Yahoo! News, Interfax-Ukraine, Forbes, and 24 Kanal, among others). Also, if this article is kept, the Ruslan Shostak Charitable Foundation article, which is currently AfD'd, could be merged into this one (granted, it should be rewritten as well). Best, Dan the Animator 06:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doms (company)

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

Fails to meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Charlie (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Charlie (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Gujarat. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is notable enough to have an article बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - The sourcing on this article is very (very) substandard, with most sources just being a copy and paste of previous press releases. There is one specific article, the one published by Outlook Magazine which seems to a semi interview which disqualifies it as a non third-party source. The livemint.com article does seem promising, but that was the only reliable source I could find. However, one good source does not satisfy the 'multiple' clause of NCORP making this a delete in my opinion. -- Sohom (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I don't want to close this as a Merge to Ruslan Shostak as this article is also being considered for deletion at an AFD discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslan Shostak Charitable Foundation

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

It seems like the organization doesn't have enough notability and reliable sources to support its credibility, as well as insufficient media coverage from third-party sources on the given topic. 19 pick ups bought for the army is circulating in the news, but it's not about notability. possible promotion of the Ruslan Shostak persona as the author is the same for both pages DreamlarT (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ruslan Shostak is a notable businessman, the founder of huge national retail chains. The charitable foundation he founded, in particular, after the start of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, organized the evacuation of almost 2,000 orphans from Ukraine for a temporary stay in Turkey. There are more than enough neutral and reliable sources about both Ruslan Shostak and Ruslan Shostak Charitable Foundation, especially in Cyrillic. --Perohanych (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it does not meet the site's notability criteria. The foundation lacks significant coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources. WP:Mill or WPREFBOMB won't halpe much, as the majority of the citations come from news releases wich fails WP:RS. Furthermore, the article reads more like a promotional piece rather than an objective encyclopedia entry. NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does meet the Wikipedia's notability criteria. The foundation has significant coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources. There are dozens of such sources. Every statement in the article is based on reliable sources in authoritative publications. The article reads as an objective encyclopedia entry. Please let me know the exact wording of the article that you believe appears to be promotional material, and I will be happy to remove it. --Perohanych (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I translated 3 of the listed articles and they are substantial articles about the work of the organization. I cannot comment on the reliability of the publications themselves. I admit that I find it awkward to have an English Wikipedia article without a single English language reference. I would not object to a future Afd (maybe some years) if this organization is never covered in non-Ukrainian sources. I am assuming that there is an entry in the UA Wikipedia, but am not able to check that. Lamona (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would help if any of these translated sources (or a summary of their content) was brought into this discussion or added to the article. Right now, there have been no changes to the article since it was nominated so that's what editors are judging it on.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect and merge into Ruslan Shostak. Both articles are on the shorter side and given the amount of content that'll probably be removed when both articles undergo rewriting (especially Shostak's article), it'll be best for the two to be merged so they don't each become stubs. Imo, I think this article would work great as its own section in Shostak's article, granted its rewritten and trimmed (it would also help give context for why he got a top state civil award, which the current BLP fails to answer). Cheers, Dan the Animator 06:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Half-Life (series)#Setting. Daniel (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Locations of Half-Life

AfDs for this article:

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

This is effectively a list of locations of Half-Life, and it fails both WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. No source cited or in my BEFORE covers this topic in a non-game guide form. There is a reception but it is based on passing mention of a location or few in game reviews. Last AfD suggested some merge, and maybe something here can be rescued by merging, but the topic of this article is effectively a lengthy plot summary with a blown up reception section. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Video games, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Half-Life (series)#Setting and any of the "main article" links present in the current article (ie Black Mesa Research Facility) for any info that isn't WP:GAMECRUFT (it's mostly wikia cruft though.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Half-Life (series)#Setting - the only other individual locale that is probably notable is City 17 while the others either already have articles or aren't notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Half-Life (series)#Setting - The few listed locations that actually are notable, such as Black Mesa Research Facility, already have a separate article, and the rest are just in-universe descriptions of minor locations. The reception section is largely made up of cherry-picked quotes from general reviews of the games, rather than genuine significant coverage on the fictional locations themselves. Rorshacma (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I suspect most of the details of the individual locations are reflected in the respective game articles (eg I know Aparture's influence and style are mentioned within the Portal articles). Only one that I would think needs to be moved in wholesale is the section on Xen, since that's a well-known part of Half-Life for all the wrong reason. If anything. --Masem (t) 00:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. Not every game universe needs its own article, and this sits comfortably in te series page. No prejudice against recreation if there are more sources about the universe itself. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rubikus.HelpUA

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

It seems like the organization doesn't have enough notability and reliable sources to support its credibility, as well as insufficient media coverage from third-party sources on the given topic. DreamlarT (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Russia, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Church

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

No reliable source refs on the page - seem that this guy bowled a few overs a single match for a "first class" non-county (perhaps even a scratch?) team. Does not appear to meet the notability criteria JMWt (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and England. JMWt (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. A List of D. R. Jardine's XI cricketers needs to be created and him redirected to there. Interestingly, in 5 years time he could become another FC centurion. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like if you wanted it redirected then you first have to create the page - because we can't redirect to a redlink JMWt (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in absence of suitable redirect Looks to be a GNG fail, and the suitable list to redirect to doesn't exist, so delete for now. If list is created in the meantime, then my vote would change to redirect. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Cheetah Mehrat. Daniel (talk) 11:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheetah caste

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

I can't find any sources about this - the only things I've found are photos claiming to be of people in this caste, all published by the same person. It's possible that there's sources that talk about it that aren't in English, but since there's no name listed in any other language I can't verify that myself. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 11:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 11:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear that this information can be verified so seems to me that we need to WP:TNT until someone can rewrite a properly sourced page. I don't see anything, but it could be in a language I don't read. JMWt (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nomination - Elshad (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cheetah Mehrat - This appears to be the same ethnic group, but Cheetah Mehrat is much more researched. The original Cheetah caste editor WALTHAM2 left Wikipedia in 2017. This current article was created June 11, 2023. — Maile (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cheetah Mehrat. It's probably a misnomer to refer to this group as a "caste", but it seems like a reasonable search term for the ethnic group found in Rajasthan. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cheetah Mehrat - The reasoning by Red-tailed hawk is convincing. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to FN MAG. Daniel (talk) 11:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C6A1 FLEX

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

This is simply a variant of the Canadian (C6) version of the FN MAG, and does not warrant an article of its own for just a single variant (in fact sub-variant!) of the FN MAG. If that were the case we would have at least a dozen articles (for example, the British L7 and subvariants, although extensive, do not have their own article and are covered at the FN MAG article).

Furthermore, it makes no sense to start an article at the C6A1 variant. If an article were warranted for the Canadian version, it would be titled C6 machine gun, and cover all variants.

It makes no sense for this single "FLEX" variant (which is just a brand/marketing name by Colt Canada) to be given its own article.

The content should be merged under the Canadian section of FN MAG. Elshad (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Firearms and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to relevant section of the FN MAG article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

List of cities, boroughs and towns in the Republic of Ireland

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn. Further discussion on related pages required. (non-admin closure)‎ Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

There are two parts to this page. In the first instance, there's the descriptive part, which recounts the administrative history of the former administrative areas of cities, boroughs and towns. This information is separately at Town councils in the Republic of Ireland (which also includes the five municipal boroughs) and City status in Ireland. The second part is the table, which substantially covers information at List of urban areas in the Republic of Ireland/2011 census, being the more recent information before the abolition of most of these areas as separate entities. While we should of course ensure that all relevant information (such as the map) is copied and properly attributed, maintaining this separate page doesn't seem useful in the post-2014 world. It would be worth getting Jnestorius's views though as one of the more substantial contributors to this particular page, and to related pages. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd be more inclined to merge Town councils in the Republic of Ireland into List of cities, boroughs and towns in the Republic of Ireland than vice versa; the latter covers 1899–2014, the former only covers 2001–2014 and excludes cities. It's misleading to say the list "substantially covers information at List of urban areas in the Republic of Ireland/2011 census" — the latter only has the metropolitan area/pop, not the municipal area/pop or electoral pop. Maybe History of urban government in the Republic of Ireland would be a snappier title. Certainly the 2006 and %change columns can go — personally I don't favour such trivia even for non-obsolete administrative units —; OTOH 1901 area/pop might usefully be added. Councils dissolved before 2001 (Pembroke Township, Dún Laoghaire Borough, Callan, Roscommon, etc) should also be added to the table. The map should distinguish town commissioners from urban districts, and note places which switched class, like Granard (1944) and Galway (1937, 1985). jnestorius^(talk) 01:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughts, that could be a good way to organise these. I've been thinking for a while about how best to organise these. The greater the distance from 2014, or from 2002, the more the town councils that existed in that latter period are similarly historic, in the same way as Pembroke Township or Dún Laoghaire. There could be something in listing the first recorded population after their and at the last census before their abolition. For example, I had created a page Urban and rural districts (Ireland), copying material previously on the equivalent Great Britain and Ireland page. There could be something though in your suggestion of a History of urban government in the Republic of Ireland, which would cover all of these, at least in the post-1922 period. There's no pressing urgency about this discussion, so I could bring this to WT:IE to consider the best way of organising pages on the narrative history of sub-county units, and a list of such units. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm minded to withdraw this discussion, to take time to think through a more considered set of proposals at WT:IE on the history of urban government in Ireland, though possibly in a few weeks. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Lancashire County Cricket Club players. Daniel (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

R. Roberts (Lancashire cricketer)

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

Very basic information cannot be verified. I see from the newspaper archives that there are match reports but nothing which fills any gaps here. Unfortunately there just is not enough information to write a page on this person JMWt (talk) 10:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Cricket, and England. JMWt (talk) 10:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the long established consensus, this seems to be a clear and obvious redirect to List of Lancashire County Cricket Club players. Don Ambrose has some speculation behind CricketArchive's paywall, but basically says "we don't really know who this was, but it could have been this chap, but probably not". This sort of thing can be boldly redirected in future with a note added to the list. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Blue Square Thing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Lancashire County Cricket Club players Not enough for a GNG pass, but a suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Given the short period of time this article has been live, willing to restore to draft if anyone so desires - please just ask on my talk page. Daniel (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Weber

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

Fails WP: GNG and it has also been deleted for lack of importance. Ibjaja055 (talk) 07:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Conservatism, Politics, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
was that old deletion about the same person? There are a few with the same/similar names. Juno (talk) 05:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Article don't have any significant coverage to be in main space.~ India^cup 09:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Association of Mature American Citizens. Most of the coverage about her is in conjunction with AMAC. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete for lack of sourcing, not even sure a redirect to the association is needed, I don't think being the CEO of it gives any notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Weber participated in the January 6 uprising and wrote about it 3 days later on the AMAC website, insinuating violence was triggered by "Antifa" agents provocateurs. This link is a primary source and does not establish notability. However, there may possibly be news coverage elsewhere of her involvement.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added more material/sources. There has been a lot written and she gets interviews with all the R presidential candidates, among others. Juno (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Juno Unfortunately the two articles you added written by John Grimaldi don't count, because Grimaldi himself works for AMAC. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Glamorgan County Cricket Club players. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Jones (cricketer)

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

Playing a single first-class game does not give notability per WP:NCRIC which states "Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket,[a] may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." JMWt (talk) 07:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Wales. JMWt (talk) 07:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hignell has a little on him, but if we can't find anything else then I'd be relaxed about a redirect to List of Glamorgan County Cricket Club players with a note added summarising the sources and what we know. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Be bold and just redirect it, no need to bother with noms. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Glamorgan County Cricket Club players Not enough for a GNG pass, but a suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Iwaidja language. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

𝼛

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

There are about 150,000 Unicode characters. This one is apparently used in a language spoken by some 200 people, and isn't even mentioned in the article on that language. Sources are all primary (from Unicode). No evidence of any notability. No objection to a redirect to Iwaidja language if people feel it should be mentioned there, but otherwise I see no reason to keep this. Fram (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Australia. Fram (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Iwaidja language; letter isn't notable on its own. ― Ö S M A N (talk · contribs) 13:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the title of this article is just the character - but the character doesn't display on my laptop, and I very much doubt I'm alone. All the article says is that the letter is used in Iwaidja language. I can't see how anyone could reasonably find this article unless they already knew what the character is, and unless they're very lucky, they won't even find out what it looks like. So I'm struggling to see how this article in its current form can be useful to anyone. I'm definitely leaning towards delete but don't consider myself a technical specialist on character sets or languages, so I'm not formulating this as a full !vote. Elemimele (talk) 08:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and/or merge to Iwaidja language. Unicode databases are not sources that show notability here. JMWt (talk) 09:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as suggested above. Waggers TALK 10:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Iwaidja language. — The Anome (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Iwaidja language. DRMcCreedy (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Iwaidja language Character doesn't even display ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 12:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Square (shape). बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 Israeli Noar Premier League

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

No refs on the page. Nothing to suggest that a season of a youth football league is notable. JMWt (talk) 07:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Israel. JMWt (talk) 07:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. This seems to be the preferred Merge target article. But there isn't any prohibition about Merging content to more than one article as long as there is attribution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of serving heads of state and government that have visited Israel during the 2023 Israel–Hamas War

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

This list is not obviously notable and does not readily appear to fulfil the most basic tenet of WP:NLIST, i.e.: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Here, there is little to no overlap in the sourcing, so little to no evidence that these visits have been widely discussed in sources as a standalone notable group of events. Instead it is more a collection of niche news events. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Israel, and Palestine. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's ample discussion of the topic of heads of state/government visiting Israel during the war as "solidarity visits", such as [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. In addition, the Wall Street Journal has a tracker for all the foreign leaders who have visited Israel during the war: [33]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longhornsg (talk • contribs) 06:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WSJ is one good example of some aggregation on the subject, but alone insufficient, just as one good source is insufficient for any page. The rest is pretty ropey and trivial news cycle stuff. Yes, the odd visit story mentions a previous visit, but that's not really comprehensively discussing the visits as a group; more joining the dots. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - technically it meets the notability criteria because there has been a large amount of press chatter about it. Far more than in the ordinary run of things. I can't say I like it, though. Next we will have a list of leaders who have signed a book of condolence, etc. JMWt (talk) 06:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Visits by foreign leaders per nom and WP:NOTNEWS. There may be a handful of articles covering these visits collectively, but it's far too early to say whether they have enduring notability as an independent set. Even if they do, notability doesn't mean we have to have a standalone page and it seems far more natural to cover this within the article on the war (or if that gets too long, a spinoff like international reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war). I'm not sure there's that much to merge—foreign visits are already covered in the parent article, and I prefer the prose format there to this very short list—but that's for editors of the merge target to decide. – Joe (talk) 06:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it really counts as "news" in the sense of WP:NOTNEWS. Of course we can't predict future history books, but it seems likely that the actions of world leaders to this conflict will be considered to have lasting resonance in the future. News might be a page describing day to day statements by the politicians etc. JMWt (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of the cited sources are literally news reports. – Joe (talk) 07:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actions, yes; visits, not so much. The Middle East tour by Blinken was probably actually more notable and impactful (and more discussed) than some of entries here of discernably less geopolitical import. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Numerous sources indicate that these visits are 'solidarity visits', similar to when leaders visited Ukraine at the onset of the Russian invasion. The last time so many leaders visited Israel in such a short time was during the funeral of Shimon Peres. The last time the British Prime Minister visited Israel was more than 10 years ago. Haaretz, refers to it as the 'Ukraine Syndrome'. Orwell1 (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC) Striking non-EC editor ineligible to participate in this internal discussion, per WP:ARBPIA restrictions. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but why does that mean we should have a standalone list of them? – Joe (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is notable and many leaders have already done it, including three of the superpower leaders (US, UK, and France). Visiting a state at a state of war involves risks. During the visit, the German Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, had to take cover in a bomb shelter as a missile alarm sounded. Additionally, when he was about to take off, another rocket alarm went off, leading all German officials to lie face down on the floor with their hands over their heads. These visits are not regular visits. Orwell1 (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC) Striking non-EC editor ineligible to participate in this internal discussion, per WP:ARBPIA restrictions. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There exist only two other extant "List of serving heads of state and government ..."-style articles in the past, and both are for the Ukraine war. [34][35] There are two possible conclusions to be drawn from this, since political visits have always existed and are not a novel thing: 1) such content was duly ignored in the past as the news cycle-fed churnalistic dross that it is and this content type has only reared its ugly head with the massive over-fixation on Ukraine and now Gaza. 2) this is super relevant and notable content and this encyclopedia has been missing a massive trick in not snapping up all the news re: all the various visits by foreign heads of state in the past wars of history. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The media's intense focus on Gaza Wars didn't begin with the current conflict; all previous wars received significant media coverage. However, in no previous Gaza war have we seen so many leaders visiting Israel to express their solidarity. In the 2008-2009 Gaza War, only President Nicolas Sarkozy visited Israel, and that was long before Tel Aviv and Jerusalem were within the war zone (as rocket attacks on these cities began only in 2012). Sarkozy's visit at that time was primarily aimed at promoting a truce between the conflicting parties rather than showing solidarity with Israel.

Similarly, during the subsequent Gaza War of 2014, which was the deadliest until this current conflict, no other world leaders or heads of state visited Israel, except for Ban Ki-moon, who served as the UN Secretary-General. Ban Ki-moon's visit was also focused on promoting a truce, rather than taking a stand with Israel.

In this war, things are indeed different. The number of leaders who have already come to Israel is much higher, and their primary purpose in visiting is to express their solidarity. This is a significant departure from previous wars. Orwell1 (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC) Striking non-EC editor ineligible to participate in this internal discussion, per WP:ARBPIA restrictions. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Longhornsg. Loksmythe (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested seems ok. For what this is, we can just cut and paste the chart into the article and not lose anything, there is no sort of discussion going on around why these are notable enough to warrant an article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep I think that a list of visiting heads of state and government is quite the contrary of "not notable. Furthermore, evidently one can find ample sources in reference to each visiting head of state. I'm certain a quick google search will find you dozens of articles from the most respected to the least respected News regarding the visit of US president Joe Biden, French President Macron, British PM Sunak, EU president... etc.

Indeed, this actually seems to be an interesting method of the West showing solidarity with its allies, in similar fashion to visits to Ukraine following the Russian invasion.

Indeed there is such a Wikipedia article: List of serving heads of state and government that have visited Ukraine during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Thus this article can refer and build up from that article. This is not the first time such an article has been created.

Furthermore there are also sources that directly refer to list of leaders, and there are still leaders visiting and thus this article has potential for growth. The Czech and Austrian leaders visited recently and thus topic grows... [36] (Source regarding Czech and Austrian leaders) Homerethegreat (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2023 Israel–Hamas war or another appropriate article per Joe. No reason for this list—which is essentially a synthesis of news reports—to have its own page. International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war might be another possible merge target. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war or 2023 Israel-Hamas war; doesn't make sense as a standalone article. DFlhb (talk) 09:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Homerethegreat — Preceding unsigned comment added by A3811 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Visits by foreign leaders - unnecessary fork, no significance per se. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. // sikander { talk } 🦖 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Even though there may be media coverage on individual visits and pairs, Longharnsg's links don't back up an NLIST pass: the articles don't constitute covering a group or set of leaders' visits. The WSJ one doesn't even discuss them. SWinxy (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war per above as an ATD. // Timothy :: talk 08:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, per feedback. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano Caselli

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

Stefano Caselli

This biography of a living person of a cartoonist has no footnotes, and footnotes are required for biographies of living persons. It does not qualify for proposed deletion of BLPs because it has external links. They have been checked, and they do not contain significant coverage by independent sources. Two of them appear to be listings of his works, which do not verify basic information.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	www.comics.org	A listing of all of his comic books	Yes	No	Yes	No
2	stekart.blogspot.com	Doesn't appear to mention him, but may be his blog	No	No	?	No
3	comicbookdb.com	Aooears to be another listing of his comics	Yes	No	Yes	No

This article has been tagged as needing better references since 2008. The Heymann criterion will be three independent reliable sources verifying basic biographical information and providing significant coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Comics and animation, and Italy. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear in the kinds of independent RS that we need. Or at least I don't see them. JMWt (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm undecided. His work is prolific and highly successful, he seems to be a valued guest at festivals, but finding sources is hard. I found this: [37] which although cast partly as an interview is an extended in-depth piece by a named author, though I have no idea how we rate the source. Elemimele (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely due to the lack of independent biographical sources. We shouldn't blaze the trail in writing biographies of living people, there have been too many problems caused by this. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Responding to talk page ping. In my searches for sources, the sources I found largely were passing mentions in book reviews that mention he illustrated the book (example from Publishers Weekly and example from Booklist) or were about a different person with the same name, a finance professor at Bocconi University. (example). Cunard (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lalitha Jewellery

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

Company fails WP:NCORP in that there are insufficient references that meet WP:ORGCRIT. Assessment of the references is below. I was going to send this to AfD a week ago when recommending the Chairman for deletion, but kept this for a possible redirect as WP:ATD. After further assessment of the references, I don’t think that would be an option as I don’t feel the company is notable. CNMall41 (talk) 05:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. CNMall41 (talk) 05:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessement:

1. Economic Times, brief mention (one sentence). Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

2. Hans India, interview with the Chairman of the company and fails WP:NEWSORGINDIA based on the byline. Likely a PR piece.

3. Sakshi, another interview with the Chairman and coincidentally published within 30 days of the interview listed above.

4. Economic Times, company listing similar to those found in Crunchbase or Bloomberg. Fails CORPDEPTH.

5. DT Next, written by the Chairman of the company. Not independent.

6. New Indian Express, Fails NEWSORGINDIA with a byline of “express news service” which is customary with churnalism for this publication.

7. Deccan Chronicle, a number of issues including failing NEWSORGINDIA with byline of “DC Correspondent” which indicates press release or churnalism. Also is considered a routine announcement of a location opening.

8. India Today, this is the only reference that I find that comes close to WP:ORGCRIT. However, it is a news story about a robbery that happened at the store so effectively routine news coverage as it talks about the robbery and isn’t in-depth about the company.

9. Tamil Samayam, another article about a robbery.

10. Hindustan Times, article about the robbery suspect surrendering to authorities. This reference is about the robbery and not in-depth about the company itself.

11. The Hindu, another that fails NEWSORGINDIA with a byline of “The Hindu Bureau.” The coverage is also about a donation that the company made to a temple so not in-depth about the company itself. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the source assessment by the nominator. None of the coverage count towards notability criteria for companies. Fails WP:NCORP. 42.107.197.36 (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 14:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Vlaardingerbroek

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

This unsourced article has been tagged as such since 2020 and features a darts player who, according to the article itself, "never featured in the final stages of a major event". WP:BEFORE yielded a Dutch article in which he is described as an amateur ("There is no room for Bert Vlaardingerbroek is written in every darts book." Google did struggle with this one) and a piece on Forgotten Darters. It's not enough for WP:GNG and having reached the last 32 of the Winmau World Masters as the pinnacle of his career, he is not notable per WP:NSPORT. However, I did learn that there is a condition called 'Dartitis', similar to Dystonia and for that I am grateful. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Netherlands, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Dutch version of the article, which is more extensive than this one, cites Pionier met darteritis as a source for its content, unfortunately now a redlink. This interview from rtlnieuws, is a respectable source that shows interest: "Bert Vlaardingerbroek's name is written in every darts book." This book calls Bert Vlaardingerbroek the best darts player in the Netherlands.. Subject seems to be marginally notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The book is about Raymond van Barneveld, arguably the best darts player of the Netherlands though someone thought it was "puffery" to call him that (he won five world championships, a similar total as Eric Bristow who is regarded as the best darter of all time!) when I described him as such when writing Darts in the Netherlands (which was an "interesting" experience as folks were placeing those ugly unhideable tags when I wasn't even done with the article). Vlaardingerbroek was the first Dutch darter to reach an international tournament, maybe that makes him somewhat notable. Someone Not Awful (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly would but only if sources existed testifying to that effect. -The Gnome (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maliner (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 04:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 (UTC)

Comment How does a page created in 2008 suddenly become non-notable?

MaskedSinger (talk) 11:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was never notable? It's certainly undersourced... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject's notability is evidently unsupported by sources. -The Gnome (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Son of Sam (EP)

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

Just a tracklist. Only uses SoundCloud as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locust member (talk • contribs) 02:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lucki: I could only find one announcement and two brief mentions in roundup announcement articles ([38][39][40]), and that's not enough for notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep. We have three short reviews available, each providing some secondary analysis of the subject:
1. Sheldon Pearce in Pitchfork [41], including for example:
  On Son of Sam, he raps as if he’s perpetually groggy from a Xanax bender, penning wandering but colorful descriptions of his highs and what exactly he does to get them. His writing hasn’t missed a beat, but his delivery has grown increasingly sedated and leisurely....
2. Leor Galil in Chicago Reader [42] including:
  ... rapper Lucki Ecks released Son of Sam, an EP that moves further toward the hazy, narcotized soundscapes he’s toyed with throughout his short career. He takes an abrasive, experimental turn on “Jigga 98”....
3. Chris Mench in Complex magazine [43] including:
  The majority of the tape is dark, with Eck$ spitting over hazy, haunting beats. It's certainly not destined for the radio, but his slurred, macabre style certainly has its appeal. At times, his voice can even sound more like another part of the beat than something totally distinct from it.

Also have some short mentions in Brooklyn Vegan, Hip-hopVibe and a long retrospective review three years later in what seems to be a marginally reliable source Underground Underdogs

—siro χ o 05:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm skeptical about the last three sources Siroxo provides, but the first three just about scrape it over GNG for me. AryKun (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per siroxo. dxneo (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Law & Order characters. Sourcing is of insufficient depth Star Mississippi 14:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rey Curtis

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

Sources in the article are primary, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of Law & Order characters. Spinixster (chat!) 04:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 04:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect per nom – names of major characters on TV shows are reasonable search targets. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Weak keep Another interesting subject brought up by Spinixster. Looking up sources for this one should be a pleasure. Let's see... The article itself has less bloat than many other recent noms, but no non-primary sources. Let's see if that's fixable. Looper came up quickly. Here's one on EWeekly. More in a bit. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We've established that Daily Express doesn't impress anyone, but here are some Google Scholar hits (I believe we've seen some of these before): Death Penalty, Postmodern And we have Entertainment Weekly again, and Vulture I generally feel satisfied that we have enough sourcing to support this short article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And two magazines... Motion Picture Magazine and Latin Heat It was enough for a small critical reception section. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see the sources.

Looper article is just "who played x in y", not really useful here.
EW source is more about the actor, there's seemingly only one paragraph about the character.
Second EW source is a listicle. The description is very very brief.
Vulture source is more about the actor. The character is briefly mentioned with no description whatsoever.

For the magazine sources, I'm doubting the reliability of Motion Picture Magazine (not the same as the one on Wikipedia), there is seemingly no information on who writes these articles or whether or not there's an editorial team. The same can be said for Latin Heat, but at least we know who writes these articles. I'll check the scholar sources soon. Spinixster (chat!) 01:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Motion Picture Magazine is 100% unreliable because it's owned by Loaded Media which means the articles may be AI generated. Spinixster (chat!) 02:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heavens. I will remove MPM from the ariticle immediately. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More reviews below.

Death Penalty source only names the character once.
Postmodern source may be usable, but most of it consists of plot summaries, so I think there's very little that can be used.

Spinixster (chat!) 02:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KeepHe was one of the major characters on the show and others like Lennie Briscoe also have articles. I have no interest in hunting for them but I have little doubt that sources exist in which this character is discussed. There's no good reason to delete it. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a character is the main character or a major character does not mean that the character is notable enough for a separate page. Reliable secondary sources will be needed to prove notability. Spinixster (chat!) 01:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 07:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 04:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- KEEP. He is notable because he meets the WP:BIO and has credible sources cover.Micheal Kaluba (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Micheal Kaluba This is not a real person, so WP:BIO does not cover this. Sources need to describe the subject from a real-life perspective and must not be passing (see also: WP:FICTION). The sources above do not meet the criteria. Spinixster (chat!) 13:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a redirect to List of Law & Order characters. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Micheal Kaluba Sorry for another comment, but please consider striking your previous vote and put "redirect" in bold so that there is no confusion on what your vote is. Thanks! Spinixster (chat!) 14:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Jack (artist)

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

WP:PROMO. The sources here so far, many which are interviews, are insufficient to establish the notability of the subject. Does not pass WP:NSINGER as well. – robertsky (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Kerala, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Creator has only contributed to this article (excluding 2 edits made on another page) which might possibly could count as COi since the first source is a two paragraph article and likely PROMO. Using the translator tool; most sources read like interviews = WP:Primary sources. No WP:SIGCOV, and does not meet the criteria listed under WP:MUSICBIO. dxneo (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Wipeout (2008 game show)#Episodes. It wasn't specified where to Redirect this article but this was the previous redirect that existed before being reverted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wipeout (season 1)

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

I don’t even know what to make of this. Absolutely unsourced WP:FANCRUFT. The title of the article does not match the content. A redirect that has been in place is constantly being reverted. This needs to be given the Old Yeller treatment. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if we !vote to keep, we'd need to discuss the article title. Obviously, it's not just season one. Beyond that, the Wipeout show has numerous iterations, so we'd do something like 'List of Wipeout (2008) episodes'. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect or Delete: As per previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 35#Wipeout season articles. Might be a wise idea to indefinitely protect all the season articles along with Wipeout Australia and List of Wipeout Canada episodes to prevent IPs continuing on with this nonsense any longer. This has been going on the past 2-3 years with all these articles and is the same FANCRUFT/unsourced/INDISCRIMINATE/NOTPLOT/etc. every single time the redirect(s) are removed. Magitroopa (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect, per Magitroopa. Wikishovel (talk) 05:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as per the previous two users...this is an indiscriminate list and users continually expanding it means the article as it is cannot stand. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced and I wouldn't know where to look to find this much information on each episode, short of sitting with a notepad and writing it down as they aired, which makes this OR. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know that’s exactly how this information was compiled… Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to season articles. Survivor:_Borneo#Season_summary shows how a show like Survivor list who was voted out each episode in a chart in the main article for each season along with with summaries per episode afterwards. Dream Focus 21:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if this was sourced then its still just WP:FANCRUFT. The whole thing could be sumarized into a singular table but its still unsourced WP:OR. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎ per WP:SKCRIT#1. No policy-based reason for deletion was advanced. – Joe (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dorcadion pseudinfernale

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

No information on subject whatsoever. Honestly these articles are a complete waste of time. Aydoh8 (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Aydoh8 (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:NSPECIES and lack of a policy-based deletion rationale by the proposer. @Aydoh8: please stop nominating species articles for deletion. The consensus for these being notable and valid articles is well established and nomination rationales like "no information on subject" and "a complete waste of time" have no basis in policy. Jfire (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per the reasoning given for the nominator's last four attempts of the same sort. @Aydoh8: please consider this a warning. You appear to either have no intention of educating yourself about the background of what you are doing; are never ever checking back on your own nominations; or have decided to be WP:POINTy. None of these is acceptable in the long term. If you don't stop these time-wasting nominations of articles that by current consensus are obviously going to be kept, I will take it to ANI before long. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't have any special knowledge on this but as far as I can tell it is legitimately described in the scientific literature and is therefore notable. JMWt (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of El Salvador women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Osegueda

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

Redirect to List of El Salvador women's international footballers. The subject has made at least one appearance for the aforementioned national team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, El Salvador, and California. JTtheOG (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 15:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zila Lafleur

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

The subject has earned at least three caps for the Haiti women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This is the most I found. JTtheOG (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Haiti. JTtheOG (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Guyana women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeisha Pearson

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

Redirect to List of Guyana women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least two caps for the Guyana women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This was the most I found. JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Caribbean, and South America. JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 15:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Modi'in Ezrachi

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp: notability under GNG or SNG. North8000 (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Police, Companies, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no indication that this company meets WP:NCORP. BD2412 T 02:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a quick search of the company name returns English sources with a company profile, Haaretz articles, and even a Pulitzer Center piece that notes the company as "the largest security contractor currently employed by the Israeli government". There are even more sources in Hebrew --DannyS712 (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the four refs found by DannyS712 plus 6 more that I found and added to the article.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to assess new improvements to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Remove all content that isn't sourced which is a fair bit of it and then re-assess after we see what's left.

MaskedSinger (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's an older Israeli company and it is a larger Israeli company, on a national scale. As pointed out above me, there is plenty of sourcing. So absolutely no reason to delete. IF IT WAS part of a larger group, a merge could have been considered. From what I could find, it is a family-owned corporation and its own entity. Which brings me back to the sourcing. DannyS712 found sourcing in English. That's awesome! Between 10, 100, and 1000 SIGCOV sources in Hebrew, 100 would be my best estimate. I added just one that was relevant to the rest of my answer. gidonb (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National College Lacrosse League

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

Subject lacks the necessary sourcing to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sports. Let'srun (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is just a results listing of a non notable competition. LibStar (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG and NORG, fails CLN (as far as it contains a list), lacks sources from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV about the subject addressing it directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 01:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

California Junior College Lacrosse Association

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

Subject completely lacks the coverage needed to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and California. Let'srun (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Triplex locomotive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2-8-8-8-2

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

Subject fails GNG. Efforts to redirect this have failed. Most material online about this are fansites. While there are mentions about this wheel-type in books, I found nothing significant. This situation is proof that Redirects are costly. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{comment) Chris Troutman did simple redirecting, and I undid (opposed) his/her edit, and soon he/she did this request. This article stores the contents of Whyte notation along with other articles related to Whyte notation. (You can see these articles with Template:Whyte types.) Chris troutman's edit will confuse the structure of the article group, so it's best to keep it as an independent article.--マイヤー式機関車 (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Triplex locomotive. I agree that this is not an independently notable configuration, but disagree with the proposed redirect target. I note that 2-8-8-8-8-8-2 points to a section of Triplex locomotive, (while 2-10-10-10-10-10-2 points to Whyte notation but is discussed at Triplex locomotive). I see no reason why 2-8-8-8-2 (and 2-8-8-8-4) could not be merged and integrated into Triplex locomotive. BD2412 T 03:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2-8-8-8-2 (and 2-8-8-8-4 likewise) is notable, in large part because it's a node within the wheel arrangement lists at Whyte notation / Category:Whyte notation and so its omission would be a visible failing for us. They're obscure, but that's not the same as non-notable.
These should definitely be here as either articles or redirects to triplex locomotive. We might justify them as articles owing to strict WP:N, but as both wheel arrangements were only ever used for these Mallets they'd only end up as three triplicated copies of content that would need to be in triplex locomotive (or maybe triplex Mallet locomotive?) anyway. Three articles to describe a physical object where there were only ever four instances of it? So I'd support merging and redirect, which would be a fairly simple editorial job.
Separately, I'd also supporting splitting triplex locomotive into triplex Mallet locomotive (or Triplex Mallet locomotive, as a proper name) for the Baldwin Mallets and maybe triplex and quadruplex locomotives for the others. The existing triplex locomotive#Expanding the concept section has poor coherence between the sub-sections, the Mallets have a strongly related development history, even the unbuilt 2-10-10-10-10-10-2, but the various turbine, steam motor and Garratt designs do not. Such a split is unlikely to happen (or at least, to be done well) as it would require deep subject knowledge in some obscure corners (something that WP has lost the ability to do in recent years).
I would find it hard to justify Category:2-8-8-8-2 locomotives, per WP:SMALLCAT.
Chris Troutman is wrong here on every point. This was also a very bad edit: to have this same AfD on a different article first but to not discuss it through AfD, to claim WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, to redirect it to the wrong target and then to do what should have been a merge and redirect but skipping the tiresome 'merge' part that requires doing some editing work – that's shoddy editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I can't decide whether to keep it or redirect it to Triplex locomotive. I created Triplex Mallet Locomotive as a redirect to Triplex locomotive. The split of the Triplex locomotive article was done independently of this discussion, as there was a long discussion on the Talk page of the Triplex page. There is now a new article Multiplex locomotive which includes all the old Expanding the Concept sections. The unbuilt 2-10-10-10-10-10-2 and other designs based on the George R. Henderson patent have nothing to do with a Mallet locomotive, as they have a jointed boiler. They are now also included in the Multiplex locomotive page. Pechristener (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Triplex locomotive: seems like there is ample coverage there, it's basically the same thing. Just made by different companies. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to triplex locomotive per Andy Dingley, although I'm not seeing too much that needs merging. The triplex article already covers much of the same ground. What remains are the classifications, which are unsourced... and, because only three were built in the US, I would guess that they'd be pretty hard to source. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're not too hard to source, as people do tend to write more about unicorns. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you think otherwise and hope you can find them; a quick Google search for two revealed nothing useful. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Andy Dingley. I also particularly endorse their final paragraph and explicitly reject the statement in the nomination that this somehow proves redirects are costly. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support the merge to Triplex locomotive. I'll also note that WP:COSTLY mostly applies to creating redirects, and should almost never be considered as reasoning for deleting history or otherwise passing up an excellent WP:ATD. —siro χ o 05:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Team YUVAA

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

Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE, coverage in secondary sources is limited to brief mentions or acknowledgements, but no significant coverage. Cited sources in the article describe work adjacent to and by people affiliated with Team YUVAA, but do not discuss the organization itself in any detail. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, COVID-19, and India. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adidas Oceaunz

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage outside FIFA appears to be limited to store listings and this cited article that reads like a press release. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Football. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO, outside of FIFA and the FIFA store, it's all press releases or blogs. Oaktree b (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Peterborough Phantoms. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Peterborough Phantoms season

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

Fails WP:NSEASON. No notable content, so no need to salvage information. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Ice hockey. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (a summary) to a higher level article. I agree there isn't a need for a standalone article, but straight deletion will not benefit readers. Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please specify a Merge target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Peterborough Phantoms, per much the same rationale as given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 Invicta Dynamos season, and per indication there that the club article is an acceptable target, at least for the interim. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Guildford Flames. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 Guildford Flames season

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

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

Fails WP:NSEASON. No notable content, so no need to salvage information. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Ice hockey. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (a summary) to a higher level article. I agree there isn't a need for a standalone article, but straight deletion will not benefit readers. Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please specify a Merge target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Chelmsford Chieftains~~Guildford Flames, per much the same rationale as given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 Invicta Dynamos season, and per indication there that the club article is an acceptable target, at least for the interim. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC) (corrected)[reply]

Also seems to be consistent with pretty much every season that does not have a standalone article but does have something at the title, compare:

List of redirects

Pepsi Guildford Flames (redirect page) (links | edit)
2007–08 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) (links | edit)
2008–09 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) (links | edit)
2009–10 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) (links | edit)
Guildford Flames Season 2009-10 (redirect page) (links | edit)
Guildford Flames Season 2007-08 (redirect page) (links | edit)
Guildford Flames Season 2008-09 (redirect page) (links | edit)
Guildford Flames Season 2007–08 (redirect page) (links | edit)
2007-08 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) (links | edit)
2009-10 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) (links | edit)
Guildford Flames Season 2008–09 (redirect page) (links | edit)
2008-09 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) (links | edit)
2000–01 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) (links | edit)
2010–11 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) (links | edit)
- 2010-11 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) (links | edit)
2011–12 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) (links | edit)
- 2011-12 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) (links | edit)
2006–07 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) (links | edit)
- 2006-07 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) (links | edit)
2000-01 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) (links | edit)
Guildford Flames Season 2010-11 (redirect page) (links | edit)
Guildford Flames Season 2011-12 (redirect page) (links | edit)
2013–14 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) (links | edit)
- 2013-14 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) (links | edit)
2014–15 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) (links | edit)
- 2014-15 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) (links | edit)
2015–16 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) (links | edit)
- 2015-16 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) (links | edit)
List of Guildford Flames records (redirect page) (links | edit)
2006-07 Guildford Flames season (redirect page; transclusion) (links | edit)
2010-11 Guildford Flames season (redirect page; transclusion) (links | edit)
2011-12 Guildford Flames season (redirect page; transclusion) (links | edit)
2013-14 Guildford Flames season (redirect page; transclusion) (links | edit)
2014-15 Guildford Flames season (redirect page; transclusion) (links | edit)
2015-16 Guildford Flames season (redirect page; transclusion) (links | edit)
2018–19 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) (links | edit)
- 2018-19 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) (links | edit)
2018-19 Guildford Flames season (redirect page; transclusion) (links | edit)
2019–20 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) (links | edit)
- 2019-20 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) (links | edit)
2019-20 Guildford Flames season (redirect page; transclusion) (links | edit)
2020–21 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) (links | edit)
- 2020-21 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) (links | edit)
2020-21 Guildford Flames season (redirect page; transclusion) (links | edit)
2021–22 Guildford Flames season (redirect page) (links | edit)
- 2021-22 Guildford Flames season (transclusion) (links | edit)
2021-22 Guildford Flames season (redirect page; transclusion) (links | edit)
2000–01 Guildford Flames (redirect page) (links | edit)
2006–07 Guildford Flames (redirect page) (links | edit)
2007–08 Guildford Flames (redirect page) (links | edit)
2008–09 Guildford Flames (redirect page) (links | edit)
2009–10 Guildford Flames (redirect page) (links | edit)
2010–11 Guildford Flames (redirect page) (links | edit)
2011–12 Guildford Flames (redirect page) (links | edit)
2013–14 Guildford Flames (redirect page) (links | edit)
2014–15 Guildford Flames (redirect page) (links | edit)
2015–16 Guildford Flames (redirect page) (links | edit)
2018–19 Guildford Flames (redirect page) (links | edit)
2019–20 Guildford Flames (redirect page) (links | edit)
2021–22 Guildford Flames (redirect page) (links | edit)

Alpha3031, did you mean Guildford Flames? I don't see a connection with Chelmsford Chieftains. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes I did thank you Liz. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Chelmsford Chieftains. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1994–95 Chelmsford Chieftains season

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

Fails WP:NSEASON. No notable content so no need to salvage information with merge. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Ice hockey. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (a summary) to a higher level article. I agree there isn't a need for a standalone article, but straight deletion will not benefit readers. Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please specify a Merge target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chelmsford Chieftains, per much the same rationale as given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 Invicta Dynamos season, and per indication there that the club article is an acceptable target, at least for the interim. Also noting that 1987–88 Chelmsford Chieftains season was redirected to the same target back in Feb 2021 for much the same reason. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Invicta Dynamos. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 Invicta Dynamos season

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

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

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

Fails WP:NSEASON. No notable content, so no need to salvage information. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Ice hockey. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (a summary) to a higher level article. I agree there isn't a need for a standalone article, but straight deletion will not benefit readers. Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a message on my talk page, by "higher level article" I mean something like either Invicta Dynamos or Invicta Dynamos seasons (I'm not familiar with naming conventions in this topic area so it may exist under a different title), using these articles to form the basis of such an article if it doesn't exist already. I don't have strong opinions what the best target is, just that I see merging somewhere as better for our readers than deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Invicta Dynamos. I want to agree with Thryduulf that merge would be approrpiate, but I considered how we would do that, and what would be merged and it was quite hard to see which of this information should be included on the parent page. These pages are uniformly sourced to the club's own page, [44] which is neither secondary nor independent, and clearly not multiple either. There is thus no evidence that any of this level of detail is notable per WP:GNG. It could all be deleted per policy. Anyone interested in things like which players in the team were "iced" in a certain year should look at the source of the information, the above web site. But it is not notable information for an encyclopaedic article. However, on the basis that an editor could, in the future, perhaps find something notable to harvest from these pages, and with independent, secondary reliable sources, a WP:ATD of redirect would preserve the edit history on these. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Invicta Dynamos for now. If content is added to a specific section or another more general page, can be retargeted then. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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