Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 26	December 28 >

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. ✗plicit 10:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniela Cociu

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

Reopened AfD individually from a squib bundled AfD. For this individual, WP:BEFORE shows some ESPN statistics and brief mention in a Ministry of Education (?) article [1] and passing mention in random sports blurbs like this, but nothing that would satisfy WP:NOTNEWS substantively. No major medals attained as far as can be seen on stats sites, which would qualify under NATHLETE; merely participating in games does not qualify. I believe search on Romanian language (Latin) text on the Moldavan name as written in the article is sufficient (i.e. not Cyrillic). ☆ Bri (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Moldova. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Olympics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched several major Moldovan newspapers (including in Russian) and only got utterly routine event reports and passing mentions. Examples below.

ipn.md: 1 2 3 4 5

moldova-suverana.md: 1 (sourced to the Moldova Olympics committee)

novostipmr.com (Russian): 1

moldova.sports.md (Russian): 1 2 2 3

JoelleJay (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: Fails WP:NTRACK. Routine event reports, passing mention, competing, or qualifying at events does not indicate notability. My likely location biased search returned no reliable sources but JoelleJay could not find anything even in Russian sources. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Showcase (Firefox extension)

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. It says it earned the "Best Use of New Firefox 1.5 Features" award for the Extend Firefox contest, but I don't believe that it merits notability. I couldn't even find the sources which support this claim. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source: https://blog.mozilla.org/press/2006/03/mozilla-announces-winners-of-extend-firefox-competition/

That contest had a lot of media coverage; that extension also had tens of millions of installs, and was consistently one of the top Firefox extensions. 79.155.41.229 (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Delete as notability is not inherited from winning a Firefox contest and more importantly fail to meet WP:NSOFT. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:02, 27 December 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 23:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Unable to find sources. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forecastfox (fix version)

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

No reliable independent sources to show notability. Was PROD'ed before (the reason: Not notable; I can find only passing mentions and spam.), PROD was reverted with the summary: a quick search finds several. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Also unable to find reliable sources for notability. Most results are just sites that reupload downloads or forum posts or brief mentions. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NSOFT. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - [2], [3], and [4] are RS reviews, though two of them are in listicles, and it's likely that it would have had further reviews so it could be turned into a somewhat better article. On the other hand, there's going to be a multitude of browser extensions with similarly marginal levels of coverage, the article is an orphan (despite having apparently once been de-orphaned), I can't see an obvious limited merge target, and even if there were further reviews there's not much that can be usefully said about it that an internet search wouldn't give. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Humboldt State Lumberjacks football, 1924–1929. Daniel (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1925 Humboldt State Lumberjacks football team

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

Playing exclusively against a few local high schools typically isn't good enough to meet the WP:NSEASONS or WP:GNG, and there doesn't seem to be enough here to meet those guidelines either. Let'srun (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and California. Let'srun (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Humboldt State Lumberjacks football, 1924–1929 a la similar action for Delaware State Hornets football, 1924–1929, Temple Owls football, 1894–1899, and Henry Kendall Orange and Black football, 1895–1899. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that, but the closer can't merge unless someone cares enough to create the target article before the AfD closes. Cbl62 (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From page creator: I created these pages to provide a complete record of every football season played by all of the Cal State schools. I have zero objection to merging the 1924-1929 seasons into one page if that's the consensus.

ocfootballknut (talk)

Delete per WP:NSEASONS. This wasn't even intercollegiate football, as all the games were played against high school teams. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have created Humboldt State Lumberjacks football, 1924–1929 and redirected 1927 Humboldt State Lumberjacks football team, 1928 Humboldt State Lumberjacks football team, and 1929 Humboldt State Lumberjacks football team there. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)a[reply]
Merge, per Jweiss. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per @Jweiss11'

Cray04 (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Humboldt State Lumberjacks football, 1924–1929. Daniel (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1924 Humboldt State Lumberjacks football team

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

Nothing shows that this one game season against a local high school meets the WP:NSEASON or WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and California. Let'srun (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Humboldt State Lumberjacks football, 1924–1929 a la similar action for Delaware State Hornets football, 1924–1929, Temple Owls football, 1894–1899, and Henry Kendall Orange and Black football, 1895–1899. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From page creator: I created these pages to provide a complete record of every football season played by all of the Cal State schools. I have zero objection to merging the 1924-1929 seasons into one page if that's the consensus.

ocfootballknut (talk)

Delete per WP:NSEASON. This is about as low-level as one can get in college football, as the team played only one game during the year and it was against a high school team. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have created Humboldt State Lumberjacks football, 1924–1929 and redirected 1927 Humboldt State Lumberjacks football team, 1928 Humboldt State Lumberjacks football team, and 1929 Humboldt State Lumberjacks football team there. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per Jweiss. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the other noms and per @Jweiss11

Cray04 (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of top United States patent recipients

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

Almanac content. Referenced exclusively to annual datasheets from the USPTO, it adds zero value beyond the content of the references. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTDB and failing WP:NLIST for lack of secondary WP:SIGCOV (this has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources) and WP:DEPTH. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per @Last1in, and per nom
Cray04 (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Moldova women's international footballers. Daniel (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Arnautu

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

Redirect to List of Moldova women's international footballers. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that came up in my searches was this, which is an interview anyways. Everything else was passing mentions (2015, 2016, 2018, 2020, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Moldova. JTtheOG (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Criteria already adopted in others similar AfD. Svartner (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 13:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Basauna

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

Delete Fails WP:NGEO. Does not appear on the 2011 census tables, found here: https://censusindia.gov.in/census.website/data/census-tables I am also unable to find any sources demonstrating notability. Tooncool64 (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Did find a mention of the village on one of the census tables. Tooncool64 (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tooncool64: If you want to withdraw a nomination, you can go to Preferences - Gadgets, enable XFDcloser and you will be able to close the discussion in two clicks. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ankathatti

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

Delete Fails WP:NGEO. Does not appear on the 2011 census tables, found here: https://censusindia.gov.in/census.website/data/census-tables I am also unable to find any sources demonstrating notability. Tooncool64 (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Did find a mention of the village on one of the census tables. Tooncool64 (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL SUPERMAN

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

Has no citations to prove notability, and this seems to be WP:Original research. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 20:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 20:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I went and tried to find something to support this article but wasn't able to. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is completely unsourced, and most of the information appears to either be original research or "information" from social media or other non-reliable sources. Searches did not turn up any actual coverage in reliable sources on this. Rorshacma (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems pretty much established that the video itself is a hoax and I don't see much evidence that it is a notable hoax. Pichpich (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Whatever this is, I've not found anything about it... Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to zero sourcing provided to back the article's claims. TH1980 (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sourcing, definitely seems to be a hoax. The only outside link provided claims it came from a poster on 4chan, which is a notoriously unreliable website. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ -- "LOL Superman" lacks reliable, verifiable sources to establish the notability of the alleged video (WP:RS, WP:V). The content is based on hearsay, forum posts, and social media, which do not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable information. The subject is also potentially a hox (WP:HOAX) and fails to meet the genseral notability guideline (WP:GNG) due to the absence of significant coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources. (none)

Cray04 (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom "LOL Superman" lacks reliable, verifiable sources to establish the notability of the alleged video (WP:RS, WP:V). The content is based on hearsay, forum posts, and social media, which do not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable information. The subject is also potentially a hox (WP:HOAX) and fails to meet the genseral notability guideline (WP:GNG) due to the absence of significant coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources. (none)

Cray04 (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glitched, and wasn't showing vote. Struck out the duplicate vote. Cray04 (talk) 04:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. WP:CSD#G7, requested here and carried out by User:Deb. ^Complex/_Rational 16:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Denim (given name)

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

I make the AFD because the PROD was reverted.

WP:NNAME:

If at least two articles matching the surname or given name of the subject of a name article do not exist, then the surname or given name list article would not be notable and should not be created.

I verified this is the case with "Denim". बिनोद थारू (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. बिनोद थारू (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It also says "a properly sourced article about a name may still be notable without a list" which this article has sources. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are only database entries and do not provide significant coverage of the name. See WP:SIGCOV. बिनोद थारू (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable name. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NNAME. Jfire (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and delete it. I am the article creator. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starling (software)

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

Not notable, couldn't find any independent sources covering the subject. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - last commit on GitHub was over 10 years ago and it hasn't really received any lasting coverage as far as I can tell. I very much doubt this has achieved any sort of lasting notability. ― novov (t c) 04:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:NSOFT. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Niecy Nash. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Betts

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

She has had no notable songs or acting roles. Notability is not inherited and having a famous wife simply doesn't make her notable. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 15:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bands and musicians. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 15:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Niecy Nash Even if Jessica Betts is not notable, Niecy Nash is and I think a redirect would be better than deletion. When I search Jessica Betts on Google News, all results talk about how she's Niecy Nash's wife. Jannaultheal (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Niecy Nash: Agree that Betts does not appear independently notable; even the sources used in the article mainly refer to the couple together. I think a simple redirect to Nash is sufficient as Nash is definitely notable. While page views do not confer notability, I believe we should at least leave a redirect behind for the hundreds of daily visitors to this page. Bsoyka (talk) 18:51, 27
Redirect: Redirects are cheap and as an aid to navigation a redirect makes sense. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to William H. Cade. Daniel (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elsa Salazar Cade

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A merge with William H. Cade should be considered. Geschichte (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A Bill Cade and Elsa Salazar Cade Scholarship in Evolutionary Ecology exists: https://www.ulethbridge.ca/artsci/biological-sciences though not seeing much in terms of citations on https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Elsa+Salazar+Cade&btnG= and I'm not sure how important the National Science Teachers Association award is. I'm learning towards a merge with William H. Cade... -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to William H. Cade. I don't think there's sufficient independant sourcing to warrant two separate articles. I've not looked into how notable her husband is on his own, and given some of the achievements are as a couple perhaps a combined article should be considered rather than a simple merge into his one. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with "Merge": Evidence of independent notability not established but as an aid to navigation it makes sense. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhael Yambe

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

Footballer who played 90 minutes in Belarus, but fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT spectacularly. Found nothing during a WP:BEFORE. Geschichte (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Ivory Coast, Belarus, and Latvia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The only source of the article is unavailable. Svartner (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 10:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WLLP-CA

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV independent of the subject. Let'srun (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Religion, and Tennessee. Let'srun (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Five Nights at Freddy's#Five Nights at Freddy's: Special Delivery (2019). Daniel (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Five Nights at Freddy's: Special Delivery

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

While some sources do discuss this game, most of it is either short articles of a couple paragraphs that don't say very much, and one developer interview from VentureBeat. So, though there are sources technically, the game has zero critic reviews on Metacritic, and none of the sources that exist give any sort of opinion on the game. Due to this, this game basically can not have a Reception section, and this is why I am bringing it here. I feel that the information for this game is better off summarized in a different article (such as the series article) as it, in my opinion, simply doesn't have the critical commentary to stand on its own. NegativeMP1 17:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. NegativeMP1 17:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep My gut reaction upon reading this was "keep," but let's take a look. The article seems well written. I'm figuring the issue is notability. Bloody Disgusting! and Touch Arcade could establish notability, but they discuss the game before its release. I'm feeling better about Android Police. CBR could be okay. I will add it to the article now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Android Police is considered unreliable at WP:VG/S and CBR is considered situational, and both are from Valnet, which can't be used to demonstrate notability. Also, that isn't the complete problem here, the problem is the complete lack of critic reviews, which basically makes the whole article fall apart. NegativeMP1 21:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest concern here is that this game has been out for over three years. There has been plenty of time for there to be a review or two. The CBR source is an interview. It's my understanding that interviews are good for some details but not notability. While I disagree that this makes the whole article fall apart, perhaps it is worth removing Android Police. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Five Nights at Freddy's#Five Nights at Freddy's: Special Delivery (2019). Doesn't seem independently notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Five Nights at Freddy's#Five Nights at Freddy's: Special Delivery (2019). No significant secondary coverage. To address the nominator and above discussion, I think reliable review sources are generally necessary to establish notability for games. Reviews are secondary coverage that evidence independent perspectives on the content of the game. This is opposed to primary sources, which include announcements or updates which are generally echoed by sources from publisher press releases: i.e [5][6][7][8] or interviews that are very helpful for article content but again are taken from the word of the developer. There are probably some cases where sourcing and commentary is so good that a non-reviewed title is still notable, maybe an upcoming or cancelled game with immense speculation and commentary over its development. But generally I think without reviews, these articles tend to fail. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. The article simply can't stand on its own without reviews, and the essay WP:NVIDEOGAMES says that games with articles typically have significant and critical commentary. When there is only enough coverage to say "this game exists" and a primary source that gives a bit more about the development philosophy from CBR (which is a part of Valnet which doesn't even provide notability per WP:VG/S), this article clearly is not notable enough but could at least have its material salvaged through a merger. The Night Watch (talk) 00:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CSSTidy

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

I couldn't find any independent sources to show notability. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, another article creation during a time of little scrutiny. Searching reveals almost entirely mirror websites for downloading code and some forum posts, though no independent WP:SIGCOV of the product or anything that would assert notability. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Soft delete maybe? Unable to find significant coverage. Google returns packages downloads or indexed CSS pages that used it mostly. Nothing in either News section. It's mentioned in a lot of books on Google Books but mainly as a passing "This can minify your CSS. Moving on." type of way. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 03:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Winzo

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

An article about an online gaming firm, with text and references mainly about investment funding and sponsorships, which fall under trivial coverage. The article was previously rejected at AfC, deleted as an expired draft, refunded at the draft creator's request, then moved into mainspace by another account without substantial change. DoubleGrazing's AfC rejection text gave a good appraisal: "Sources consist solely of routine business reporting such as raise rounds, sponsorship announcements, etc. We need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources that have chosen to write about this company of their own volition", but was not acted upon. Looking for other sources, there is a 2020 Entrepreneur India item, which is interview-based and clear when it is the company's own claims that are being repeated [9], and a DNAIndia profile piece describing the company's influencer-based model [10] but I don't see enough to demonstrate attained encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Companies, and India. AllyD (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and my own AfC review. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Ed Greenwood#Personal life and other activities. Daniel (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Castlemourn

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Prod (by Piotrus) was removed as merge/redirect was considered a possibility by Daranios. I wouldn't agree with a merge, as all this is unsourced information, and I am not sure where would be a suitable redirect target, though I am open to that as an WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Games. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Ed Greenwood#Personal life and other activities at this point, where there is a sourced mention of the campaign setting. I'd like to see a half-sentence of description merged like the "post-apocalyptic" added at the target, which would be fine based on the primary source, but cannot verify it myself. Castlemourn does appear in a few secondary sources, so I think outright deletion is not warranted. The sources I have seen, on the other hand, probably do not provide enough for a stand-alone article. Daranios (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge now rather than redirect as there is referenced content to merge, in agreement with what's been said by the others below. Daranios (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ed Greenwood as per above. BOZ (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge since now there is some referenced content, but consensus on talk was that GNG for stand alone article is not met. Ping participants of talk discussion: @Daranios, Jclemens, and Susmuffin:. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ed Greenwood#Personal life and other activities: While this campaign setting does not appear to have been meaningfully discussed in reliable sources, there is a small amount of sourced information that could be placed in its creator's article. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
merge per above unless someone finds better sourcing. The sourcing is borderline for meeting WP:N, but editorially a merge is the right outcome. I'm guessing it will be about a paragraph once done. Hobit (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. I'm always relieved to see more people embracing merge as an WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Shabab Al Ahli Club now that the parent article mentions it. Daniel (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Ahli Club (Dubai) (beach soccer)

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

It seem to exist, but beyond that I couldn't see it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and United Arab Emirates. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Football. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Shabab Al Ahli Club – Information about the beach soccer sector is interesting, but does not have enough scope for a dedicated article. Svartner (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not mentioned at parent article Shabab Al Ahli Club. Giant Snowman 13:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shabab Al Ahli Club despite the unlikely title to preserve cat so it remains under Category:Beach soccer clubs. I have added mention to parent article. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Daniel (talk) 10:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Larceny (Scheme implementation)

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

Fails WP:NSOFT, only primary sources, couldn't find any reliable secondary sources covering this project. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A niche software without much recognition. killer bee  12:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feng (program)

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

Not notable, fails WP:NSOFT, no reliable independent sources to show notability. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It also might be possible WP:COPYVIO, but I'm not sure. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom.The server doesn't seem to be used much and has no impact in the multimedia streaming field. killer bee  12:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Bold Snow close due to nominator seeming to withdraw their nomination below. (non-admin closure) Seawolf35 ^T--C 07:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Voices / Outside Voices

AfDs for this article:

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

Could not locate additional coverage that wasn't just more announcements of single releases like what's already here. Some (not many) come from generally reliable sources, but the lack of reviews, charting, or other signifiers of notability does not impress me much. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out I launched the previous AfD on this article back in June when it was in basically the same position as it is now. Totally forgot about that. My opinion clearly hasn't changed though. I don't question Alternative Press's reliability, but their coverage of this consists of a Q&A interview (essentially a primary source) which I don't think conveys notability. If that's the best we got then I don't think it's good enough for an article. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the same sources and stance I provided earlier in the year. Sergecross73 msg me 14:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; reasons provided in the previous AfD nomination. You know my opinion. SaltieChips (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep adequately sourced article. If the article cannot be kept, it should be merged to K. Flay. On a side note, if someone "launched the previous AfD on this article back in June when it was in basically the same position as it is now", does this not border on an "abuse of process"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The AfDs were months apart so I'm pretty sure I clear any minimum time requirements, and I volunteered the info before anyone voted so it could've been voted as procedural close if anyone felt it was inappropriate. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Then I request a procedural close. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With it being all keep stances so far, I believe either a procedural keep close or a "nomination withdrawn" stance can still be done. Sergecross73 msg me 20:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does QuietHere wish to withdraw their nomination? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's already a keep so it doesn't matter. I'm still not convinced by any of the arguments which have been made in either AfD, but clearly I haven't convinced anyone else so I'm leaving this be now. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abuta bullata

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

Unsourced wall of text, could possibly be merged into the main species article. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 14:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 14:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and South America. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Delete, see also a notice on the talk page here, I don't think there will be any intention on improving any of the mass-created unsourced articles.~~ microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 15:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC) Updated following significant article improvements by Significa liberdade. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 16:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 15:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NSPECIES. The plant clearly exists. This article has the plant name in the title, and it's included in various plant guides, as now shown on the page. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously - for validly described recent taxa, we maintain articles at the species level. Admittedly this was the worst possible logorrhoea dump before the recent improvements, but those improvements were readily made. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because it was a lightly warmed over copy and paste of https://www.selinawamucii.com/plants/menispermaceae/abuta-bullata/ ("© 2023 Selina Wamucii"). Uncle G (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just for clarity, I added some sources, but I did not add actual content to the page. The original editor had "headings" in the source text that were incorrectly done. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [reply]
    - That's one indicator of a copy-and-paste job. The headings were in the original, in the same order as they are in Special:Permalink/1192070528. But most copy and paste mechanisms don't preserve the formatting. So they are apparent in the raw wikitext, as here, but come out as unformatted sentence fragents in the rendered page, also as here. Uncle G (talk) 07:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article "is" the main species article. Loopy30 (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Akhtar Ahsan

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

Little indication of notability PepperBeast (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Pakistan. PepperBeast (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find anything in English and Urdu. Appears to fail WP:GNG. No indication of WP:NACADEMIC, and not even a slight indication towards passing WP:ANYBIO. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K35OY-D

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.? Let'srun (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Missouri. Let'srun (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No proof the station is even on-air or serving Jefferson City to boot (as Innovate is famous for hopping licenses to larger markets) and two of its channels have since switch to all-paid programming going by the last report. This has no N to stand on. Nate • (chatter) 17:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's a run-of-the-mill DTV America/HC2/Innovate station with no local content, no significant coverage, and thus no notability. For what it's worth, this article nominally survived that bulk nomination from the start of the year, but that was more because of that nomination's bulkiness than anything relating to this specific article and station. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 14:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle for Belgrade

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

See previous discussion on author talk page. Unable to find any sources supporting independent notability of the ground fighting, as opposed to Operation Retribution (1941). As far as I can tell, no fighting took place in the city itself and the Waffen SS peacefully occupied the town hall. Fermiboson (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Serbia, and Yugoslavia. Fermiboson (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But that is article is only talking about the bombing raids of the city. This article is about the actual capturing of the city itself. Operation Retribution was only 2 days long, while the battle was 6 days long. Antny08 (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. However, I still can't find any sources mentioning specifically the ground battle, as opposed to the air bombing and a wider campaign aroud the entirety of Yugoslavia. I would be very grateful if you could provide any sources you have that do that (aside from wiki matters, I'm interested in the topic personally). However, otherwise the ground battle is a notability fail, if there are no sources that give it specifically significant coverage. Fermiboson (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All the information in the article is covered in Operation Retribution (1941), specifically in the Aftermath and Legacy section. Any useful information from this article can be placed there. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Siege of Belgrade (disambiguation page), mirroring the Battle of Belgrade redirect. –Vipz (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative: Battle for Belgrade redirects to Siege of Belgrade, Battle for Belgrade (1941) redirects to Operation Retribution (1941)? Fermiboson (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this has no information that isn't already in the comprehensive Operation Retribution (1941) (which I developed through GA to FA). There was no Battle for Belgrade, it was an air operation then an effectively unopposed capture of the city by German ground forces. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even worth a redirect to Operation Retribution (1941)#Bombing because of the number of other Battle of Belgrades. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Chen

AfDs for this article:

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

All sources later than the 2018 AfD are either passing mentions or NCRYPTO fails. Fermiboson (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Cryptocurrency, and United States of America. Fermiboson (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails general and academic-related notability guidelines. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete didn't meet notability last time, still doesn't meet notability now. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject of the previous AfD is unrelated, an associate professor of psychology at Fordham University. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found this through the academic deletion sorting list but Chen appears to have no academic notability whatsoever. The article (and the related Injective Labs) appeared to be making the claim that Chen and Injective were somehow affiliated with Stanford University, but that appears to be false. Instead, we need to go through WP:GNG and WP:NCRYPTO, but I agree that most sources in the article fail the reliability determination in NCRYPTO, and therefore do not contribute to GNG-based notability. I checked three book sources that superficially looked better (Dolev, Slayton, and Jarvis) and found no mention of Chen at all in any of them. My own searches found nothing else. The article on Injective Labs could also use some scrutiny. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he is not notable as academic. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I'm closing this discussion as No Consensus with the knowledge that this article might make a return trip to AFD in the future (I'm talking weeks or months, not hours). Please do not renominate this article soon as I don't expect anything to dramatically change from the current discussion and that would likely result in a procedural close.

Also, those editors seeking to Merge all or part of this article can start a discussion about this possibility on the article talk page and also raise the question on the talk page of the target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All-woman Israeli tank crew fight (2023)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/All-woman Israeli tank crew fight (2023)

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

Article currently does not satisfy any of the five Notability guidelines, namely the presence of significant, independent and secondary reliable sources reporting on it. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as not only an entirely non event, but also merely a public relations talking point for one side of a conflict and an instance of extreme POV/whitewashing. Unencyclopedic nonsense. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as also explained on talk page it is from one sided viewpoint without neutral sources. Shadow4dark (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point that whoever attempted to commit acts of terror, failed and then didn't comment on it has nothing to do here. Almost none of the articles on terrorist attacks has opinion of whoever commit acts of terror. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This deletion proposal is unusually weak in policy-based reasoning and fails to perform even a minimal Google search to find significant, independent and secondary sources that establish notability before nominating this article for deletion. I found these in less than 2 minutes. Even 2 or 3 of these are enough to meet the notability requirements for news events.

Furthermore, the event has enduring historical significance, as it was one of the first-ever female tank crews to engage in active combat, proving women's capability to match men in battle.

Marokwitz (talk) 12:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's some news coverage on the tank crew as part of the extremely localised news cycle in Israel, yes. It's unclear how that fragment of local news coverage suddenly makes a random skirmish by an individual tank crew a notable event. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT, particularly WP:EFFECT and WP:GEOSCOPE, as well as WP:NOTNEWS. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Australia is not part of Israel. Belarus is not part of Israel. And etc. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusian news is scraping the barrel a bit isn't it? But yeah, I'm sure there's some other coverage. But the question is of what? The Australian piece, as part of its analysis, notes that the spun story is part PR operation. But the topic here isn't shameless PR operations by the IDF, which certainly is a notable topic; it's the claim that some random firefight is individually notable. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I missed seeing "scraping the barrel" being mentioned in WP:GEOSCOPE and I also didn't see this about your argument regarding the Australian piece. However I do see sources that state that the event was notable as well as unique in history, that it's a first ever female tankers fight. Regarding WP:NOTNEWS it's clearly seen that the first information with analysis came up a few month after the actual event which at least means it was not an impulsive news. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, the "first female tank crew" fight part is just bollocks in the first place. There were plenty of female tanks crews in Russia as far back as WWII, so the claim to fame is ahistorical nonsense. China also has such crews. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point here. There were female tankers before. No one denied it. However. First, it's "all-women tank crew" and even your own source says it about Israel as well and not Russian or China. Second, such crew engaged in active fight and won. Third, if needed, in the Middle East. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

False: This article states, "Russia unveiled its first-ever female tank crew in the 2019 Army Games hosted for international armies." It does not mention that an "all-female tank crew" was ever deployed in battle. Did you even read this source? Marokwitz (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point remains that female tank crews of various nationalities have existed for years, including in Syria's 800-strong female battalion (also promoted for propaganda reasons). Iskandar323 (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we did mention before that such formations were present. But were they also the first ever female tank crews in the West to engage in active combat, lasting for 17 hours? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk)

I'm not sure when Israel became definitively "the West" ... They're in the Eurovision song contest, sure, but ... Iskandar323 (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A mix of feminism, a public relations war over the treatment of women, and Belarusian news sounds like great ingredients for a notable topic. Marokwitz (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-feminism. If the IDF had real feminism, its senior commanders might have listened to the female observers who reported Palestinian militants training to breach the wall. But regardless, feminist PR whitewashing remains a separate topic from the actual battle that is ostensibly the topic here ... the main claim to fame of which is an ahistorical and false one. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone might have run out of arguments and is trying to add to this discussion a point that is entirely unrealed to current discussion as well as based on Wikipeda editor's own opinion which was not covered by a reliable sources in relationship to the topic of the discussed article. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

indeed. JM (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Marokwitz (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN، WP:EVENTCRIT, WP:NOTNEWS Iskandar323 (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again. The event was covered a month and a half after it has happened. And all of the events with the current war can be deleted with the same argument of those two rules. But they are not deleted. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One analysis piece a few weeks later ≠ WP:LASTING. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not one analysis piece and it's not a few weeks later. And it's the same as other current war articles. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusian news is scraping the barrel a bit isn't it?

What do you mean by this? Zanahary (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A google search proves what uou just referenced, five Israeli sources (not independent of the subject) and two mediocre sources. There is no significant coverage by RS for this topic. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind to clarify if The New York Sun is mediocre or Israeli source? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk)

Seems like both. The New York Sun is owned by Algemeiner, an Israel-related newspaper. It is also here categorized as a tabloid. [18]

Please sign at the end using ~~~~. And how does it fit to your original number of 5+2 and no more? I have easily shown that it's already 6+3 (if we count it as both). In addition, there are other sources mentioned in this discussion which increase the numbers. And other sources which were not yet mentioned. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the article on the New York Sun: On November 2, 2021, The New York Sun was acquired by Dovid Efune, former CEO and editor-in-chief of the Algemeiner Journal. From the article on the Algemeiner Journal: The Algemeiner Journal, known informally as The Algemeiner, is a newspaper based in New York City that covers American and international Jewish and Israel-related news. It is widely read by Hasidic Jews. I don't think "This newspaper is owned by a person who used to run a Jewish newspaper and Jews are related to Israel" is a valid reason for disqualifying a source. JM (talk) 11:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEVENT requires enduring notability beyond the recent news cycle, which you've failed to demonstrate. Furthermore, we can make up thousands of "first" like this, it doesn't mean every single one of them has enduring historical significance. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 02:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is notable as this was the "first ever female tank crews in the West to engage in active combat, which lasted 17 hours" as well as "this was most likely the first time in history that a female armored unit participated in a war". It's obvious that The Australian Financial Review is not Israeli source, is reliable and is independent. Haarets is also reliable. As well as others. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, no and no. Russia had female tank crews in WWII - so no, Israeli media has made up a claim to fame without having first googled the claim. Pretty pathetic journalism. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russia did not have all-female tank crews in WWII , which is what this article is about. Marokwitz (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uganda did seven years ago, and it graduated 27 female tank personnel and 5 commanders this year. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quora.com?! C'mom...

Facepalm... Once you make it a relable source like we can come back to it. Or when you make The Daily Mail the reliable source. And where in the second source it says that all-female tank crew was engaged in a battle? Have you read what was written? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My response to that is below; this response was to Marokwitz's point, not yours. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You understood what I was talking about. All-female tank crews that participated in combat. Marokwitz (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You do not seem to read what was written. Sources state that it was a first all female tanker crew that was engaged in active fight in Middle East and won. You haven't shown the counter argument to it. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So it's three caveats now is it? Female tank crew, Middle East and claim of victory against infantry? ... that's getting mighty specific. But beyond the bluster, Syria also had female tank crews that beat back rebels in 2015. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, not three. Just one straight point without any caveats. Please read what was written above. And please read what experts have mentioned on it. If needed I can read for you. And I already read. And even if there are 10 caveats if others in reliable sauces believe that it's unique then it's unique. Even if a Wikipedia editor doesn't like it. And please do not cite unreliable sources. The Daily Mail is not a reliable source. You may check it here: WP:DAILYMAIL . With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome to Google your own examples of non-uniqueness, including those in Syria. Obviously the daily mail didn't make up a military entity, and you can certainly Google that yourself. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you do not read what is written to you which makes the conversation harder, and now you send others to Google after you have failed to provide any data from there... With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can read just fine thank you, but if you'd like to keep asserting otherwise, we can solve this as hominem behavioural issue on your part at ANI. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should be clear on the arguments which were mentioned. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong risk of WP:BOOMERANG JM (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all keep-sayers above. Coverage is international. Haaretz is Israel's newspaper of record. No problem with a debate on widening the scope to the role of women combattants in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. gidonb (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Women in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war and Women in the Israel Defense Forces are already extant articles, so there are plenty of potential pages were a neutral and encyclopedic write up of something related to this could live. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why now you are trying to limit pages to cover Israel events. Have you seen the size of the article? It makes sence to have a separate article since it has separate notability and sufficient size. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. The first link is general; the second Israel-specific. On length: maybe the topic is just inflated and overwritten. The real art of editing is one of concision and brevity. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an argument to try to delete this article you have mentioned "there are plenty of potential pages were a neutral and encyclopedic write up of something related to this could live". If it doesn't mean that you want to cover the current article on another page and use it as an excuse to delete this please explain what you have meant. Now you are trying to say that topic is allegedly inflated and I say that it's not. It's one wikipedia editor's opinion against another. All the content from the topic is from reliable sources. And even if the article was twice smaller we still have such article as independent from the other broader topics as it clearly shows separate notability. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that it fails WP:NEVENT. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't fail WP:NEVENT. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar323, perfect! And this is a fine WP:SPINOFF. Then all is set to keep as is. Thank you. The alternative would be to have an article about this tank crew and on other women combattants in this war, i.e. a rename and widening of scope. That falls outside the AfD debate yet can be debated on the talk page. gidonb (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not news, this is trivial material that will need sustained coverage to merit an article for an event. nableezy - 16:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is not news and what is trivial? If you came here because of this and this and then clicked on my input please first check what was disused in this conversation above. TLDR: All of the articles about current war are not news, but they are not deleted; this topic had articles published more than 1.5 month after the event occurred so it was not just an immediate news; it covers the first ever all-female tankers fight after WW2 so not trivial. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BLUDGEON. You have made 32 edits to this page and are responsible for close to half its content. We know you want to keep the article. You can stop badgering people who disagree with you. nableezy - 17:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. What I am trying to understand is how my comments in your view are different from my colleague Iskandar323 other than my active participation in the creation of the article. And your count is not quite correct (we do not count fixing typos). I did 20 comments while Iskandar323 did 17 which is pretty similar. But now I'll step out and let others to comment as my point of view should be pretty clear now. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have 32 edits (now 33) for about 10 kB of text, he has 17 for 5.5 kB of text. He should stop engaging as well though. nableezy - 17:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Events, and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:ATD can be a merge to Women in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Curbon7 (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Marokwitz Homerethegreat (talk) 08:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Major points is notability as well as first-timeness as well as uniquness. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Women in the Israel Defense Forces#Combat roles. As a standalone article, this fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG in general. It lacks any hint of lasting WP:EFFECT, sources lack WP:DEPTH, and the entire thing lacks WP:PERSISTENCE. It might have qualified as a nine-day wonder if the coverage has lasted another six days. This article appears to be an attempt to give the illusion of significance to a political stunt. Per NEVENT, political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories" and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable (emphasis in original). The just is no legitimate way to spin this into something worthy of an encyclopaedic article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Marokwitz. Eladkarmel (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not in encyclopedic domain, would make an excellent documentary but do not see any reason currently as to why this should be precisely on Wikipedia. Pg 6475 ^TM 23:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment agree with @Curbon7's suggestion. Pg 6475 ^TM 23:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Marokwitz. \\ Loksmythe // (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Holit massacre. Holit massacre is currently a stub, and this is presumably a subpage despite being even longer than the parent article. Parts of it may also have to be rewritten so that it doesn't read like an advert, i.e. not taking the IDF's claims about this being "the first XYZ" at face value. XTheBedrockX (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a notable topic, especially since it was composed of all-woman fighters.
बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NEVENT and being pretty one-sided propaganda. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 02:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That was one of the most famous episodes during the attack by Hamas on Israel, and this is reflected in sources. Moreover, this is a unique case in the history of warfare. They made a history [19],[20] My very best wishes (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, women served as tankers in many armies, even though this is usually an exception. For example, Aleksandra Samusenko was the only female tanker in the Soviet 1st Guards Tank Army, as our page says. However, I do not know any other episodes with an all-women tank crew, which would be as highly publicized as that one. My very best wishes (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SUSTAINED as I could find no evidence that this was picked up nationally. Also seems notable that major international news sources like the BBC and New York Times did not feature this event. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per various arguments above. JM (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: War propaganda, with nothing for notability. As other comments have explained, this is not the first group of this type, making this not terribly notable. Could be a brief sentence or two in an article about the war, nothing much else to be said. Oaktree b (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG and therefore doesn't need to pass any SNG, however the sources clearly show this meets SNG as well (WP:GEOSCOPE and LASTING). Delete votes are just IDONTLIKEIT that ignores GNG. Source eval:

About the unit: [21], [22], []

About their role in the battle: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]

Stopped at listing 10 sources, but there are more. The only arguement for deleting this is IDONTLIKEIT.
The event has lasting historical significance, as it was one of the first-ever female tank crews to engage in active combat, the above sources indicate this clearly. The international level of coverage demonstrates this further. // Timothy :: talk 18:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I checked sources through Google, but found no any other notable (widely publicized) examples of all-female tank crews involved in active combat. My very best wishes (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per reasons given by Makeandtoss.Mr.User200 (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG. AryKun (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This had international coverage and is likely to be a precedent internationally. Dovidroth (talk) 12:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no international coverage if you looked the sources Shadow4dark (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move: Move or rename it into "Battle of Holit". -UtoD 13:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the fight has occur somewhere between Holit and Sufa, not just in Holit. The expression "Battle of Holit" does not appear often, but when it does [30], it refers to Holit massacre, which is a different event. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: already covered at Women in the Israel Defense Forces#All-woman Israeli tank crew fight (2023). (See also Holit massacre and Women in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war.) We need to be more critical of IDF claims about vague "firsts" (more generally, many claimed global firsts are repeatedly uncritical by press but are untrue). If the article is to stay, not much of its content could, such as the propaganda blockquotes, blow-by-blow descriptions of a minor fight or non-information like "Their last names have not been disclosed for privacy related security reasons". — Bilorv (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One journalist dug out, in connection to this fight, that there was only one all-women tank crew in Soviet forces during WWII (they were killed in combat in 1944), and surprisingly, at least one crew in Donetsk People's Republic. But very little is known about them. That was on YouTube, with photos [31]. I think each of these unique tank crews would deserve a separate page if they had a significant coverage in RS, but only this page under discussion has such coverage. My very best wishes (talk) 03:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So this article should say what—"despite IDF claims that it was the first instance, at least two others are known"? Or we have to spell out the heavy lifting done by "in the West" within the claim? How can we write an article where notability is based on a widely repeated claim that is dubious or requires significant contextualisation missing from almost all sources? — Bilorv (talk) 12:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very simple - per WP:V. We have many RS on the subject of this page. Hence, we use them. And, as usual, we just ignore everything that was not published in RS. I doubt that the YouTube record I cited is a great RS; it might be used, but it just as easily can be ignored. My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally reliable publications can be unreliable for particular facts in context. Here the specific articles are perfectly reliable to claim that the IDF's propaganda during warfare stated X. They are not reliable for a very bold historical claim about something being the "first" (which you have cast significant doubt on), whereas a modern war historian may be. An article can't be built on just military propaganda (if we have independent reactions to that propaganda or, after the war, a historical source about the role and context of the propaganda then it's a bit different). — Bilorv (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The YouTube presentation above is consistent with claims currently on this page, it just adds a few details. The page (and the cited source) says: "The young women were the first ever female tank crews in the West to engage in active combat lasting for 17 hours". I do not know why the source classified them as "West/Western" (rather than "East"), but Russia and DNR are definitely not the "West". I agree this East-West thing is subjective, but again if there are other RS about all-women tank crews, one can bring them to this page, no one will object. This is how WP suppose to work. No RS - no content. Note that Haaretz and other sources used on the page are RS. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, I would certainly include the info about other all-women tank crews to this page, but I can not find it reliably sourced. The Youtube record probably is not good enough, although I have nothing against including it since it was produced by a well known independent journalist. My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A discussion opened before this one, Talk:All-woman Israeli tank crew fight (2023)#Nominating this article for deletion, appears to be still ongoing. Also the redirect target Holit massacre, mentioned in both discussions, has also been nominated for deletion. Thincat (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MVBW. Andre🚐 21:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Abo Yemen ✉ 12:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- insufficient reliable sources to establish notability & build an NPOV article. The article and its sources show that the story originates with the IDF ("according to the IDF", quotes from the IDF, etc) which is not sufficient for the encyclopedia. For example, the Haatetz source source says: "Composed of young women in their early 20s, the tank crews were the first Western women armored soldiers to go into active battle, according to the IDF." And so on. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Marokwitz scrapes though WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At the moment I'm not seeing a consensus here. It would be helpful to have additional input on whether the information here needs a standalone article (as opposed to being incorporated elsewhere) and whether the sources being presented are genuinely independent (several arguments state they are not).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 13:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not a very syrong case, merging might become consensual after things cool off, but for now notable enough for what it is, see Australian quite nuanced article (‘My Insta blew up’: Feminism and tank warfare in Israel, A. Patrick for The Australian Financial Review, Nov 27, 2023), quote: "It was probably the first time an all-female armoured sub-unit has fought in a war, according to Neil James, executive director of the Australia Defence Association, a pro-military lobby group." Not Israeli, not Jewish, not US, critical ("PR operation", other armies more integrated & less mysoginistic than IDF), but not denying the facts.

Last not least, 100% of the "delete" and "keep" supporters are of the involved I/P type; waiting for a cool-off seems the more so necessary. The war & its effects won't take a turn based on this. Arminden (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is notable enough to be kept. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Australia and Belarus articles above are two GNG sources, which is barely hitting GNG but it's hitting GNG, and they meet WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:INDEPTH. It's too soon to tell WP:LASTING; no prejudice to re-nom'ing some years down the road if LASTING isn't met. Merging to the Women in IDF article would overwhelm that article. Doesn't matter if they were actually the first at anything or if they're used for propaganda by their gov't or what they did in any battle... just matters that we have two independent international in depth sources covering them, and it's too soon to tell WP:LASTING. Levivich (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Indiana State Normal football, 1896–1898 now that it exists. Star Mississippi 13:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1896 Indiana State Sycamores football team

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

Unable to see how this could meet the WP:NSEASONS. A one game season against a local high school, with the game result unknown, does not scream notability, despite it being the first football game for the school, due to the seeming lack of GNG coverage. Open to a WP:ATD but not sure what would make sense here. Let'srun (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and Indiana. Let'srun (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A single game against the local high school boys is neither "college football", nor is it a "season". A "merger" with the 1897 and 1898 seasons isn't viable at this time, because those articles are unsourced messes as well (with no results even reported in the 1897 article). If and when someone cares enough to research and properly source a combined article, that may make sense, but as things stand, "delete" is the only viable solution. Cbl62 (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Indiana State Normal football, 1896–1898 a la similar action for Delaware State Hornets football, 1924–1929, Temple Owls football, 1894–1899, and Henry Kendall Orange and Black football, 1895–1899. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose merge as things stand. All three years have articles that are essentially unsourced.~~ WP:NSEASONS does not mean that three unsourced articles can be "grouped" and suddenly be acceptable. Also, merger isn't something the closer can do without the target existing. Accordingly, merger isn't viable here unless someone creates that target article and includes enough sourcing to get it over the WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cbl62, I've created Indiana State Normal football, 1896–1898. The Sycamores fight name doesn't appear to have been introduced until the 1920s. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NSEASONS to Indiana State Normal football, 1896–1898 as an appropriate redirect target has now been created with adequate sourcing. Cbl62 (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support a redirect to the target article now as well. Let'srun (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have redirected 1897 Indiana State Sycamores football team and 1898 Indiana State Sycamores football team to Indiana State Normal football, 1896–1898. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Italian supercentenarians with the history preserved should someone want to merge short biographical information Star Mississippi 13:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Domenica Ercolani

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

There is insufficient evidence that this person meets the general notability guideline. Interstellarity (talk) 12:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 12:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete - dubious notability that could be summed up in her inclusion in the List of Italian supercentenarians. 9H48F (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Only mentions of the subject are related to her age. I support the inclusion in a list --Broc (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I understand the rational, but this is not one event - it is what she was notable for years (for her age), and even after her death she will still be notable. If it is deleted, it should be merged to List of Italian supercentenarians#Biographies to ensure that the information is not lost. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

VERY Weak Keep I think this one just about has potential to be a standalone article, there are a good number of reliable sources and significant coverage but I'm not certain it's sufficient. At the very least, Redirect, a mini biography can be made in List of Italian supercentenarians N1TH Music (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Italian supercentenarians. Per WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES: Articles about people known only for being the oldest person in a country, etc., at any given time are normally redirected or merged to a list of oldest people. The article may need proof of additional coverage, using reliable sources, to justify a biographical inclusion in List of Italian supercentenarians#Biographies. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Italian supercentenarians. or a subsection thereof, if a specific target is better Star Mississippi 13:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Baccarini

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

There is insufficient evidence that this person meets the general notability guideline. Interstellarity (talk) 12:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 12:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - dubious notability that could be summed up in her inclusion in the List of Italian supercentenarians. 9H48F (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Only mentions of the subject are related to her age. I support the inclusion in a list --Broc (talk) 10:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I understand the rational, but this is not one event - it is what she has been notable for for years (for her age), and now after the death she is even more notable. If it is deleted, it should be merged to List of Italian supercentenarians#Biographies to ensure that the information is not lost. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Potential for a Mini Biography in List of Italian supercentenarians but certainly no more, not enough sources or coverage to justify a standalone article, being the oldest living person in Italy is not enough to suffice that. N1TH Music (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Italian supercentenarians. WP:ONEVENT applies, and per WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES: Articles about people known only for being the oldest person in a country, etc., at any given time are normally redirected or merged to a list of oldest people. The article may need proof of additional coverage, using reliable sources, to justify a biographical inclusion in List of Italian supercentenarians#Biographies. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Should a grouped season article eventuate, happy to retore this for a redirect at the time. Star Mississippi 13:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1900 CCNY Lavender football team

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

Unable to see how this one game 'season' meets the WP:NSEASONS. Let'srun (talk) 12:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and New York. Let'srun (talk) 12:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Merger into a grouped season article is not viable as an WP:ATD as this is the only CCNY season article from the 40-year period from 1882 to 1921. If and when someone cares enough to create such a grouped season article, this topic might later be revived, but as things now stands deletion appears to be the only viable option. Moreover, given that this is a one-sentence sub-stub, nothing of real substance will be lost as a result of the deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nutan (actor)

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

Speedy deletion contested by an IP editor. Possible paid editing. Does not meet GNG or NACTOR. Jeraxmoira (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, and Nepal. Jeraxmoira (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dont delete article seems fine. 2403:3800:3213:8D9A:4861:AF7D:CDFF:208A (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

I don't agree with you. There are a lot of references mentioned in the article. Those mentioned news talks and mentions about him. So, I don't think it's good to delete this page. I wouldn't consider this page for deletion. So, I request admin to remove the warning tag from the page . Thanks 🙏🙏🙏 103.163.182.101 (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

doesn't meet notability? Searched about him once. 103.163.182.101 (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails WP:NACTOR, no notable roles or awards or coverage Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with you. His notable role is in Aarati, which is a web series in Nepal. It's releasing on January 1, after some days. You can search. There is a trailer and other videos on YouTube as well. You can check. 111.119.49.157 (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the reason I want you to cancel the nomination for deletion, respected sir. 111.119.49.157 (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what's the update about this page, sir? I don't see anything wrong for this page to be considered for deletion. 🙏🙏 Ashok2025 (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page looks fine. So I request editors to cancel the deletion. Ashok2025 (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
hi, what's the update 111.119.49.224 (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NACTOR requires significant roles in multiple productions so even if the Aarati role is notable, which I doubt, then it would still be insufficient for NACTOR. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NACTOR, also a WP:CRYSTAL violation if the author's point as above are valid. Not yet notable. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 19:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of articles and magazine coverages about him. Just because you cannot read them in Nepalese language, so you are saying that 🙏🙏. I don't think it's suitable to delete this page 🙏 Ashok2025 (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

he is notable. Notable doesn't only mean to be world famous. He is notable in his field. huge mistake by administration. it should not be deleted. 111.119.49.157 (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's the update? When the deletion tag will be removed 2403:3800:3213:8D9A:E8CD:FAAC:A115:1A80 (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dont delete the article looks fine, not bad. he seems to have worked in some notable projects. 2403:3800:3213:8D9A:E8CD:FAAC:A115:1A80 (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources show anything even close to WP:SIGCOV of him. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing administrator. All of the IPs are likely owned by the creator of the article (who is now blocked). I have semi-protected the page to prevent further socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. General refs in the article are name mentions in promo, nothing meeting SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Nothing found in BEFORE that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, more name mentions and listings. BLPs requires strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 18:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None provides SIGCOV. Fails ANYBIO and I see no indication of NACTOR 94rain ^Talk 01:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 07:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aabs Animals

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

Non-notable shovelware title. It has one reliable review from Push Square: [32]. The review is partially a joke review, as the game consists of rotating 3D models of cats. The game has minor commentary on how it was characteristic of practices that prompted Microsoft to review its achievement and gamerscore standards: [33] But those articles lack any commentary on the actual game too. Largely because there hardly is a game to discuss. So I pawsonally don't think this article has furry much notability at all. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to pass WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ‍ Relativity 21:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina Akursmørk

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

The subject, a Faroese women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions (2014, 2018, 2019, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Europe, and Denmark. JTtheOG (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG as I couldn't find any sigcov of her. Dougal18 (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Self-organizing list. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-organising heuristic

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

Delete Vague category, lack of sources, could possibly be merged? Tooncool64 (talk) 06:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 08:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Self-organizing list. Seems logical: A self-organizing list is a list that reorders its elements based on some self-organizing heuristic.... We can create a section for self-organizing heuristics there. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 08:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to self-organizing list per Deltaspace. There's not really anything to merge, but this does seem like a logical subtopic from what I can find in academic results on Google. HappyWith (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The right topic name is self-organizing data structure, and it encompasses more than lists, which are a sub-topic of this rather than the other way around. For example:
Splay trees […] are a so-called self-organizing data structure. In self-organizing data structures and item x is moved closer to the entry point of the data structure whenever it is accessed. […]
— Luisa, Bozzano G. (1990). Algorithms and Complexity. Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science. Vol. 1. Elsevier. p. 321. ISBN 9780444880710.
Ironically, much of this article is correct and directly sourcable to that very page of Luisa 1990, which goes on to talk about move-to-front and transposition just like this article does. This randomly picked paper by an expert in computer science covers the same ground, too. This could actually be a stub for the parent topic, with a simple application of the move tool and some effort put in to source it. The only thing really wrong here is bad writing not showing the ample sources on this topic, that no-one has fixed since 2006, and the oddball use of "heuristic" instead of "data structure" in the title. Uncle G (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this topic, but I'm finding sources.
- Gonnet, Gaston H.; Munro, J. Ian; Suwanda, Hendra (August 1981). "Exegesis of Self-Organizing Linear Search". Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics Journal on Computing. 10 (3): 613–637. doi:10.1137/0210046.
- Frederickson, Greg N. (May 1984). "Self-Organizing Heuristics for Implicit Data Structures". Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics Journal on Computing. 13 (2): 277–291. doi:10.1137/0213020.
- Lai, Tony W.; Wood, Derick. "A relationship between self-organizing lists and binary search trees". In Frank Dehne; Frantisek Fiala; Waldemar W. Koczkodaj (eds.). Advances in Computing and Information - ICCI '91. International Conference on Computing and Information, Ottawa, Canada, May 27-29, 1991. Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 497. pp. 111–116. doi:10.1007/3-540-54029-6_159. ISBN 978-3-540-47359-6.
- Hinrichs, Christian; Sonnenschein, Michael; Lehnhoff, Sebastian. "Evaluation of a Self-Organizing Heuristic for Interdependent Distributed Search Spaces". In Joachim Filipe; Ana Fred (eds.). Proceedings of the International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence (ICAART 2013). Barcelona, Spain, 15–18 February 2013. Vol. 1. pp. 25–34. doi:10.5220/0004227000250034. ISBN 978-989-8565-38-9.

I only checked two publishers, and didn't look for any related concepts or follow citations in either direction. Seems like the topic is probably notable, unsure on any specifics like article title. Folly Mox (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to self-organizing list, this may be a topic of some research, but it doesn't need its own article. ForksForks (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are a variety of opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to self-organizing list. The concept of a self organising heuristic can by definition only be applied to lists, as other data structures either use lists internally to record information (eg. graphs), or use an access method that could not improve lookup time by generic heuristic algorithms (eg. lookup table). Sources have been found and can be added and used to expand the merge target, and sources mentioned can be used to cite the stub to be merged. Darcyisverycute (talk) 10:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to self-organizing list, came to add sources but this is a much better option. Dr vulpes (Talk) 21:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to self-organizing list, seems like they'd both benefit. FergusArgyll (talk) 12:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 18:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, two articles on extremely close topics (the data structure vs the algorithms it uses), better to merge them in one article and add sources there. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 10:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Adam and the Ants#Members. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Lee Miall

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

BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources are a database record on AllMusic, an article with name mentions, and a dead link. BEFORE found name mentions but nothing meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indeph. No objection to a redrect to Adam and the Ants#Members where the subject is listed. // Timothy :: talk 06:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, England, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adam and the Ants#Members as suggested by the nominator. All of Miall's notable accomplishments are as a member of that group. A couple of magazine articles mention that he was later a plumber and joined a different band, but those are not notable or significant facts that merit a separate article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Adam and the Ants. Clearly doesn't warrant a standalone article, but should certainly be retained as a redirect and there's content here that should be merged. --Michig (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful on whether there is anything worth merging. He was later a plumber and joined a non-notable local band, neither of which is relevant to the history of Adam and the Ants. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Adam and the Ants#Members, per comments above. Go4thProsper (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jahfeeil

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

Promo article. BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Source eval:

Comments	Source
One paragraph promo for single "Honey Cotton Candy", fails WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV. Repeated on #4 and #5 below, same promo paragraph, different site.	1. "Hottest Hit Singles of 2022: The Wrap Up". Thisis50. 2022-11-30. Retrieved 2023-12-27.
Q & A post, fails WP:SIGCOV	2. ^ "Who wrote "4EVER" by Jahfeeil?". Genius. Retrieved 2023-12-27.
Q & A promo interview, fails WP:IS	3. ^ Jump up to:a b Staff, 24HH (2022-12-03). "Exclusive Interview with California's Rising R&B Singer-Songwriter Jahfeeil". 24Hip-Hop. Retrieved 2023-12-27.
Duplicate of #1 on different site, one paragraph promo for single "Honey Cotton Candy", fails WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV	4. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e "Hottest Hit Singles of 2022". Home of Hip Hop Videos & Rap Music, News, Video, Mixtapes & more. 2022-12-29. Retrieved 2023-12-27.
Duplicate of #1 on different site, one paragraph promo for single "Honey Cotton Candy", fails WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV	5. ^ Wells, Dawn (2022-12-30). "Hottest Hit Singles of 2022". USA Wire. Retrieved 2023-12-27.

BEFORE showed lots of promo, but nothing meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 06:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked online and in the newspaper archive and nothing came up. There is an interview but the source isn't reliable. Dr vulpes (Talk) 22:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: usawire, 24hip-hop, and nvweekly are garbage SEO farms with fake or PR authors. I've removed those. hiphopsince1987 is a SEO/guest posting blog. thisis50 is a PR/SEO funnel now (unmaked paid blog posts). I'm sure those two throwaway accounts that created/edited the article are totally not paid editors. Sam Kuru (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject not notable aaronneallucas (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom's source accessment table 94rain ^Talk 05:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on 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!} 04:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RScheme

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

No reliable independent sources to support notability. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cannot find independent sources with reliable coverage either. Here is what I did find:

Maybe significant coverage: [34]
Non-significant coverage that may be useful for adding facts to the article: [35][36][37][38] Darcyisverycute (talk) 11:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qwt

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

Custom set of widgets for Qt, no independent sources to support notability. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no doubt this fails GNG and is not notable for a page. these are GUI components meant for programs with technical data to display in applications compatible with Qt. No one is writing about these as independently notable. The question is only whether this is an aspect that should be mentioned on the Qt page. The widgets are compatible with Qt and thus extend the functionality, and might deserve a mention on the Qt page under a heading such as extension libraries. If so, Merge with Qt would be the right outcome. Yet I don't see much mergeable content here, nor a good reason to list such extensions on that page. Wikipedia is not a programming manual. I have thought back and forth between delete and merge, but when it comes down to it, if the Qt page were extended in this way, we would not be starting with this content on Wikipedia. There is nothing here that is not on Sourceforge, and such a new section on that page would need to look at all such extensions anyway. Merge is not there for dumping indiscriminate information on other pages. The encyclopaedia is not improved by it, so I have settled on delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Expressing agreement with above comment. Does not meet notability. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Sinatashvili

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

The subject, a Georgian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions (2015, 2018, 2022, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Georgia (country). JTtheOG (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Without enough information about her club career and with only a single appearance for the national team. Svartner (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is more than meets the eye. As always in EE, it's good to look around in several languages. This one, in Russian, is a passing mention of her being called up for the youth team, and published by Sputnik (who I would not normally trust to get the time of day right, but I guess this is uncontroversial). Of course, this is the same kind of mention that we have already. But here comes surprise #1: here is an article + interview with several Georgian players, including Sinatashvili, who reported sexual harassment from their coach. In the link there's also the video from the original interview by RFE/RL's Georgian service on the issue. According to the article, both the coach and the club were found guilty (the former for sexual harassment of minors, the latter for failing to provide safe environment for them).

Surprise #2 is that she appears to have taken part/played herself in How the Room Felt, a Georgian film/documentary on a group of female LGBTQ footballers (she is mentioned among the cast, for instance, here, here, or here). This does not count as coverage, I'd say, but there seems to be coverage about the film in Georgian [39], which I unfortunately do not read, and I would not like to rely on machine translation.

Whether this is enough to save the article, I do not dare to judge (I have already gotten in trouble with guys from the football project for pointing out non-football related matters in articles about football players), but it might be worth the shot if someone has the necessary language skills (if needed I can help with pulling some stuff from the Russian article, just ping me). Ostalgia (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sexual harassment should be mentioned at FC Martve (which I will do) but I don't see a case for Sinatashvili being individually notable off the back of that. With regards to How the Room Felt, that may well meet WP:NFILM but, if that were the case, that wouldn't automatically mean that all cast members are notable. I'm not seeing enough to pass WP:SPORTBASIC here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zuleira Abisheva

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

The subject, a Kazakhstani women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. The closest things to WP:SIGCOV that I found in my searches were this 2020 interview and this 2016 interview with her mother. JTtheOG (talk) 05:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Kazakhstan. JTtheOG (talk) 05:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Ref and ELs in article is to database style listings. Nothing found in BEFORE (Зулейра Абишева) that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, more name mentions and listings. BLPs requires strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 19:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noémie Tiberi

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

Redirect to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2013, 2021, 2022, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Luxembourg. JTtheOG (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – As decided in similar AfD. Svartner (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 15:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raju Debnath

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

Footballer who played four pro games a decade ago and disappeared. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (1, 2, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and India. JTtheOG (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn‎. Withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) // Timothy :: talk 06:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginia folklore

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

It is possible there is a notable topic here, but it will need TNT to make it possible. This has significant sourcing issues, written like an essay, once you remove the OR, unsourced and off-topic there is very little left. No objection to drafting. // Timothy :: talk 05:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and West Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn: I just realized this was a student editor, I withdraw to give them time to work on the article. // Timothy :: talk 06:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Jaiswal

AfDs for this article:

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

Footballer who played five pro games a decade ago and disappeared. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Not to be confused with the bodybuilder of the same name, who may very well be more notable. JTtheOG (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and India. JTtheOG (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the editor who brought the name up in another discussion. Geschichte (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO: One source in article is a database, the other is a dead link in all likelyhood to a name mention is a game recap (see ref text). Nothing found that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Sources found in BEFORE are name mentions and listings. BLP requires strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 18:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to System Shock 2. If System Shock would be a better Merge target, feel free to change this tagging. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

System Shock Infinite

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

Non-notable game mod for System Shock 2 that lacks sustained and varied review coverage. A WP:BEFORE yields only three reliable articles out there from Rock Paper Shotgun [40], PC Gamer [41] and GameStar [42]. The GameStar source does provide some good coverage and thoughts on the game's features and faults. The RPS source describes the concept and plot in a paragraph but doesn't assess it beyond stating that it's "fanfic-y". The PC Gamer article briefly announces there's an update for it and assesses that it's a "neat concept". I feel there just isn't enough variety of independent coverage in these sources beyond describing what it is. Thanks in advance for any thoughts. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to System Shock 2. It got a mention in Kotaku as well, but SIGCOV is limited to GameStar, which doesn't pass muster in my book. However, it is at least worthy of a mention. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with System Shock: As there is some sourcing talking about this mod, we could probably put a mention that it exists and was reviewed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. OceanHok (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

N8 Identity

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Canada. PepperBeast (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, few sources available. The user who wrote this article, @Brianna.galloway seems to have been a promotional editor who wrote 2 other such articles and nothing else. Matarisvan (talk) 06:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to find notable coverage. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Hammer

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

No sufficient SIGCOV beyond databases, insufficient notability InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Luxembourg. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per my research and Habst's expansion. To start, we have no archives of Luxembourg newspapers which would have covered him. Despite this, we have arguable significant coverage from Olympedia (154 words), and then he received an obituary in Luxemburger Wort - it seems to be partially paywalled so I can't read the whole thing, but what I can see is that (translation) "In Luxembourg, Fred Hammer is a household name" - that quote is from 2020. He competed in the 1950s. We also have mention on the Luxembourg Wikipedia that there is a section dedicated to him in the book Lëtzebuerger Olympia Lexikon, which would also be sigcov, and we have mention that he received the Order of Merit of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, which seems to be significant. In all, there is enough to demonstrate notability for Fred Hammer. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep, I added several new sources to the article. Most notably, his life is detailed in the book ISBN I added per the Luxembourgish Wikipedia, and I added his obituary where he is described as a (translated) "household name in Luxembourg" by the Luxemburger Wort. He also meets WP:NATH as an international medalist, meaning we can presume coverage exists beyond this (surely if he is a "household name" then many other contemporary sources must exist -- though I do believe this is a keep even on the basis of these sources). --Habst (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, satisfactory article and sources. Geschichte (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per all above. Svartner (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per improvements made since nom. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 03:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Bradford (army officer)

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

This is a British Army officer failing WP:N and WP:BIO. This article was created because he signed a letter arguing for Brexit in 2016. The source names him but nothing else. A search of Google news, scholar, etc, and internet archive have brought up nothing that demonstrate he is notable. There is no significant coverage of this individual; his mentions in secondary sources boil down to 1) this Brexit article and 2) a quote from him in 2000 when his battalion had a drugs scandal. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Signing a letter, together with several other officers, does not making him notable. Athel cb (talk) 08:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Signing a petition does not make you notable. Peer, so biographical information about him, his wives and children is available. British Army 1979-2013. Commanded the 1st Battalion, Black Watch, 1998-2000. (His notable father Bill commanded the 5th Battalion in NW Europe 1944-1946) Served in Northern Ireland (mentioned in despatches in 1992), Afghanistan 2006-2007 and the Congo. Now with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. No evidence as to why he was considered one of the UK's "most distinguished retired military officers". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Daniel (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fan economy

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

covers the same topic as parasocial interaction. even if it wasn't, it should be blown up anyway. ltb d l (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Popular culture, and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalence principle (geometric)

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

No verifiable citations. No content worth merging in to Equivalence principle. Most of the text in the article seems to be from a 1994 arxiv preprint with 6 citations, 4 from the author of the preprint and 2 that to not mention the article topic. The text seems to be very mathematical and what little there is makes no sense to me. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The unpublished preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9405013 which this page summarizes is non-notable. It seems the article was created by an editor with a COI. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not a notable physics topic. XOR'easter (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a strange point of view on equivalence principle, and I very much agree there is nothing here worth merging. Adumbrativus (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is unclear who might benefit from reading this unsourced article, which is barely more than a stub. Furthermore, I do not see any portion of this article which might usefully be merged into equivalence principle. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 12:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the author of the preprint has the Wikipedia page Gennadi Sardanashvily, both he and the original author of the page have passed away so I don't think it is salvageable. If someone wants they can always recreate it later.

Ldm1954 (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OrfeoGPL

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

Non-notable software GraziePrego (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. GraziePrego (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't appear to be any significant coverage. No references cited and the only links are to those behind the software. Possible conflict of interest? User who created the article has no user page and their only contributions are to this article. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas#Karnataka. Daniel (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Korlahalli

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

No significant third party coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Karnataka. LibStar (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas#Karnataka. Doesn't have the sources to justify its own article. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas#Karnataka. Nothing found showing this has WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth to support a separate stand alone article. // Timothy :: talk 18:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Tenor Wore Tapshoes

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. I've searched multiple sites for reviews of the book, including Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, Google Scholar, JSTOR, Trove, The New York Times, and others without finding any references to the book. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was unable to find any reviews to indicate it passes WP:NBOOK. Thanks, Significa liberdade, for looking through sites from the previous AfDs. Happy new year! ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ which does not preclude a potential rename as discussed within Star Mississippi 01:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coin rotation paradox

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

This isn't even a paradox, it's just geometry. This term has been used in a popular internet video and in few books which rather target maths learners than scientific demands. But since it isn't really a paradox and covered by regular geometry, this doesn't need an article for it's own. Is is correct that there was an mistake in the exam, but this was not really because of a phenomen called "coin rotation paradoxon" then, this was just because of a wrong calculation. In the linked youtube video it was goven the name "paradoxon" and given an extra-complicated explanation to make a paradoxon out of a simple calculation. See also discussion page for more. - Flexman (talk) 01:33, 27 December 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 December 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are (as far as I can tell) two arguments presented in favor of deletion: It's "not a paradox" and it's redundant to some as-yet unidentified article. This particular quirk of rotations is not discussed at geometry, nor was I able to find it after a brief skim of rotation (geometry), so presumably the nominator was thinking of another article, but until that article is specified, this argument is incomplete. As for "not a paradox" - take it to WP:RM. Badly-titled articles should not be deleted, they should be renamed. --N Y Kevin 02:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it fits into the article of rotation. This video provides the simple answer without calling it paradox: If the radius of circla A is 1/n of the radios circle B, the answer is n+1. Nothing paradox about it. There isn't even an expression for "Coin rotation paradox" in other languages since it is more connected to the phenomen of this SAT test than to regular science. Flexman (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  It is indeed a veridical paradox. The coin rotates more when rolling around another coin than when rolling on a line segment of the length of the latter coin's circumference. This is strongly counterintuitive at the first glance, enough to be called a paradox.
  
  If this wasn't a paradox, just geometry, birthday paradox would also not be a paradox, just simple probability calculations. Janhrach (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of sources for this, the article should be cleaned up for sure but it passes WP:GNG Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Murtagh, Jack. "The SAT Problem That Everybody Got Wrong". Scientific American. Retrieved 2023-12-27.
Keep: Seems to pass GNG. For the record, I contested the PROD. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 07:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a tendency of certain people on YouTube to call everything a "paradox" as clickbait. This is one of the reasons that YouTube isn't a very good source. But the right answer, if it is a documented mathematics topic, is to take the YouTube clickbait out of the title, not nominate the article for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Paradox" is definitely sensationalistic; "puzzle" would be justifiable, as it appears in books of them, e.g., [43][44]. An abstracted version of the puzzle appears in group theory [45]. XOR'easter (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with XOR'easter that calling it [a?] coin rotation puzzle rather than paradox would be more apt. --JBL (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  If we take a look on Deferent and epicycle, does this have a relation to the puzzle? - Flexman (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Vaguely but not even really enough to be worth mentioning in either article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You won't be shocked to know that Gardner did an extension to a single coin rolling around a closed loop of $n$ coins ( $n > 2$ ) in Mathematical Carnival in 1975, which was an updated version of xyr 1966 Scientific American column. And the chapter in the book is titled "Penny Puzzles". Uncle G (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: It is too specific a phenomenon to belong to geometry or similar articles.

Just because it is obvious to Flexman doesn't mean it is to others; it is described in Scientific American, Wolfram MathWorld etc.

Regarding the name, a Google search shows many parties calling it a paradox. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 03:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MathWorld is known to be a bad source for terminology, and a generic Google search turns up unreliable rubbish. XOR'easter (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also the choice of title of the Wikipedia article for a relatively obscure thing like this with no "real" name will have a pretty big impact on the google hits. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: “This isn't even a paradox, it's just geometry” is such a lame excuse for destroying someone’s hard work on writing an article on a truly remarkable topic (in geometry :-p) that has garnered significant attention in both popular and scholarly circles. It’s extremely telling that you would rush immediately to deleting it instead of first suggesting a rename or something non-destructive. Stop the deletionism! — Timwi (talk) 10:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability of this mathematical phenomenon does not seem to be in dispute. Maybe the title should be changed, but I would note that describing counter-intuitive results as paradoxes is very much a regular occurrence in the field. TompaDompa (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: discussed in many reliable sources, clearly notable. Deleting this article solely because it uses the term "paradox" in a colloquial sense is absurd. Must we also then delete Epimenides paradox, Barbershop paradox, Cantor's paradox, and every other non-intuitive but logically sound idea? Dan • ✉ 04:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This seems like a clearly notable observation/phenomenon. Retitling would be fine if someone can find a different name which is more common (or comparably common and clearer). –jacobolus (t) 05:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of sources. As nominated, it already had two sources associating it with a "paradox" (Mathworld and Mathematical Fallacies and Paradoxes) and a major national newspaper story about the SAT snafu. There is plenty more where that came from; for instance Martin Gardner also calls it the "coin paradox" (again separate from the SAT). There is no need to rename; it fits perfectly well into Category:Mathematical paradoxes which clearly states on the category page "Paradox" here has the sense of "unintuitive result", rather than "apparent contradiction". The fact that this is unintuitive is attested by the failure of the SAT creators to notice the problem and the tiny percentage of SAT participants who reported the problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Isasi

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

This one sentence biography article lacks WP:SIGCOV. The two references are partial player stats. After searching, could not locate sufficient reliablesources. Created on 21 May 2012 and was PROD 27 May 2012 JoeNMLC (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Paraguay. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in searches were passing mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per JTtheOG. The article does not even provide basic information about the player. Svartner (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 01:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Bectors Food

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Charlie (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Charlie (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May I ask whether you did WP:BEFORE searches on this article subject before bringing an AfD? A quick search on Google Scholar for (Bector AND Cremica) yielded a number of results with lengthy coverage, e.g., [46], [47], [48]. Did you see these and reject them for some reason? Should the rule that the existence of sources determines notability, regardless of the current state of the article apply to this nomination? Oblivy (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oblivy The journals you provided as sources aren't listed in Scopus, EBSCO, HeinOnline, or any other bibliographic index listed with Wikipedia Library. If these academic citations are accepted, they would be more fitting for enhancing Rajni Bector's page than this company's page. However, you are invited to do the needful so that it passes WP:HEY. Charlie (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your response, but you didn't really address my question. It's expected editors will do searching for sources before bringing an AfD for non-notability.Were you aware of the existence of sources describing the article subject and rejected them? I just chose the first few substantial non-paywalled sources I could find, there are others - did you see those?

Note that per WP:NEXISTS the existence of sources is most relevant, not the state of the sourcing in the article itself. Oblivy (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The academic sources you mentioned mainly talk about Rajni Bector, not so much about the company. Kindly take a look at what those sources say. Look... I acknowledge the importance of having relevant sources, but it's crucial to examine the content and context as well. If we take your perspective into account, I am also open to the idea of merging this company page with Rajni Bector's. But, for now, be bold and make changes to the page so that it passes WP:HEY. Charlie (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- per Oblivy. I also found citations from the following: Business Standard, Tribune India, etc. The article is in need of expansion, but clear notability has been demonstrated. KangarooGymnast (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Oblivy, are you arguing to Keep this article or do you advocate some other resolution? You've done some research so I assume it brought you to some conclusion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a multinational, woman-founded company that is listed on the Indian stock exchanges. It's a well known brand-name in India. It has relationships with most major fast food chains. It made national news when it got raided by tax authorities....
I've added cites which provide significant coverage. A lot of press came out around the time of its IPO and those articles provide enough factual content to support all or most of the article (I noted the founding date is all over the map, probably 1978, but also 1977 and 1985, so I left it alone). There is a lot more coverage of this company, although admittedly quite a bit of it falls into earned media rather than independent gumshoe journalism. I don't think that's disqualifying, but I know some people do.
My point above stands - I don't understand the rationale for bringing this to AfD, and certainly don't agree with the suggestion a nominator can fail to show that WP:BEFORE was met and then say, hey (pun intended), you can edit the article to try to save it. This should have been an obvious keep but someone had to do the work. Oblivy (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:CORP also per comments by Oblivy. — Maile (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't see how it does not meet CORP, and the peacock tag can be removed. I don't see any peacock terms in the article. Rajni Bector could be a possible merge candidate into the company page (but also a candidate for expansion). Geschichte (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sitting volleyball at the 2023 ASEAN Para Games

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of notability under GNG or SNG. Basically a stats-only (other than 1 sentence saying that it occurred) article about a particular type of volleyball at a particular set of games. Refs have no coverage other than scores/results. North8000 (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boxford Rovers Football Club

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

Amateur football club playing at level 16 of the English football pyramid, well below the level at which clubs are deemed notable. Of the references, only this is an independent, non-database source (the Nayland & Wiston site cited does not mention the club, just the location if plays at). I will leave it to the closing admin to decide whether the deprodder needs a good trouting. Number 5 7 00:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Beyond the Suffolk News article I couldn't find any coverage in sources that weren't databases or closely related to the club. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be covered in the Boxford, Suffolk article. Personally I've never heard of this team even though I know Boxford well. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Timothy's argument is compelling because it invokes WP:V, a core policy. The issue of notability aside, the article is entirely unsourced, and therefore unverifiable (verifiability means that references are cited in the article and support the text, not merely that they exist somewhere). Therefore, the content is worthless and the article, if the subject is notable, would need to be rewritten from scratch, citing sources. Sandstein 15:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hadji-Dawud

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

Can't find many if any reliable sources on this topic. A standard Google search turns up absolutely nothing, with all hits being either irrelevant/off-topic content, or blatantly unreliable sources like blogs, commentary, and definitions. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Islam, Iran, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the ru.wiki article looks massively refbombed and I can’t evaluate those sources but the equivalent articles in other languages don’t appear to lack sources. Mccapra (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Try "Hajji Da'ud" (or Davud) or "Da'ud Beg" or many other variations. Srnec (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you name a single source that either of those will get us? Uncle G (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Politics of Trade in Safavid Iran, p. 227, Cambridge University Press, 1999, ISBN 9780521641319
  - Persia in Crisis: Safavid Decline and the Fall of Isfahan, p. 223, Bloomsbury, ISBN 9781838607074
  - Baumer, History of the Caucasus, Volume 1, p. 164
  - The permutations of names like this that combine titles and/or honorifics with given names, all derived from Arabic but not from an Arabic-speaking context and that have to be transliterated into the Latin alphabet in different ways depending on the target language... makes it very difficult to do proper searches unless you know what to look for. It is unfortunate that some topic areas are plagued by bad-faith editors. Good-faith but ill-informed deletions, however, only encourage bad faith. Srnec (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - So why has it taken you, who did know what to look for, 3 weeks, several requests from Liz, and an outright direct prod from me to come up with anything at all? You claim to be best positioned, but you didn't put any effort in. Even now, you didn't bother to tell us whether these were books, journal articles, or something else, and make it absurdly difficult for other people when you have the information. I've had to hunt to find out what the Hell you were even citing and fill in the information above. Please stop complaining about good-faith nominations and start actually helping other editors. Otherwise you are the problem. Uncle G (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whilst there appears to be a confusion over characters on naming convention from original written language, jumbling the letters and diacritics a certain way shows plenty of sources and notable coverage. Dock Mock (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)(sock strike) oknazevad (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. All sourced and verifiable. --Frankie Photographer (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]
- That is an outright falsehood, given that there is not a single source citation in the entire article. Uncle G (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Despite a consensus to Keep this article, it remains unsourced and none of the discussion participants has brought any new references to this discussion. I don't see how any editor can say all sourced and verifiable without demonstrating a single citation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But the article needs some proper sourcing. killer bee  05:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- We need to see some sources, K6bee9, because right now, there aren't any. Care to do a search? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Checking out ru:Хаджи-Давуд#Примечания and some of the things that it points to it does seem that this is a well-recorded historical figure, but largely only if one can access and read academic and book sources published in the Soviet Union. That comment by Frankie Photographer (talk · contribs) above, who is also responsible for edit warring over 19KiB of sourceless content in the article's edit history, is shameful for being such a blatant falsehood about sourcing. I turned up a Dutch history Hedendaagsche historie; of het vervolg van de Algemeene historie from 1767 that mentions Lesji and a Dawg Beg in 1721, and a 20th century French source that apparently mentions one "Dawud-beg, chef des Lezghiens", both agreeing with the Russian Wikipedia's Дауд-бек; so I suspect that the problem is bad editors like NapoleonTHEvictorious (talk · contribs) and Frankie Photographer (talk · contribs) dumping stuff into the article, edit warring, and falsely claiming that it is sourced, rather than this being someone who is not in the history books. Quite frankly, I think that we can do without the edit warriors who outright misrepresent the absence of sources in their edits such as Special:Diff/1188225011. Uncle G (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still not a single source.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: right now, the Russian Wikipedia version has 139 references and the Azerbaijani Wikipedia version has 63. Left guide (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Left guide, can you add any of these sources that you think are reliable into the article or at least mention a few of them here? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hello Liz, unfortunately that seems unlikely, since I'm not fluent in reading either of those two languages, but I will see if I can find English sources. Left guide (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Left guide, that would be helpful! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not going through sources, because even if sources are found, this needs TNT to make room for a proper article. Since nothing in the article is sourced, the article history is has no value. The entire article could be deleted down to a title microstub simply based on a WP:V challenge. A future article shouldnt be tied to this unsourced content and a future editor shouldn't feel the need to try and source what looks to be a significant amount of OR. // Timothy :: talk 08:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn per HEY. (non-admin closure)‎ InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roba Negousse

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

Unable to find SIGCOV, and the claim on him being the first Ethiopian Olympic sprinter is uncited. Never won a medal InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Ethiopia. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did compete at Ethiopia's first Olympics (see [49] and [50]), so the claim is technically correct. Notability is a different matter, however. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage from this source (translated):

In seventh place, and therefore last, in this heat came the Ethiopian Neggousse Roba , who had also participated, again in the 100 metres, in the Melbourne Games, also finishing last in the second heat of the first round.
Why do we care about Neggousse Roba, 11.0 sprinter?
We would like to remember him because, once his competitive activity was over, Neggousse began his career as a coach and in this capacity achieved glory and fame that had been denied him by his less than excellent skills as a sprinter. Neggousse stopped competing after the Rome Games and immediately began taking care of compatriot Abebe Bikila whom he guided to a second marathon gold medal in Tokyo. He was also a valuable guide and coach to two other cross-country greats, Mamo Wolde and Miruts Yifter .

BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aha! Negousse seems to be better known by the name "Negussie Roba" and is considered one of the greatest coaches in his country's history: MEDIAEthiopa has an article here on him that calls him the "sensational national coach [who] is widely acknowledged as the man behind the success of every Ethiopian long-distance runner from the Mexico City Olympics all the way to the Moscow Olympics in 1980" and notes that "Ethiopia will always remember this fine coach for the pride he brought to his people." The Sydney Morning Herald also has an article that is arguably significant coverage and there appears to be plenty of other mentions of him in modern media, and this is all without access to newspapers of the time in his country. Will expand the article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I have substantially expanded the article to be over 500 words; @InvadingInvader: would you be willing to withdraw this nomination? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eternity's Crossing

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

This doesn't seem to meet any WP:NMUSIC unfortunately, after doing a WP:BEFORE I couldn't find much other than the local article about the band playing at the town church and that's already cited. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and West Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support if nobody can come up with other sources or evidence of notability. It doesn't sound particularly notable, and as long as the nominator took the time to look for sources that might demonstrate it, deletion is probably appropriate. It's a relief to see WP:BEFORE observed in the nomination—far too many articles get nominated for deletion without any effort to establish whether the topic is notable, leaving it up to everyone else to do the work for the nominator, and more often than not spending the day demonstrating that the subject was in fact at least marginally notable. P Aculeius (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Language (general concept)

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

This is a translation from the French article , which is that wiki's version of Language. If I'm not wrong, that makes this basically a much shorter duplicate of the Language page on English Wikipedia, since it is about the same topic. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is just bizarre. I'm not sure why the editor decided to create an entirely new language article when the English version of the French Langage is just Language. Kazamzam (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The reason I created this article is because it describes the same concept as the French-language Wikipedia article 'langage', which, like this one, is different from the English-language Wikipedia article 'language', while the French-language Wikipedia article 'langage humain' is more like the English-language Wikipedia article 'language'.

PK2 (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the new article overlaps a LOT with the existing Language and Communication articles. So much of the new article is uncited that I'm not sure moving information from it to the existing pages makes sense either. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Langue and parole#Meaning of the terms for those who are curious. Nardog (talk) 09:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessary fork. There is no requirement to have the same page structures as other language wikis. In this case, no matter how fr.wiki arranges itself, in English there is no distinction implied or needed. JMWt (talk) 08:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the idea is not bad, but does not work. The existing article Language seems to mostly be about the general concept anyways, and accounting for different conceptualisations. Also slightly redundant given Langue and parole (cf. Nardog) and Hockett's design features, and others. It seems to be that there are better articles to place the information in, and it currently does not give me the impression that it works as a topic independent from these others. English Wikipedia has to mainly follow English, unless there are sources to estabish specific conceptualizations in other languages as notable. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 00:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:REDUNDANTFORK of the primary Language article. I am not seeing anything here that would work for a merge or other AtD. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete': as WP:REDUNDANTFORK of the primary Language article per above. // Timothy :: talk 18:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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