Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 02	January 04 >

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 speedy keep per WP:SK#4 ✗plicit 14:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gurpreet Bhangu

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

Non-notable television/film actress; This actress did not get any coverage of big news sites or India news sites anywhere I didn't see their name anywhere in the ones that have been used in this article. I've only been able to find one reference about this but i think he is also a paid Tichku (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC) Block evading WP:SOCK. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting|deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Deletion sorting/Actress and filmmakers actress and filmmakers, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India. Tichku (talk) 11:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion does not appear to have been actually listed on the above deletion sorting lists despite that comment. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Tichku, She is actress and meets WP:ENT. Here are some for you to read. Wikipedia:ENT, Wikipedia:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Ashraf333 (talk • contribs)
Keep - per comment above, a very prolific working actress in notable films. Her article needs expansion, not deletion imo. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was not properly transcldued to the log until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, India, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:55, 7 January 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 Bukit Panjang. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Senja, Singapore

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

Redirect to Bukit Panjang, bringing to AfD following contested WP:BLAR. The assembled sources do not establish that the subject meets WP:GNG, and don't even really describe Senja as a distinct place: secondary sources describe Senja Road, Senja Way, and Senja Green; Singapore government sources mention a place called Senja but do not describe it to any extent. Searching the internet, Google scholar, and Google Books for both the Malay and Chinese turned up nothing meaningful, with a lot of false positives due to the name meaning "dusk" in Malay and using common name characters in Chinese. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I could not find any SIGCOV of Senja as a place on NewspaperSG, only SIGCOV of Senja LRT station and various residential developments in the area with Senja in their name. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bukit Panjang. A Google search doesn't turn up anything about the area in general, only property listings and routine news coverage regarding a hawker centre and flyover. The article's content is also either already covered in the Bukit Panjang article (hawker centre, schools, history) or is non-notable (housing block numbers and neighbourhood names). R22-3877 (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bukit Panjang per nom and above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the nominator is correct. Lightburst (talk) 01:12, 10 January 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 Metal Box. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 13:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Memories (Public Image Ltd song)

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

Hello. The song is listed on Metal Box a separate page is not justified and this article has no cited sources.Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:14, 3 January 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 January 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Metal Box: not finding any coverage on the song. QuietHere (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QuietHere: Thanks. The article actually has no content. I'm uncertain what your redirect does. But yes, the only info here is the chart position - already on the Metal Box page.Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thelisteninghand if you're asking what redirects are for, read Wikipedia:Redirect. Otherwise I'm not sure what you mean by that. QuietHere (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Metal Box - Note that this is a typical procedure to avoid deletion if anyone wants to resurrect the article in the future without having to re-create the infobox and such. Anyway, this song seems to be the source of some minor fan trivia, but there is not enough distinct coverage to merit a separate article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Metal Box. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Metal Box. per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Metal Box. Fails WP:NSONG Equine-man (talk) 08:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Metal Box Lightburst (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. ✗plicit 14:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Niazi (actor)

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

Non-notable television/film actor; This actor did not get any coverage of big news sites or India news sites anywhere I didn't see their name anywhere in the ones that have been used in this article. Tichku (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting|deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Deletion sorting/Actress and filmmakers actress and filmmakers, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pakistan. Tichku (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC) Block evading WP:SOCK. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]
The page does not appear to have been actually added to any of the above lists. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was not properly transcluded to the log until now
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:57, 7 January 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!} 22:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bailey Rule

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

Moved to main after decline without improvement. Would not have passed the now deprecated NFOOTY criteria: fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG and only source is to a ~~'stats' site~~ league website, where the player gains only a passing mention. Eagleash (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried and failed to find any sources that could help satisfy WP:SPORTCRIT. It looks to me that the player is not notable. OliveYouBean (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also failed to find any sources that would meet any notability criteria. Skynxnex (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - best I can find is a trivial mention in SBS Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet sportcrit Lightburst (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 14:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:SPORTCRIT Bruxton (talk) 15:03, 10 January 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!} 03:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Small complex rhombicosidodecahedron

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

Sourced to "three" sources which all link to the same page, which does not even name this polyhedron; all web search results appear to be either based on this article or fandom wikis like https://polytope.miraheze.org/wiki/Small_complex_rhombicosidodecahedron (arguably the better place for this). Does not meet WP:GNG. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 22:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 22:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Part of a large poorly-sourced polyhedron cruft-farm that badly needs cleanup. No sources found on Google Scholar, MathSciNet, or zbMATH under either boldfaced name; not notable as an example in research mathematics. I'm not even sure what exactly is being described here. It appears to be a system of polygons and star polygons that meet four to an edge, but that does not meet any of the many definitions in polyhedron. It is claimed to be an abstract polyhedron with a degenerate realization, but that appears to be inaccurate, as describing it as an abstract polyhedron would require additional information not present in the geometry (how to pair up the four faces that meet at each edge). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think it has a name in the research mathematics literature, indeed. It is in Coxeter et al.'s 1954 paper on uniform polyhedra as 3 5⁄2 | 2. (If converted to Norman Johnson's terminology, this is a cantellated great icosahedron or cantellated great stellated dodecahedron.) OTOH, Coxeter et al. dismiss it as a degenerate case. They also cite it as occurring as V in Pitsch 1881. These mentions are probably not enough to hang an article on, but may be enough to redirect this somewhere (indeed, I could see it being added to the truncation sequence at great icosahedron, though it currently isn't there, just like how Coxeter et al. note that some expected cases are degenerate). But again, there is not any RS for the name, which seems to put the idea of redirection in question as well. Double sharp (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as a Redirect was suggested but no target yet identified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on my limited understanding of the math involved and what was explained above, it does not appear to be a "thing". I don't find any sources for this item. Oaktree b (talk) 03:38, 5 January 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 Chodakowski Family. There's only been limited input about the redirect target, so if editors wish to discuss that further, feel free to start an RFD discussion at any time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Antanas Chodakauskas

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

The notability of this person was briefly discussed here: Talk:Antanas_Chodakauskas#Notability. In short, it's basically a father of famous children (WP:BIOFAMILY), no notable achievements on his own, very poor coverage in academic sources Marcelus (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Marcelus (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Lithuania, and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Antanas Chodakauskas is sufficiently well covered in academic sources, as well as sources in general - just look at Antanas Chodakauskas#References. Chodakauskas is notable due to his involvement with the Lithuanian National Revival. If one looks at WP:GNG, it is clear that the article should be kept, because it matches all these guidelines. Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What was his involvement in Lithuanian national movement? What were his own achievements? Marcelus (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chodakauskas made his home into a center of the Lithuanian National Revival, with many of its activists being his friends. That's very notable for Lithuanian history. Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could his home be notable? Is it a museum now? Is this related to lt:Šiaudiniai (Pakruojis)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, was thinking the same thing as the nominator. None of the listed references are about Chodakauskas, but about all the famous people he hung out with. No personal achievements or positions whatsoever are listed. Could not find references that are actually about him. Notability is not inherented. Renata•3 19:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his most famous child, perhaps Jadvyga Tūbelienė (longest right now)? In the spirit of WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Jadvyga Tūbelienė as an WP:ATD, as per Piotr above.
MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a redirect to Chodakowski Family? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chodakowski family, or wherever. JoelleJay (talk) 22:54, 3 January 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 Million Dollar Arm. Star Mississippi 14:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Vasudevan

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

Non-notable businessman. Was involved in the "Million Dollar Arm" contest which produced baseball players Dinesh Patel and Rinku Singh but he does not seem independently notable. Was not able to find WP:SIGCOV. Natg 19 (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Million Dollar Arm article would be the best alternative. Oaktree b (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Million Dollar Arm as suggested. Even if he were notable (which I don't concede per WP:CREATIVE or WP:PROF), this article needs to be started from scratch. Bearian (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I see a consensus to Keep this article but also a need to clean up this article and remove poor sources. Hopefully, there will be follow-up to this AFD and some improvement made to this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cotton ceiling

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks notability, all sources are either not reliable or do not mention the phrase. There is one exception but that source is biased and has had to be heavily redacted by the publisher, and should not be the basis for an entire article or be sufficient to alone establish notability. Rab V (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sheesh. It's not as if uses of the term, and discussions of its origin and applicability, are hard to find. A scholarly essay: [1]. A LRoB article: [2]. Two textbook chapters: [3] [4]. Transcripts from a House of Commons debate: [5]. Two of the first references in the current article are a conference publication based on a PhD thesis [6] and a BBC article [7]. Casual, blog and forum use of the term is all over the place [8]. Notability is not in question here, it's just a matter of selecting the best among those sources for the article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blog and forum use are not relevant to determining notability, see WP:NOTABILITY. Passing mentions in articles not about the cotton ceiling do not help much either. Transcripts from House of Common debates are primary sources, so do not determine notability either. The books you mention are polemics, not textbooks. PhD dissertations are not great sources. Rab V (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has reliable sources, 12 books with ISBN and many academic articles with DOI. 39 references. All sources explicitly name the term cotton ceiling. It is better referenced than a huge amount of articles that exist in Wikipedia. --Kottkaniemi (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Books having ISBN numbers are not relevant to whether they are reliable. Cited books in the article, like 'Liberalism: Find A Cure' and 'How The Transgender Craze is Redefining Reality', are on the level long-form self-published opinion pieces. They are not reliable, independent and cannot be depended on by Wikipedia to determine notability. Rab V (talk) 08:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Largely unreliable sources, as per nom. A merge seems to be the best recourse, perhaps to Lesbian erasure. One could argue merging it into Transgender_inequality#Transgender_people_and_unequal_treatment_in_the_LGBT_community as well. Mooonswimmer 00:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vote *Merge per Moonswimmer to Lesbian Erasure Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Elmidae and Kottkaniemi, has enough reliable sources, and it's a common language term. Article could use clean up and removal of the poor sources, but that is not the same as AfD. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article needs cleanup and removal of poor sources, but there appear to be enough sources that are academic or mainstream publishing that are sufficient to show notability and provide content to write about. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Theomachist

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

WP:NOTDICT. This is a dictionary entry for a pejorative, with a few examples of its use to describe notable people. A quick search didn't turn up sources to satisfy WP:GNG. I would welcome a finding that there are papers describing theological perspectives on theomachy, historical development in understandings of theomachy, or historical changes in those to whom the term "theomachist" is applied. However, I do not believe such sources exist. Daask (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Religion. Daask (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to Wiktionary I guess. Agree with nom, generally, that this is a WP:DICDEF. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this article is basicly just a definition.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 02:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because just a dictionary definition. I can't see making it a redirect, or we'd have redirects for every word in Wiktionary. Lamona (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I see No consensus here and I don't think a third relisting would sway anyone's opinion or bring in a decisive number of new editors who could break this logjam. Although not many picked up on the suggestion the possibility of Merging is still out there or perhaps we will see a return to AFD after a resonable period of time (i.e. not tomorrow). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of FIFA World Cup own goals

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

A list of own goals is not inherently notable and there is no evidence it meets WP:GNG. Most of the sources are WP:ROUTINE match reports. Also qualifies for deletion under WP:NOTSTATS. Natg 19 (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling in women's own goal article for same rationale. Natg 19 (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Lists. Natg 19 (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the article does not violate WP:NOTSTATS as this page is indeed split into its own article, and is not indiscriminate. The sources are WP:ROUTINE but the content of the article is not. This article seems at least as well sourced as most lists on National Football League records. Wcdowchb (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both there doesn't look to be many sources that cover the topic of own goals in either of these tournaments in depth. Of course there are source that mention the own goals individually, but none that mention them together e.g. saying "X scored the 35th own goal in history". As such, doesn't meet the criteria of WP:NLIST, and is just a WP:NOTSTATS. Also think that List of UEFA European Championship own goals should be similarly deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NOTSTATS, I don't think we need these. Giant Snowman 19:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Wcdowchb. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it turns out there is quite a bit of discussion of the topic of own goals in World Cup history, and this seems like valuable information that Wikipedia can provide, as long as it's accurate and being kept up to date. On the topic of the total number, we have articles like this one from the Qatar News Agency, "Own Goals Are Rooted in World Cup History"; this 2018 article on "World Cup bloopers" from ESPN and this "World Cup 2018: The own goal is basically the leading scorer of the tournament" from CBS Sports. On the topic of most notable own goals, we have articles like this "top 10" one from China Daily in 2014. I also just learned from this 2022 Guardian article that Qatar was unusual in having no own goals in the first 16. (Psychologically it does feel a bit mean to be tracking own goals on the world's biggest stage like this, but as the Qatar News Agency article says, part of why it's closely tracked and analysed now is to refute any accusations of corruption (!!!).) (And mistakes happen, because football is life.) Cielquiparle (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both - This article have useful and unique information. Many users wanted to know the own goal information at FIFA World Cup. But It is difficult to find information about own goal. In my opinion, this article is Engllish wikipedia's precious article. Besides I think that own goal list is also part of FIFA World Cup statistics. Some own goals are more famous than general goals, For example Andrés Escobar's own goal. Footwiks (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Natg 19 re- GNG and ROUTINE. The list is mainly WP:FANCRUFT. Own goals are a fairly routine and common part of football, they might not happen every match but there is nothing special about an own goal in a football game. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add as well, although not as detailed, List of FIFA World Cup goalscorers contains information about own goals. No reason some of the content from this list couldn't be merged there. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevie fae Scotland: I've actually wondered if List of FIFA World Cup goalscorers should be deleted, as it is a list of every goal that has ever been scored in a WC. That seems to fail WP:NOTSTATS. Natg 19 (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The own goals are indiscriminate. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Have now added the notability argument that the murder of Colombian footballer Andrés Escobar by a fan due to his own goal at the 1994 World Cup is the very reason why own goals at the FIFA World Cup have taken on immense importance, and are closely tracked and scrutinised. Have also added the Sports Illustrated article on own goals at the 2018 World Cup (and how World Cup champions France benefitted the most). These aren't just own goals at any tournament; it's the world's biggest stage for football and Escobar lost his life. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything salvageable (after the valid FANCRUFT and NOTSTATS issues have been addressed) into List of FIFA World Cup goalscorers, per Stevie fae Scotland. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this discussion another round with a suggestion of a merger amid the consensus divided between "keep" and "delete".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the article is sourced almost exclusively to FIFA, which is not an independent source as required by WP:N. The sources posted above would at best confirm the notability of individual or a select group of own goals, but it's not clear that the totality of own goals in the world cup is a notable topic which has received significant coverage aside from statistical databases. Avilich (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Qatar News Agency article talks about all of them (up to 2018): https://www.qna.org.qa/en/News-Area/Special-News/2022-11/12/0036-qatar-2022-own-goals-are-rooted-in-world-cup-history Cielquiparle (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly a list, though Avilich (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List doesn't make sense to me and seems like there no evidence this dataset has ever been used in this fashion. 116.206.28.50 (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Wcdowchb and Cielquiparle.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTSTATS applies here. NapHit (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTSTATS states, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article, all of which this article does. So that specific rule could be read as support for !keep in this instance. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources presented by Cielquiparle show that WP:NLIST is met: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:07, 10 January 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!} 20:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No More Woof

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

A product that wound up never actually existing, and does not appear to pass the WP:GNG. While it had a flurry of news coverage when the crowdfunding campaign was announced, this dried up immediately after and thus there was no WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Pretty much the only piece of coverage I found that came after the period of the crowdfunding campaign was one confirming that the device was never completed. Rorshacma (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Plenty of coverage in the Smithsonian, Sydney Morning Herald, PCMag and Cnet at the time of "introduction" of the device. I suppose it's not sustained coverage, but we could build an article talking about it before it was cancelled. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the articles that I can find are clearly based on pre-launch company announcements. It's easy to see that because they all use the same photo. E.g. PC Magazine. I can find no independent review of the product. The is an IEEE article critical of crowd-funding for highly speculative tech using this as its example. I can see why the company PR appeared in so many magazines - it's about DOGS and their thoughts. But all I can learn is that the company used a go-fund-me to get started. Lamona (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not even remember creating this page, it having been so long ago - I was 17 - , and I agree it seems to not pass WP:GNG anymore, if it even did back then. Minor, pre-launch buzz news articles are not enough for a product that ended up not even launching and then completely disappeared from the media, in my opinion. Bloggus1225 (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 14:16, 10 January 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 delete per WP:CSD#G5. The article was created in violation of a block, and the article has no substantial edits by other editors. Mz7 (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khejarla Toll Plaza

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

My PROD rationale was Cannot find any examples of significant, detailed coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject.. Essentially, the topic looks like it fails WP:GNG. Contested by article creator on my user talk with comment Reliable sources has been added to this article. Kindly remove template proposed deletion. This is false as no sources have been added since the PROD.

Full source analysis to follow. In terms of WP:ATD, I don't see any suitable options and I have serious concerns about the sourcing to the extent where I would prefer outright deletion to retaining any of the current content. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220724052700/https://pwd.rajasthan.gov.in/content/dam/doitassets/Roads/pwd/PPP/TENDERS/Banar-Bhopalgarh-Kuchera%20FFR.pdf	From the local govt/council so is clearly involved in the toll plaza		A 'toll plaza' is briefly mentioned on pages 75-76 but the coverage is not significant at all and I can't see any mention of this being in Khejarla so might well be a different toll plaza entirely.	✘ No
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/Defaultingcomp/RAJASTHAN.pdf	Primary source		'Khejarla' not mentioned once. This has no mention of any toll plazas whatsoever let alone one in Khejarla	✘ No
https://fastag.brokerage-free.in/toll-info/rajasthan	As far as I can tell this is a company that runs toll plazas	Directory on a business website, not regulated by any uninvolved party so not WP:RS	Khejarla not mentioned once. Nearest ones to this area are the toll plazas in Korai and Rajadhok, both on National Highway 21 (India). I think (?).	✘ No
https://tis.nhai.gov.in/TollInformation?TollPlazaID=4481	Another primary source		Again, no mention of a Khejarla Toll Plaza. There is no WP:SIGCOV at all and the page relates to Lasedi Toll Plaza on National Highway 52 (India).	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a run of the mill toll booth. No demonstration of any coverage in secondary sources. We don't have an article for each and every toll booth. Even the Stratford Toll Plaza in Connecticut, which was the site of a truck crash that killed seven people and directly led to the removal of all tolls in the state, doesn't have an article, and that has an order of magnitude more claim to significance. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We don’t need an article on an individual toll plaza. Dough4872 21:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TOAT. –Fredddie ™ 21:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trainsotherandthings? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If it's not already, I'm establishing that abbreviation as on-wiki canon. –Fredddie ™ 01:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trains Of All Time? That would have been a good username, actually. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless more sources turn up, Delete since most toll plazas are not notable. --Rs chen 7754 01:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Opinions are split as to whether there are sufficient sources for notability, which means that the article is kept by default, for now. Sandstein 13:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HomeCo Daily Needs REIT

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

Non-notable company. That AfC submission was accepted by MaxnaCarta after the sixth submission; previous versions had been declined by Theroadislong and Bonadea (ping).

Looking at the refs:

1, 2, 10 are financial listings (not in-depth)
3 I cannot read past the preview but seems like a routine announcement / churnalism
4, 6, 7 are routine announcements / churnalism
5 (link) is probably a paid-for piece. It is not marked so, but it includes very promotional writing, has no byline, and the website’s "advertise with us" page promises Pair your message with an ‘information-based’ publication.
8 either churnalism or a paid-for piece; it seems a bit more in-depth than a recycled press release but I do not think an independent journalist would write sentences such as The merger brings together HDN and AVN’s highly complementary portfolios with strong strategic rationale)
9 (undisguised) press release
11 (correct link) and 13 (correct link): I cannot access either. The previews in my online search engine are not encouraging ("HomeCo said that...") but either could be of decent quality (The Australian is a serious newspaper).
12 self-published

An online search provides no useful source, but it does make clear that there is a large-scale paid-advertisement campaign going on. For instance, the Daily Telegraph and the Herald Sun carried the exact same story (both previews start with the exact same words "HomeCo Daily Needs REIT merges with Aventus after striking deal with billionaire Brett Blundy"). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Companies. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am responsible for one of the several declines before I initially accepted. Notability is clearly established. The issue was always significant promotional material. Notability is demonstrated in sources 3, 11, and 12. Number 3 is an entire article written in the Australian Financial Review, a business newspaper dating back the better half of a century and is Australia's answer to the Wall Street Journal. Small fish do not get picked up by that paper. 11 and 13 are full article coverage examples in The Australian which as you note, is a serious newspaper. I acted as a diligent AFC reviewer and refused to approve this article until the promotional material had been removed, and that the article represented a notable topic covered in a neutral way. The article was authored by what seems to be a good faith Australian editor and I saw no further reason to decline, so it was accepted. HomeCo is a huge business and I can see several of their properties close to my home. Given they're an established business covered significantly in multiple reliable sources, I see no merit in the argument for deletion. Press pieces can be used to verify facts, and while true that they confer no notability, they do not detract from notability established in other sources. MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing the WP:THREE legwork.

Through the Wikipedia:Library, I could access ref 11 (at this proquest link). It has 492 words, about half of which are relevant to Homeco, and arguably routine coverage. It includes borderline promotional sentences such as Mr Di Pilla is known as an ambitious dealmaker from his investment banking days. Furthermore, the byline is "CREDIT: EDITED BY BRIDGET CARTER" which I find suspicious (if BC edited it, who wrote it?); as a comparison, the first hit in proquest for (HomeCo) AND PUBID(42763) is "Large-format retail centres in demand despite rate rises", 11 July 2022 and it has "CREDIT: Ben Wilmot". So all in all, I think that source is too dubious to rely on it for notability.

For some reason, I cannot access ref 13 the same way. A proquest search for the title yields no hits; I can see the entire issue of 24 February 2021 (here’s the proquest link, there’s the Gale link) and it’s not in there. (Maybe it is a web-only article / outside proquest coverage?)
I have the same problem to access ref 3. However, I do see quite a lot of hits for HomeCo in the AFR (proquest search: PUBID(2040384) homeco), for instance:
None of those are really great sources (routine coverage / interviews-like) but they do indicate sustained coverage. Count me as a weak delete for now.

On a sidenote: I only cited the procedural history as an explanation of why I pinged specific people. I did not want to imply that your AfC review was incorrect; my apologies if that is how you read my post. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 18:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tigraan I take zero offence, no apology needed at all. Part of reviewing is accepting that your reviews may end up at XFD. You're just doing your job as a fellow editor. :) MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete thanks to the excellent source analysis above. Sadly, I can't find any extra sourcing. And I'd like to congratulate the editors above on the extreme civility used in the above discussion, very nice to see in AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Oaktree b because of additional sources identified below. Jahaza (talk) 06:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Routine funding announcements, businesses doing financial stuff, routine coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are quite a few articles not yet included as sources, that go beyond merely routine coverage (e.g. earnings coverage would be routine). This was apparently the largest IPO in Australia in 2020. I don't think any of the following are included in the article yet: From the Australian Financial Review[9][10][11][12], from the Syndney Morning Herald[13][14][15], and this article from The Australian looks relevant, although I can't read it[16]. Jahaza (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources identified by Jahaza. Deus et lex (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Per WP:NCORP, there do not appear to be multiple sources with significant coverage of the company itself, that are independent, reliable and secondary, per WP:SIRS. For example:

"Di Pilla's high aim suggests Home Co is lining up GPT or Vicinity move" (Australian, 2022, via ProQuest 2632260526) lacks WP:CORPDEPTH because it is trivial coverage - it is about a rumored acquisition, an announcement HomeCo made to its shareholders, and stenography of what HomeCo said.
"HMC: the building of a forever business" (Financial Review, 2022 ProQuest 2695915711) appears to fail WP:ORGIND because of the substantial reliance on interviews with related parties.
"Clouds part for REITs after market losses" (Financial Review, 2022) ProQuest 2693383000 appears to be coverage of the REIT sector, with a brief mention of HomeCo Daily Needs REIT.

Sources noted above by Jahaza also appear to be trivial coverage, e.g.

Little action for big IPO as Daily Needs REIT shares fail to fire (Financial Review, 2020) is routine coverage of a capital transaction, such as raised capital and an acquisition, with substantial quotes from Home Consortium CEO David Di Pilla;
Hungry HomeCo Daily Needs in $220m buy, raising equity (Financial Review, 2021) announces "more acquisitions and an equity raising";
HomeCo Daily Needs REIT secures $300m IPO (Financial Review, 2020) and Home Consortium seeking $300m for new mall REIT (Financial Review, 2020) are also trivial coverage of a capital transaction.
SMH sources are similar, e.g. HomeCo to spin off assets into new property trust (2020, a capital transaction and financial results)), HomeCo prepares new float with $220m shopping centre deals (2020, acquisition, "Di Pilla said"), HomeCo REIT looks to expand as retail market recovers (2020) (e.g. expansion [...] of the business). Beccaynr (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a continual nonsensical problem with businesses. Everything that reports on the business that the business does gets deprecated as "routine" coverage. But that's not what these are. Routine coverage is a three sentence report on earnings, not a report on the country's largest IPO of the year. News stories with quotes from company CEO's are more substantial because of them when they're in national newspapers, not less independent. Jahaza (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree with Jahaza - coverage of the company's transactions for a business (particularly when one of Australia's largest IPOs) has to be more than "routine" coverage of the company. There is a considerable amount of sources for this company that is lacking in others, it should not be deleted on this basis. Deus et lex (talk) 09:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:N, without encyclopedic coverage available, this should be excluded by the What Wikipedia is not policy. Per WP:ORGCRIT, the WP:NCORP guideline among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion, so brief announcements and dependent coverage are deprecated as WP:NOTPROMO. Quotes from the CEO are promotion; content from the company is promotion; coverage that lacks depth and analysis is not secondary support for notability. Beccaynr (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The policy doesn't say that - there is no Wikipedia policy that says that quotes from a CEO and so one are automatically promotion - this a misreading of the policy, like the often-quoted statement in AfDs that interviews are automatically sources that are unreliable. You can't have it both ways - you can't claim "routine" coverage and then when we refute that say it is also unreliable. The depth and value of each source needs to be assessed individually, simply applying a blanket rule here and claiming they are all promotional is entirely unhelpful. Overall there is more than enough coverage here to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. The trading of companies is part of what happens - these articles can be used to demonstrate notability - that is clear. Deus et lex (talk) 05:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for not more clearly referring to the sources in this discussion. From my view, sufficient WP:CORPDEPTH in multiple sources is not available to support notability; what has been identified appears to be trivial coverage according to the guideline, often based on statements from the CEO and content from the company in brief annoucements - these sources appear to be a form of promotion that do not support notability. This article reads like a WP:BROCHURE, with hardly any information about what the company actually does as a business; without independent, in-depth sources about the company, notability is not supported, according to the applicable guideline for companies, which is designed to help protect the encyclopedia from advertising and promotion. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there appears to be coverage of routine business practices, but insufficient encyclopedic depth about the company per WP:NCORP to support notability. Beccaynr (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By the works of MaxnaCarta and Tigraan, notability is established passing NCORP.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 12:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources listed above are mainly routine coverage of financial transactions, and without any regard whatsoever to the size of the involved fish this does not indicate notability. The incredible paucity of notable information is carried into the article, which is predominantly a history of routine financial transactions. It is not without reason that our various notability criteria require more than this. FalconK (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Not all of the coverage appears routine, so I think it just creeps over WP:NCORP. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looking at the source evaluation above and the article, I agree with others that the coverage is routine coverage that does not meet WP:SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 12:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Don Moore

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

Fails WP:EVENTS and WP:GNG. The article doesn't provide much insight as to whether this subject is notable. Most reporting on the event I found was routine coverage. I don't think this event should be regarded as historically significant, given Mayweather has competed in several low-key exhibitions that also don't seem to meet notability guidelines. I'd also like to point out that notability is not inherited, just because Mayweather is featured in the event does not mean it is WP:NOTABLE. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 13:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Boxing, and United Arab Emirates. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 13:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd Mayweather, one of the greatest if not the greatest of all time boxer fought on this card, while Anderson Silva who is also one of MMA GOATs fought on this card. There was a lot of reports on this event, with cancellation, new date for the fight, new bouts added to card, why Floyd is still fighting, etc. The full fight alone on YouTube racked up over a million views the day after. Floyd and Moore put on an exciting showing that many of Floyd's exhibition opponents don't, maybe even Moore winning one or two rounds. There was one title fight for the Female's WBC super-featherweight championship. Also, why not more information for Floyd if people want to see what happened, seems like overkill to take this down. D MCCG (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Along with the Bleacher Report and DAZN coverage, there's coverage in Yahoo sports, Rolling Stone, Fox Sports and possibly more if I sifted through the Google results more. It's already enough to meet WP:GNG in my opinion, even if it's just an exhibition fight. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:39, 3 January 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 Amethi#Institutions, industries and organisations. as an ATD Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Shiv Pratap Inter College

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

Currently, zero in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Was draftified with the hopes of improvement, but returned to mainspace. Searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion: previously PRODded.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom unless suitable sources turn up in Hindi. Mccapra (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amethi#Institutions, industries and organisations, where the school is mentioned. The school does not appear notable, but its coverage in the article on the locality seems warranted, so pointing this into a redirect to the section of the locality's article that lists the school seems like a good use of WP:ATD-R. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cervecería 100 Montaditos

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

No RS. Not notable. Possible spam abuse across in multiple Wikipedias. Edit.pdf (talk) 13:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A news search finds a detailed bylined article describing the firm and ongoing disputes with franchisees: "El ocaso de 100 Montaditos: cómo el gran imperio de la hostelería española terminó en rebelión" (9 August 2022). AllyD (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Spanish-language entry cites a number of articles in the popular press that mention the firm or have the firm as the article's main subject. On a cursory look, these articles seem legit, and their coverage might meet WP:ORGCRIT. _MB190417_ (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep While certainly susceptible of improvement (pertaining the lack of information about its business model and accusations of fraud), the article deals with a notable subject (the flagship brand of Restalia), with wide coverage in RS [17][18][19][20].--Asqueladd (talk) 12:24, 7 January 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!} 18:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Urgen Dong

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

Fails WP:NSINGER. Theroadislong (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Nepal. Theroadislong (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cursory Google search seems to uncover nothing. _MB190417_ (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can search Google Search and Google Search instead Google Search Endrabcwizart (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which also comes up with nothing. Theroadislong (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

simply, you can search on google by his name in English. You'll be able to find out. When you try to search in his Nepali keywords, You will find all the results in Nepali. It is complicated to understand for those who don't understand the Nepali language.

The above link doesn't work properly because of my mistake.

It is good to contribute rather than delete any article. If anyone wants to contribute I will provide reference. Endrabcwizart (talk) 18:20, 7 January 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. Per WP:NPOL, overwhelming community consensus is that US state level assembly members are presumed notable. WP:SNOW closure, unnecessary to continue the AfD. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Nguyen (politician)

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

Disputed draftification. Unferefenced WP:BLP. Happy to accept WP:HEY as the outcome. Truly unsure if a state assembly politician passes WP:NPOLITICIAN, and willing to be corrected, I would have sent this back to Draft for references. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Definitely passes WP:NPOL by being a California assembly member. Tag for BLP sources and if none are forthcoming, then draftify. Mccapra (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep passes WP:NPOL by virtue of being a member of the California State Assembly. Her official website confirms that she is a member of the California State Assembly. WP:AfD should not be used for the expansion of stubs. Banana Republic (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A state level politician is deemed notable, as are provincial MPP's here in Ontario. The article is pretty bare, but needs updating. Oaktree b (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not exactly WP:HEY territory, but I've cited the content and fixed the formatting errors. I am not commenting on notability as I don't know the specific guidelines for politicians, but at least it's in the normal wikipedia format now. 21:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Keep As a California State Assemblymember, this passes WP:NPOL. The page needs more sources and biographical information, but it passes notability. Stanloona2020 (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:NPOL, and except for lacking references, the article before the AfD was satisfactory for existence. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:47, 4 January 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 Fubar Films as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 16:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Bergin

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

Non-notable producer, created by a WP:SPA in 2018 apparently as part of a series of articles about some TV series. Suitskvarts (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A one-line article about a producer, with no other information. This is a rather common name in Ireland so you get anything and everything when you google. Long way from GNG. This isn't her [21], I don't think it is anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even when looking at the page history, she's basically sourced to one television show a decade ago that has no wiki article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Fubar Films. Subject is a film producer. Notability is linked to film production company with which she works (owns?). Could be an argument for deletion. But, as an alternative to deletion, could also WP:Redirect instead.... Guliolopez (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails N. --MartyTheArty (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete producers are usually run of the mill. We generally delete producers because they tend not to have a lot of reliable sources to meet the significant coverage standard. Bearian (talk) 14:19, 10 January 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 Damar Hamlin. Having devoted a fair chunk of my morning to reading this a couple of times over, can I firstly say that this is one of the better examples of how cordial and constructive a Wikipedia discussion can be - minimal comments directed at editors, plenty of reference to policy and discussion about this articles' place within them, and firm comments still showing plenty of respect to others and the situation as a whole. Not something we always see at AfDs of this nature!

My assessment of this debate is that there is a consensus below not to retain the article (combination of merge + redirect, redirect, and delete). This is the overwhelming majority viewpoint of this article's compliance (or non-compliance) to our various policies that are applicable.

On this basis, the final decision taken is that this article will be redirected (as the path of least resistance for alternatives to deletion), with the following notes:

any editor is welcome to merge the content from behind the redirect to the main article (Damar Hamlin or elsewhere
it is unlikely that there will be developments that nullify the consensus here in the immediate future, so I would encourage that this redirect decision 'stick' at least in the immediate future
if, in an indeterminate period of time, this needs to be revisited due to new information or further context, of course it can be at the relevant location - but I would caution to ensure that either a) the new information or further context addresses the concerns expressed by the consensus below, or b) a good-faith belief that the consensus of the community would have changed or relevant policies/guidelines had changed significantly. This would include a reframing (and renaming) of this article as being for the match itself, rather than the single incident.
finally, if anyone who !voted 'delete with no redirect' feels so strongly about it, please feel free to nominate at RfD at your convenience. However, again like point 3, I'd gently encourage everyone to let the situation sit on ice for a little bit if possible on this front, although ultimately I can't enforce that any more than a simple suggestion. Daniel (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 collapse of Damar Hamlin

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

Unnecessary content fork from Damar Hamlin. The consensus at Talk:Damar Hamlin#Does the notoriety of this incident warrant a separate article? was that a separate article was not warranted at this time. Splitting discussion between two articles at this time is not helpful to editors or writers, and the main article is not unmanageable. The creator removed the speedy deletion tag and reversed a redirection, and has generally been uncommunicative. Mackensen (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The bulk of the discussion on the original talk page took place before this article was created, and rationale for not splitting at that time largely hinged on there not being enough information to fork. Clearly this new article has satisfied information volume requirements, is well-sourced, and bound to continue growing as well. Whether the article creator split information properly or is being generally cooperative is a completely separate matter. --Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this account is three days old. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My account is actually only two days old, as I decided to pick up editing on January 1st. --Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know your way around Wikipedia's more intricate systems for a two-day old account. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. So, I was around many years ago, and suppose some amount of familiarity sticks around. There is plenty I don't know, too, and perhaps it's premature for me to jump into a discussion such as this one. I just saw it come up and jumped on it. I'll make no attempt to pretend I'm a currently established editor, but hopefully some of what I remember can be used to help in other areas. --Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Improper content fork for numerous reasons. A discussion at Talk:Damar Hamlin had already established a consensus not to have a separate article, and this was clearly noted on the talk page in a {{consensus}} hatnote. The splitter Esolo5002 did not engage in any discussion on the talk page, did not add a {{Split}} template to the original page, and also did an improper copy-paste of the content, without proper attribution as per WP:PROPERSPLIT. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the user's edit summaries, they very clearly said where they took the article from. Please don't smear people like this. Maine 🦞 17:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your account is a week old so I'll cut you some slack. Please read the guideline for WP:PROPERSPLIT. The inadequate edit summary is in violation of Wikipedia best practices for copyright and CC-BY-SA compliance. It ain't me smearing. - Fuzheado | Talk 18:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Delete per discussion on Damar Hamlin TP, CFORK/split is not required. Hamlin’s page is manageable enough. Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 15:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to merge and redirect given the fact that the article name is a plausible search term and that some new information may have been inputed into the article. --Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 03:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - :I agree that this comes across as a WP:Content Fork. I could see an argument being made that it feels premature and pointless to make a separate article like this when Damar Hamlin's own page contains enough information and thorough coverage of the event, although I understand why someone would, given that this incident has sparked larger discussions (mainly about health issues in American football) outside of Damar Hamlin's career and this specific incident. Largely because the article goes against the consensus on Damar Hamlin's talkpage, but also because there are no similar articles for similar incidents (like Kevin Everett or Ryan Shazier), I propose that this article be deleted - and possibly (but not likely) recreated only if there are significant developments, discussions, or outcomes that wouldn't fit Hamlin's own page. Afddiary (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Damar Hamlin#In-game collapse as a valid search term. Though the article itself is an improper article split, with consensus not to have been created, the redirect seems sensible. No merge needed, as covered adequately in the main article. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (as page creator): I created the article based on what I believed to be lots of reliable sources covering the situation and sustained coverage. I was unaware of any other policies and just created the article based on my past experience. I’m not sure why the delete requester is calling me uncommunicative. I said my opinion in the original speedy deletion opinion. I also didn’t delete the speedy deletion tag. I’m not on Wikipedia all day, and don’t have notifications on, so I was unaware of other requests to comment. I’ve also been accused of copy and pasting. I thought saying “Content copied from Damar Hamlin, see that page for full attribution” was sufficient. Am I wrong? Esolo5002 (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are indeed wrong. A content fork/split is a major undertaking and is very disruptive, which is why we have detailed guidelines on Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure and WP:PROPERSPLIT explaining the community obligations and the copyright ramifications, which Wikipedians take very seriously. After multiple requests on your talk page and adding your username to ping templates, you have not engaged in any of the places we have asked. In that sense, "uncommunicative" is a fair description. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Under the circumstances, "Concensus or not it has been created" (Special:Diff/1131305149) was an inappropriate response and a more thorough response on the existing talk page was called for. Regarding I’m not on Wikipedia all day, and don’t have notifications on, that's fine, but you should take that into account if you're going to introduce a major change to a high visibility page that is undergoing constant revision. Mackensen (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Copied template should be used to signify that the article was copied on both the article you copied from (subject main page) and the article you created. This never happened, as both talk pages did not have Copied template banners. If I am wrong though, please correct me. Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 16:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's even worse than that. The edit summary of the initial paste should have adhered to the guidelines described at WP:PROPERSPLIT (see item 4), so that is much harder and messier to fix. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~That is very true, even if page creator did try to input that edit summary in their later (1) edits (2). --Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 16:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

All I missed was the "Contents WP:SPLIT from" in that section. Does it really make it that much harder to fix? Esolo5002 (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To answer politely, it does at least incur ambiguity to the administrative side and going about fixing it. Besides the splitting procedure, this AfD discussion is another example of the bureaucratic overhead incurred. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally unnecessary content fork. This event is a part of Hamlin's biography and is not certain to be notable outside of it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. This is a very unusual situation and it is very possible that there will be continued coverage of this event, such as improved safety protocols, rule changes, etc, making it possible that this would be a good WP:SPINOFF article from Hamlin's article and/or health issues in American football at some point in the coming months. But such coverage does not exist mere hours after the incedent took place. Frank Anchor 15:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the following lists of deletion discussions: New York and Ohio. Frank Anchor 16:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Damar Hamlin#In-game collapse: It makes sense as a search term but it's an unnecessary content fork. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just redirect this to Damar Hamlin#In-game collapse or talk about it on the 2022 NFL season page. Swagging (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not worthy of a separate article. Truly unfortunate what happened but doesn't need a stand alone article. Relevant details not already included in Hamlin's article should be added.--Rockchalk7 17 17:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we can write a longer, separate article about it, then we should write one. And this article is longer and better than just a paragraph in the article on Hamlin. Let's write a better article and ignore bad rules. Maine 🦞 17:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't have a page for Tua's concussion, just because a major health accident happens in an NFL game doesn't mean it needs an article. TomMasterReal^TALK 18:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should have a page on Tua's concussion. Maine 🦞 19:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need a page for Tua's concussion. We can just leave it on his Wikipedia page. TomMasterReal^TALK 19:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tua's concussion didn't receive nearly as much coverage as this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Created without discussion and against an existing consensus at Talk:Damar Hamlin, and unnecessary at this time. General Ization ^Talk 19:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per all the reasons listed above. Ayyydoc (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect Obviously has extensive coverage in the initial hours but that is not an indication of needing a wikipedia article. Too soon creation that should be redirected and let time decide if the event warrants an individual article. Slywriter (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if there is much to merge. In my opinion, the sections that seem to have additional information would be the "Background", "Game before the incident", "Television coverage", and "NFL criticism." NFL criticism only uses the New York Post as a source, so that is likely to be a problem. I am unsure if we need anything from the Background or Game before the incident section to be added to the Damar article. Television coverage is both unique and well sourced, but most of it doesn't seem like it would fit with the Damar article. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May not be, but is sort of my standard it's notable but doesn't mean it needs its own article answer. Guess WP:NOPAGE and WP:SBST would sum up my rationale. Slywriter (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. It looks like there are a few more additions in the last 24 hours that are not covered on Damar's article. ~~I suppose that a merge makes a lot more sense now.~~ --Super Goku V (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind specifying what you would like to merge? For convenience, this is the history range since 4 January and Special:Diff/1131344777/1131657781 is the overall diff. There have been more edits to Damar Hamlin despite that article being under extended confirmed protection. I will proceed down the diff:
{{Infobox NFL single game}} (added by you in Special:Diff/1131636783, included for other readers) is appropriate for Category:National Football League games articles, not a biography. This objection also applies to the existing game content.

The Washington Capitals (a National Hockey League team) had a moment of silence (Special:Diff/1131445448). As I noted in my previous comment, a mention of LeBron James was removed from Damar Hamlin#Reactions (Special:Diff/1131321947) due to him not being involved with football.

I have concerns about including the anti-vaxxer reaction and conjecture about commotio cordis (Special:Diff/1131445510/1131446244) in any of these articles.

The medical "aftermath" (Special:Diff/1131440610) is outdated, per Talk:Damar Hamlin#Requesting update on number of resuscitations and Special:Diff/1131609163.

The toy drive numbers are recent because you updated both articles: Special:Diff/1131643197 and Special:Diff/1131642756.

Possible scheduling changes and post-season implications (Special:Diff/1131604770) are relevant to 2022 NFL season, 2022–23 NFL playoffs (source already added by Special:Diff/1131607819), or other season articles, not Hamlin's bio.

It looks like you recommended keep below (Special:Diff/1131646250/1131652131). Flatscan (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Flatscan: Yeah. My opinion has shifted since the start of this AfD process. I was initially bias against the article because of the talk page situation. However, I did some reflection after the discussion above and I think that the Aftermath section was what convinced me that a standalone article made some sense. This AfD also played a role in my thoughts below. I think the current article is a bit rough, but can be polished up a bit more. I think that it might take some time for some editors to edit this article, but we will see depending on the results of the AfD. Anyways, I will keep your comments here in mind. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no concensus, WP:NEWS and while sad, this is not news when it does happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WngLdr34 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a plausible search term per Joseph2302. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Damar Hamlin. I don't believe this event merits its own article and a lot of it is already covered on the subject's article, which can be expanded further. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Damar Hamlin. Some good stuff about the national media coverage of the incident in this article, but that can be moved to the in-game collapse section for now. --WuTang94 (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Damar Hamlin. There's some good writing here, but the event is ultimately not notable enough for its own article. ChekhovsGunman (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Damar Hamlin for now. This article screams of recentism. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Damar Hamlin. Hamlin's article isn't long enough to warrant a split like this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Damar Hamlin#In-game collapse per the above. If he ends up dying, and it has sufficient impact on the future of the NFL (regulations, etc.), then we can re-evaluate. But for now, I'd say this doesn't warrant a split. DecafPotato (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Damar Hamlin#In-game collapse. Better than deleting because it avoids someone re-creating the unnecessary content fork. While there is so much interest in the subject, it is better to keep all the content on one page. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Damar Hamlin. As of now, there really isn't a need to create a separate article regarding this unfortunate incident. For now, I think that we should expand on the main article, and perhaps a separate article could be created in the future if we have a significant development. It's a bit too early to really consider making a separate article at the moment. --James161723 (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A section in the article for Hamlin is the obvious choice. Also, once again, leading with a date of an event rather than the topic of the event is bad practice. Is there any way to make WP:AT clearer on this? (Well, first folks have to read it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamona (talk • contribs) 03:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete when it could be merged? Maine 🦞 04:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AT defeats my argument that it discourages recreating the article, as another content fork would more appropriately be titled something like Collapse of Damar Hamlin. The counter-argument for WP:MERGE is that it retains the edit history. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
snow Delete/merge obviously a newsworthy event but also obviously something that belongs in the biography of the person, at least for now. If 12 months from now it turns out this had some big lasting societal impact then maybe I'd look at it differently, but until then a section in the biography is standard across the wiki. I think the discussion here is pretty solid on unforking this. EoRdE6^(Talk) 05:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@EoRdE6: I don't think that's how use WP:SNOW, SNOW only applies when the proposal itself has a very low chance of passing. What you're saying is that it has a very high chance of passing. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think there are lots of rational arguments for deleting. However, the article is well sourced and has been the topic of lots of news coverage the last few days. Like what happened with December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions, this article should be kept becuase of the clear extended coverage. 207.38.131.194 (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why it's well sourced is because it is largely a copy of what was already on the original page, Damar Hamlin. In the meantime, the Hamlin page has already evolved to be much more detailed in its description than the one under discussion here. - Fuzheado | Talk 11:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no merge, no redirect. Many participants agree this is a content fork that should not be a separate article, so I will focus on merge and redirect.
- To those supporting merge, please provide the specific content you wish to merge. WP:Merge what? is a relevant essay. Examining Special:PageHistory/2023 collapse of Damar Hamlin:
  - A substantial portion was copied from Damar Hamlin: 5,976 bytes in two edits: Special:Diff/1131296270 and Special:Diff/1131296606.
  - Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert's addition of Hamlin's toy drive (Special:Diff/1131308096) is already covered in Damar Hamlin#Personal life. It was added earlier and is more up-to-date (Special:Diff/1131215424, Special:Diff/1131227071, Special:Diff/1131401107).
  - The rest of the article seems like excessive detail. For example, the mention of LeBron James was removed from Damar Hamlin#Reactions (Special:Diff/1131321947). The recent addition of commotio cordis (Special:Diff/1131445751) was also excluded (Special:Diff/1131344735). If any of it is desired, the original contributor can resubmit it directly or it can be rewritten from the sources. Neither of these approaches creates an attribution dependency per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed (guideline, shortcut WP:NOATT).
- As mentioned above by Lamona, 2023 collapse of Damar Hamlin is not a good name for an article or redirect. The search box auto-complete requires the user to know that the year comes first and that its correct value is the calendar year 2023, not 2022 NFL season. Searching for collapse Damar Hamlin already returns relevant articles roughly in this order: Damar Hamlin, 2023 collapse of Damar Hamlin, 2022–23 NFL playoffs, Tee Higgins (the player tackled by Hamlin), 2023 in the United States, 2022 Buffalo Bills season, and 2022 Cincinnati Bengals season. I will rebut a few WP:Redirect/Deletion reasons#Reasons for not deleting (transcluded near the top of WP:Redirects for discussion, shortcut WP:RKEEP):
  - (1) – The page history is not useful per my arguments against merging.
  - (2) and (3) are not relevant due to the issues with the name.
  - (4) – The page was created less than 24 hours ago, so few incoming links should exist.
As a reminder, please do not merge or copy from 2023 collapse of Damar Hamlin during this AfD, per point 5 of WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion (how-to guide, shortcut WP:EDITATAFD). Flatscan (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:BornonJune8 copied content to History of Monday Night Football (Special:Diff/1131859878), so this article cannot be deleted normally, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material (guideline, shortcut WP:RUD). WP:Merge and delete (essay) lists a few possible workarounds. Esolo5002 also labeled an edit as a copy, but it has the same text as their previous edit (Special:Diff/1131749210, Special:Diff/1131751754, contributions range) as noted by Fuzheado (Special:Diff/1131757968). Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's exactly this lack of good faith collaboration (that began with the ignoring of consensus to create this split, and then continual re-addition and copying of content) that gets us into unnecessary copyright entanglements. There is Wikipedia:Merge and delete#Record authorship and delete history meaning as long as we list the authors, we are still CC-BY-SA compliant. One could also undo the copy altogether, and write in a different summary version. In the end, one copy operation of this article's text should not be a blocker to any final decision in the realm of delete/merge/redirect. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this copy should not interfere, but it occurs rarely and guidance is lacking. A list of authors is sufficient per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#List of authors (guideline) and WP:Attribution does not require blame (essay). Reverting and revision deleting WP:Copyright violations is done under the RD1 copyright criterion, but whether this copy qualifies is unclear – I am aware of only one instance. Flatscan (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No redirect No one is going to search 2023 collapse of Damar Hanlin. They would probably search up Damar Hanlin, so it would be unnecessary to do a redirection. TomMasterReal^TALK 17:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don’t see a redirect in being harmful, we do have WP:CHEAP after all, and a redirect could enable search terms. I could see someone wishing to use this as a search term. This isn’t the same as the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astros's combined World Series no-hitter, where the name is grammatically incorrect, and it’s unfortunate a redirect from a more grammatically correct title couldn’t be produced, but in this case I see no need as to why we shouldn’t redirect. If, after some time, there seems to be no interest in a redirect, we have WP:RFD, then we can always delete it then. 68.197.135.166 (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Redirects are cheap is linked from WP:Redirects for discussion#The guiding principles of RfD, but it is an essay. WP:Redirects are costly is an opposing essay. Flatscan (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it is: is the redirect going to harm Wikipedia? The answer, I believe, is no. We’ve deleted redirects, like this one, for example, for redirecting to a deleted section. That is obviously not the case here. We’ve also deleted from grammatically incorrect titles. I don’t believe that this is grammatically incorrect, and would be quite upset if this was decided without going to WP:RFD. 69.127.228.206 (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the IP I am using (not my house IP) switched literally last night. I am the same IP as the one who made the vote. 69.127.228.206 (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per many above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep on account of this being an unprecedented disruption of a professional football regulation game, with wide-reaching and well-sourced impacts spanning beyond Hamlin and the event. Attempting to merge/redirect would put great risk of placing undue weight upon this incident within the realm of Hamlin's entire life, or would require the exclusion of substantial amounts of relevant information. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is a precedent, as the only NFL player to die on the field of play was Chuck Hughes in 1971. In that case, there was not a standalone separate article. - Fuzheado | Talk 07:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But play continued in that case. This is, as far as I can tell, the only time a regulation game has been suspended after it began and not resumed the same calendar day. It's happened a few times in exhibitions and preseason contests, usually due to weather, but not in a game that counts. (Nor was Hughes's death, or the handful of American Football League fatalities in the early 1960s, a topic of national conversation or fodder for conspiracy theories.) If this game had continued, I would tend to agree that the topic could be covered on Hamlin's personal article, especially if he recovers. But this is notable more for the mid-game cancellation than the injury itself. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The phenomenon you mention are valid, but are actually follow-on effects of the injury and "collapse" that are documented in 2022 NFL season#Damar Hamlin cardiac arrest, List of canceled and rescheduled NFL games#2022 Week 17 Buffalo Bills–Cincinnati Bengals game, and other places. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep could anything be a more clear pass of WP:GNG?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This rationale is not particularly relevant though, as the issue is not notability. Rather, it's about Wikipedia:Splitting#When to split. - Fuzheado | Talk 07:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an editing issue and not a deletion issue. Any discussion about splitting should be held on the talk page and not in a deletion forum.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like the discussion where there was overwhelming consensus not to split, yet somebody did it anyway? Talk:Damar Hamlin#Does the notoriety of this incident warrant a separate article?. We discussed it, someone ignored it, and you telling people to discuss it on a talkpage is therefore not a valid reason to keep. The onus should have been on the article creator to get consensus to split before doing it. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should be a non-controversial merge. Instead, we have this.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because one set of folks is trying to engage in good faith collaboration and abide by best practices and policy, and another set are either very inexperienced, not trying, or invoking WP:IAR (Special:Diff/1131332435). - Fuzheado | Talk 16:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Exasperatingly) Keep: As annoying as it is that the creation of this article occurred despite the talk page discussion at Damar Hamlin, I must admit that this article has been expanded enough to stand on its own and has plenty of sources. Looking at WP:SPORTSEVENT, this was a routine game until the injury and suspension of play. Even now, the injury has caused a cascade of reverberations because of its timing: 'The NFL is considering moving the Patriots-Bills Week 18 game,' 'The NFL could make the game a no contest or make it a "Week 19" game,' 'The NFL is discussing if the Week 17 game should be resumed,' 'The NFL could push the postseason back a week.' Even outside of the schedules and playoffs, there are impacts related to bets on the game and potential impacts to future sporting events. Honestly, I think a wait and see approach to this article might be a good idea. This whole situation reminds me of the "2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game" article, where an article was created early, an AfD was launched, and then the impact from the play had repercussions that ended the referee lockout which resulted in the article remaining. Though, rather than a lockout, the issue this time is the playoffs. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This recommendation highlights that we may not be able to predict whether a reader is seeking Hamlin or the impact on the NFL season, especially if he recovers fully with no long-term issues. They would be best served by choosing among search results rather than a redirect to the "wrong" article. Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We possibly could have a condensed version of a redirect to the NFL Playoff article. Maybe something shorter than "2023 Bills-Bengals postponed game impact to the 2022 NFL Playoffs" would work. (Granted, that is a bit outside this AfD.) --Super Goku V (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - In the event of a merge/delete, the sections of this article on 2023 collapse of Damar Hamlin#Television coverage and 2023 collapse of Damar Hamlin#NFL criticism would fit well within the scope of 2022 NFL season, as the impact of this event has repercussions for the schedules and playoffs for the rest of the teams. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. We are likely going to lose material one way or another, but that would reduce some of it. To me, the list of relevant articles is: 2022 Buffalo Bills season, 2022 Cincinnati Bengals season, 2022 NFL season, Buffalo Bills, Damar Hamlin, Joe Buck, List of canceled and rescheduled NFL games, List of NFL on ABC results, List of Monday Night Football results (2010–present), Tee Higgins. Quite a few of these would not be good candidates for merging stuff to, but some of them could work. Especially "List of canceled and rescheduled NFL games" given the most recent reporting by the AP. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I don't consider it to be too different if there is a AfD, followed by a requested move discussion or moving the article as a result of this AfD. I agree to either option. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Damar Hamlin#In-game collapse. While an unprecidented event in the sporting world, I don't see why it should be forked from the article on the player. It's WP:TOOSOON to make a determination of whether or not an independent article is deserved when all the encyclopdically relevant facts can be covered in the Damar Hamlin article. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and an article shouldn't be made as simply a reponsitory of breaking news. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge and redirect Either solution is fine by me, but this is not a necessary split from the main article on the person in question. All of the relevant information about the incident can more than comfortably contained in Hamlin's own biography, and there are not any WP:LENGTH or WP:UNDUE concerns that could not be overcome with normal editing of that article. There is no need to cover this information in its own article. I'm fine leaving a redirect behind, but I'm also fine not doing so. What we don't need is a stand-alone article on this. --Jayron 32 05:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I think it'll be sufficient to cover this incident in the Damar Hamlin article. --bender235 (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was on the fence about this because of the favt that he's recovering well, however the impact that this has had on the rest of the league (and potentially in the coming weeks) will deserve its own article. There are now too many moving parts now as a dirext result of what happened. dekema (Formerly Buffaboy) (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Considering that the game just got cancelled by the NFL, it might be prudent to create an article about the game as a whole. It is an unprecedented cancellation of a game and there could be a massive controversy about playoff seeding unfolding as a result. Sewageboy (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - First off, titling this "2023 collapse..." implies that he had collapsed before, say in 2022, 2021, etc. This article should be merged into his own biography page. There is also the existence of List of canceled and rescheduled NFL games already to begin with. conman33 (. . .talk) 02:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While, yes, a unique and rare circumstance, I also agree with claims of page being made WP:TOOSOON. User who created this page also has a history with WP:RECENTISM and sports articles with no real notability. MushroomMan674 (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing that second point out. I think that says a lot about this page to begin with. conman33 (. . .talk) 02:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge and Redirect Definitely too soon to make this a separate article, the incident only happened 3 days prior. It's definitely possible that future developments could result in the article warranting creation, but what's on Damar Hamlin should definitely suffice for now, we should continue focusing on that, and expanding it, rather than start creating forks for these situations. I also think the title "2023 collapse of Damar Hamlin" is an unlikely search title, but we do note that redirects are cheap, so I'm not opposed to the redirect option. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 04:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to 2022 Buffalo Bills–Cincinnati Bengals game, otherwise delete — SIGCOV for the game itself, especially its cancellation, but otherwise nothing burger. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while I maintain my above opposition to this page, the proper rename would be 2022 Buffalo Bills–Cincinnati Bengals game based on precedent to use the season year rather than the calendar year for games played in January (such as 2018 NFC Championship Game). Frank Anchor 16:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to 2023 Buffalo Bills–Cincinnati Bengals game – The rename is absolutely necessary, but this article needs to be kept. The amount of coverage this game received was substantial, becoming global news in fact, and is undoubtably one of the most unique games in NFL history, as an NFL game has, to my knowledge, never been postponed and then declared a No Contest as a result of a mid-game injury. It absolutely fits the notability guidelines and will stand the test of time. Aria1561 (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, a good alternative is to put much of the content in the 2022 NFL season article. Most (if not all) of the extra commentary about the aftermath of Hamlin's injury is not about the game itself, but how the NFL has had to react to the aftermath in terms of scheduling, playoff implications, and all the downstream repercussions. There is not much to be gained by diving into hyper-detail about one game given how little of it actually occurred and the noteworthy part was one tackle/injury. Therefore, I'd question the wisdom in diving into a dedicated article. Redirect, sure. Rename for a full blown article treatment, no. - Fuzheado | Talk 10:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most (if not all) of the extra commentary about the aftermath of Hamlin's injury is not about the game itself, but how the NFL has had to react to the aftermath in terms of scheduling, playoff implications, and all the downstream repercussions. That's the problem. It isn't just Hamlin's injury, but the impact of the missing game. Do we need a standalone article about his injury? No, we didn't. Do we need a standalone article about the 'No Contest' game? I say that it does at this point. The main problem has been that the article was created against input from the community and discussing an alternative has been very painful, which is why most of the discussion above has focused on the fact that this was split off from the Hamlin article against consensus not to have a standalone article on the injury. What I think is not being considered enough is the impact of this missing game. For a game that was not played, there has been article after article on the game being cancelled. There are multiple articles on this being a rare or unprecedented decision. There are plenty of articles regarding the changes to the playoff rules. There are articles for ticket refunds, for wager refunds and payouts, and even fantasy football. Covering policy, we have a notable event that has a diverse number of sources and that prompted change. Sources have taken an indepth look at both the non-routine events that happened that day and the unique situation of the cancelation. In my viewpoint, the major policy against this article is Wikipedia:CORRECTSPLIT and the main problem is that one of the steps was not followed at the time of the AfD and has apparently been resolved. As you have said, the article name is a problem, so a redirect doesn't help. Nor does a merge when Wikipedia:NOTMERGE is considered. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aria1561, shortly after your comment you boldly moved the page to a game-specific title (Special:Diff/1131887688). Please don't do that. It is considered poor form to move an article when it is actively being discussed at AfD and there is no consensus for a rename. @Super Goku V has since moved it back. Thanks. - Fuzheado | Talk 10:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Therapyisgood (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you opposing a redirect as well? 69.127.228.206 (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Please don't keep spreading links to this article across Wikipedia while it is at AfD, and especially when it is trending towards being deleted/merged. More elaboration on the reasons can be found here: Talk:Damar Hamlin#Please stop adding Main or Seealso template here - Fuzheado | Talk 14:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Event has received enormous levels coverage (including from major national news sources, for example 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 articles from the New York Times) and is I believe (with the possible exception of a few 1920s/30s games) the only time a game has not been finished in NFL history. I'd say this is notable enough for a standalone article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned earlier, the issue isn't notability, it's about WP:SPLITTING. - Fuzheado | Talk 10:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and no redirect A redirect is most likely not needed as it is unlikely that anyone will search for "2023 collapse of Damar Hamlin" and will also just search for Damar Hamlin. Additionally, this may be too big of a case of WP:RECENTISM to warrant its only article at this time. Obviously, it is applicable on Hamlin's page. Grahaml35 (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The arguments against a redirect make almost zero sense. It is extremely reasonable to have a redirect of [Year] [Event] point to a section in a biography that explicitly covers that event. I find it likely that this will show to be a notable event with lasting significance, but I'm a bit hesitant as to whether to keep or merge at this time for reasons of WP:NOPAGE. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which arguments in particular? Lamona mentioned (Special:Diff/1131429979) WP:AT (WP:Article titles, policy) when objecting to the name. I'm not familiar enough with that policy to know how much it applies to redirects, but it mentions them several times. Fuzheado posted criticism of the title at Talk:Damar Hamlin#Please stop adding Main or Seealso template here (Special:Diff/1131942429), citing WP:NCEVENTS (WP:Naming conventions (events), guideline), WP:NOYEAR (NOYEAR anchor in the same guideline), and WP:COMMONNAME (WP:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names). Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per FrankAnchor. Other than a Super Bowl, the incident has garnered more widespread coverage in mainstream media outlets (and not just on the sports pages) than any NFL-related event perhaps since Tom Brady's Deflategate scandal. It also seems highly likely that the incident will receive enduring coverage. That said, and given that we are still only one week out from the incident, the article might benefit from being developed/incubated in draft space. In a couple months, we can evaluate more fully the enduring importance of the event. That seems like a reasonable compromise and preferable to deletion or redirection. Cbl62 (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as of now, there is nothing I know of to warrant a separate article. If that changes, an article can be written then. BostonMensa (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BostonMensa: are you opposing a redirect as well? 69.127.228.206 (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Without any links, the page has received 414 views since it was created a week ago. That means people must be searching for the article title, meaning it is clearly a useful redirect term. As such, it is even clearer now that it shouldn’t be totally deleted, and anyone who says “no one will search for this” is wrong, as over 400 people have. 69.127.228.206 (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 740+ could view an unlinked article on whether people in NYC prefer Coke or Pepsi but the number of views in amd of itself doesn’t mean it is a notable subject for wiki.

BostonMensa (talk) 22:06, 10 January 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!} 16:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ringtons Tea

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

I don't think this article passes notability under WP:COMPANY. It currently has only one reference independent of the company itself, which seems to be a single page in How Household Names Began: indeed, this is the only result that comes up on Google Books for 'Ringtons Tea' apart from passing mentions on unrelated topics. All the hits on the first page of Google are to the company's own website, and nothing meaningful comes up on JSTOR, Google Scholar (apart from a passing mention of their charity work) etc.

The primary criteria for notability for a corporation under WP:COMPANY are:

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

The sources to support this should:

Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
Be completely independent of the article subject.
Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

Of the two sources mentioned, the first (the company's own website) fails on 2, 3 and 4; the second only cites two pages and a few facts, so is unlikely to meet 1. From what investigation I've been able to do, I think it's unlikely that any significant number of sources are going to be uncovered to change this picture, and so the article should be deleted per c8 of WP:DELETE, namely Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)

The page was created by an IP user (User:178.23.130.18) who has only made edits to this page and one to a second tea-related page (Rooibos), which was considered vandalism and subsequently reverted. I suggest that it's quite likely that the creation of this page involved a WP:COI. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yep, the article as it stands is mostly self-published, insignificant storytelling. Sharing the results of a cursory Google search -

I found several articles on www.business-live.co.uk (on increased turnover, on a new fruit and herb tea facility, on post-lockdown sales, on a new business initiative, on adopting electric delivery vans, on a Port of Tyne deal, on increasing demand). Note that all but one of these articles are from the same journalist, so should not be treated as multiple sources (WP:MULTSOURCES).

Then, there are sources relating to local initiatives/partnerships (1, 2), and sources from other partnered companies (1, 2).

My sense is that what coverage exists of the company is local in scope, and therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH. WP:FAILCORP suggests instead an inclusion on the entry for the local area (Byker, in this case), which might be more appropriate. _MB190417_ (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mulnivasi

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

Nothing more than failure of WP:NOTDICT and WP:GNG. Capitals00 (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page is more than dictionary as there are political topic also included in it. Dev0745 (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its existence appears to be limited to mere passing mention in politically motivated dialogues. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary article. Wiktionary is thataway. ScriptKKiddie (talk) 11:29, 4 January 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. ✗plicit 14:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell Furlong

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

Retired cricket player stub, not particularly notable in competition, definitely not notable as an accountant. I found exactly one piece of coverage on Google or Google News (though the latter might be too recent to cover the period I assume the subject played cricket), and I still don't think it establishes notability (article on him stepping down from regional cricket... org? https://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/sport/86234200/end-of-furlong-era-for-central-districts)

Anyways, no multiple sources = no WP:GNG. I also checked WP:CRIN and first-class for Central Districts Stags would be the Plunket Shield championship, but it says Plunket Shield players are only notable for the 1906-07 season, which obviously doesn't apply. Blue Edits (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's an undeveloped article which says next to nothing about his cricket career. In fact, Furlong played in 139 top-class matches so, if someone has the time and inclination to pursue it, there must be a lot of coverage out there in NZ sources. If it cannot be developed quickly enough to meet GNG, then worst case scenario per WP:ATD-R must be a redirect to List of Central Districts representative cricketers#F, where he is already named. Bc Jvs UTC 21:25, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regional cricket? It's called first class cricket and if you don't know the difference then you shouldn't be nominating anything to do with cricket. The CRIN list of tournaments says "From 1906/07, not only 1906/07" for the Plunkett Shield. There is also this article about his time as an administrator. Everyone should know that online archives of pre-2010 newspapers is often incredibly poor. The-Pope (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That article is mostly quotes about him failing to return to a board post for CD; the few sentences that aren't are either non-encyclopedic administrative details or are about his dad or brother. It does not contribute to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fully admit to not knowing much about cricket or WP:CRIN, but I hardly need to be a cricket expert to read WP:GNG and nominate articles that don't qualify. That said, hopefully the more experienced cricket editors can find some older coverage. Blue Edits (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have some very good NZ cricket editors, I'd imagine if they can't find anything then I'd suggest redirect, but given the number of games played, I imagine there to be coverage out there, so pinging @Sammyrice: to see if he can find anything. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a Google source on NZ websites (Google "Campbell Furlong" site:.nz) and found a few sources on nzherald.co.nz from the tail end of his career, including [22][23], that indicate that he was a known player. The only archive site for NZ newspapers I know of is Papers Past which only has papers from 1839 to 1979 so there was no help there. Whether there are any significant offline or sources is something we can only speculate but due to the likelyhood of him being a well known player I would like to suggest that we redirect the article to Hawke's Bay cricket team instead of deleting it if passing of GNG isn't established. Alvaldi (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to what I saw on CricketArchive, he played mostly for Central Districts and we generally redirect to a list of players by club, which is my rationale for suggesting List of Central Districts representative cricketers#F above. Bc Jvs UTC 12:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to List of Central Districts representative cricketers#F is also perfectly fine by me. Alvaldi (talk) 12:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Alvaldi. Bc Jvs UTC 12:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With 117 appearances for Central Districts, at FC/LA/T20 level, I'd imagine plenty of coverage will exist. It's why infoboxes should be populated with full stats to provide a better idea of how long their career was. Sure there's plenty out there for Sammyrice to dig up. StickyWicket (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Alvaldi (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 42 first-class appearances for Central Districts over seven years. Paora (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Central Districts representative cricketers#F, unless more suitable sources can be found, per Bc. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 10:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus to delete outright, but should this be kept as-is or made a redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think I might have caused the keep v redirect uncertainty so I've changed my recommendation to keep (see above) with redirect as worst case scenario alternative. The article should be tagged for improvements, especially sources. Hope this helps the discussion. Bc Jvs UTC 12:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As a former first-class cricket player he seems notable per WP:SNG 1AmNobody24 (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sources have been added and article expanded. Paora (talk) 09:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's enough here now - thanks due to Paora. The chances are that players with so many appearances at a senior level in New Zealand will have sources somewhere about them - I've no doubt that there are far more paper-based sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Bruxton (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair Down

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

There are a ton of folks with this name, and this man appears to potentially be notable, but I can't find any in-depth sourcing about this particular person. Was sent to draft for improvement, but returned without any work being done on the article. Currently fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Scotland. AllyD (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Obituaries in The Times [24](paywalled) and The Guardian [25] and knighthood are strong indicators of notability. AllyD (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OBE is not an auto notable indicator. Even CBE is debatable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who mentioned his OBE (which is debatable, but a CBE certainly isn't incidentally)? We're talking about his knighthood! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You do understand that the OBE is the class of his knighthood? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And there we have the crux of it, I think. Sadly it is clearly you who does not understand the British honours system (I very much do, as you will see if you examine my work on Wikipedia). He was a knight bachelor, which is not part of any order and carries no post-nominal letters. The OBE (Officer of the Order of the British Empire) is a much lower honour which he received while he was in the army during WWII. OBE does not stand for Order of the British Empire and had nothing to do with his knighthood. Two completely different things. If he had received a knighthood within the Order of the British Empire, which he did not, he would have been a KBE - Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A knighthood clearly counts per WP:ANYBIO #1. Ridiculous to think it doesn't. People aren't knighted unless they're already highly notable. Also obituaries in national newspapers (one of which was already listed when it was nominated for deletion) which clearly meet GNG. Chairman of Burmah Oil, a very important company. All in all, a thoroughly ill-thought-out nomination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The knighthood and the obituaries seem to pass GNG/ANYBIO. They don't hand out knighthoods to just anyone. Oaktree b (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The knighthood and coverage seem to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - he had a knighthood and led three large oil corporations. The obits are enough, frankly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Knighthood and obituaries in The Times, Telegraph and Guardian clearly demonstrate notability Piecesofuk (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: ludicrous, possibly bad faith nomination. Substantial article, knighthood. WTH? 107.122.161.61 (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohd Shafiq Abdullah

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

Another civil servant who does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Career civil servant. The only thing that might persuade me to change my vote is his honours. I don’t know enough about Malaysian honours to know if any of these are distinguished enough to make him notable absent anything else. Mccapra (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:26, 9 January 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 14:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apna.co

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

non notable company, claiming notablity based on Funding status. Lordofhunter (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lordofhunter (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:50, 3 January 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 14:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Along the Roadside

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

The film appears to fail NFILM and GNG. The current sources are not RS, and I could not find reviews of the film in RS. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 11:08, 3 January 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 14:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vestige (company)

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

Non notable company having PR Based news. Lordofhunter (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lordofhunter (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:50, 3 January 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. Wrong venue. WP:MfD exists for deleting drafts if you still wish to pursue deleting this article. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of international presidential trips made by Ranil Wickremesinghe

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

Article already exists Blackknight12 (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, AfD is not for drafts. If we have an article for this already, you can just redirect the draft there, or wait for 6 months until the draft gets G13 speedy deleted. Fram (talk) 11:08, 3 January 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 14:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Partners

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

The only sources for this article are some coverage in a SMH article about corporate advisors, the parent company's website, and the firm's own website (which is now a redirect to the parent company). I found some sources for a "Baron Partners Fund" but that's actually an American company's investment fund which has nothing to do with this Australian firm. Someone else might have better luck on a WP:BEFORE but I didn't find anything. BuySomeApples (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. BuySomeApples (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP.LibStar (talk) 10:57, 3 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MIT club of Norway

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

The article doesn't indicate any specific notability for this specific alumni club. A WP:BEFORE search in English also didn't turn up anything that demonstrates notability. BuySomeApples (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Fraternities and sororities. BuySomeApples (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article doesn't show notability. (And deleted the posting to Fraternities and Sororities, this isn't in that area)Naraht (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless adequate sources are found in Norwegian. Mccapra (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NGO#2 and WP:GNG, as it both lacks significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. We don't appear to have a list of MIT alumni clubs, and MIT alumni clubs don't appear to currently be covered anywhere, so I don't see anywhere this could reasonably redirect to. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG Bruxton (talk) 01:27, 10 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2022-23 Japan Rugby League One – Division 1 matches

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

Fails WP:NOTSTATS / WP:NOTNEWS. These two articles exist next to the season articles (e.g. 2022 Japan Rugby League One – Division 1), which are sufficient.

Also nominated for deletion is List of 2022 Japan Rugby League One – Division 1 matches. Fram (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Rugby league, Lists, and Japan. Fram (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this is the only article of its kind that I could find. AFAIK we also don't have articles like this for arguably more notable leagues (of other sports).

— Jumbo T (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got the morbs

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Being mentioned in a few Buzzfeedy articles about "funny expressions from the Victorian Age!" doesn't address WP:GNG either. Prod was disputed by creator. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC) .[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep seems somewhat well sourced and is longer than I expected. Not a strong case, but decent. Oaktree b (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article on this Victorian slang goes beyond WP:DICDEF including both Etymology and the history, and the first use of the term in a post Victorian era dictionary. There are also more references which can be added from historic newsprint. Bruxton (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. DICDEF includes etymology and history, along with definition and usage, as elements of dictionary content appropriate to Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia. (As an aside: Wiktionary doesn't have the phrase, and wikt:morb currently contains only a Romanian word.) An argument could perhaps be made per WP:WORDISSUBJECT, as there are sources cited. Ultimately I come down on the delete side, though, since the citations seem to point to a catalog of curiosities (a band, an album title, and one comment on television using the archaic phrase) rather than discussion sufficient to establish notability. Cnilep (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: thanks @Cnilep: for the rationale. The band references are going beyond the dictionary definition for uses in popular culture. I also consider that there is room to expand the article. Please consider that every dictionary entry for the term including our own wiktionary entry for morb only covers this much File:1909 dictionary definition for Got the Morbs.png. Bruxton (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See wikt:morbs, which I recently created, citing Ware among others. Cnilep (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a classic example of a DICDEF. Bruxton notes above that there's etymology and history in the article (history? really?), but WP:NOTDICT specifically notes that this is the kind of information that's suited for a dictionary. This isn't sufficient to keep an article about a word/phrase. There's nothing even remotely approaching the kind of in-depth coverage that would be required for notability. For an example of the kind of word that does rise to that level, see Ain't. But the vast, vast majority of words can't. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article is encyclopedic and goes beyond a simple dicdef. Similar to the article Put on airs or Circle the wagons. Lightburst (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lightburst's reasoning. This goes beyond a DICDEF and there is further room for expansion, as in those other articles cited by Lightburst. Criticalus (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Soft redirect to Wiktionary - Seems like a straightforwrad WP:DICDEF: definition, usage... that's it. As that guideline says such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.). If it meant something truly novel that couldn't be captured in another article (like sadness), there would be more of a case, but it's just ... a funky slang term for sadness. That's what Wiktionary is for. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The source used for the phrase "Got the morbs" is the dictionary definition in the Passing English of the Victorian Era (1909) by James Redding Ware. Basically, all other sources in the article, except for the popular culture section, derive from this one book.

I note the phrase is being resurrected on social media and blogs. Other instances of usage include 2 electronica track titles. So, the Popular culture section could be expanded with further trivia. However, my searches show little or no encyclopedic material with which to develop the article. An Internet Archive text content search for "got the morbs" yielded 21 results. Two are in novels written since 2000. The remainder are in versions of the dictionary listed, or in one other dictionary of slang. I expected to see many more instances.

The article amounts to little more than a dictionary definition WP:DICDEF, Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NOTDICT and the phrase belongs in Wiktionary,[26] rather than Wikipedia. Fails WP:WORDISSUBJECT unless reliable sources are found "on the social or historical significance of the term". If such sources are put up, I'll reconsider, but I'm doubtful they exist. Rupples (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that this article goes beyond a DICDEF. I think the article is more suitable for an encyclopedia than a dictionary as it offers a bit of information on socio-cultural usage of the phrase and its history that would not be seen in a Wiktionary entry. Some of the sources are more like listicles but I think that can be improved. But if not kept, then redirect, if the phrase exists at Wiktionary. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 10:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep largely per Liz and Lightburst. I haven't heard a persuasive response to their argument, given this is no random dictionary phrase. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lightburst and Liz bring up good arguments. New sources can expand article. Equine-man (talk) 09:05, 8 January 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. clear consensus to keep. Bruxton (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Tyler Dibling

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

Currently, this player is not notable. He has not played in a professional football match, and his only appearances to date have been at youth level. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 08:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 11 sources cited. The rationale makes no attempt at discussing why these sources fail to establish notability. Garuda3 (talk) 08:32, 3 January 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 January 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The topic appears to pass WP:BASIC with the sources currently presented. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Overkill on his youth career, he is only 16, however there is enough there to suggest to me that this will be notable in the future. So I suggest to move too draft space. Govvy (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only 16 and already has a Premier League bench appearance to his name. Only a matter of time before he makes his professional debut, and he will only continue to garner more coverage as his career progresses. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Already notable enough to pass GNG. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG due to coverage, particularly The Athletic piece. Giant Snowman 20:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes GNG, so football crystal ball guidelines are irrelevant. St Anselm (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Following this discussion on WP:Football, it seems that I have misunderstood the criteria &/or am somewhat out of date, so I'm happy to have the discussion closed as Keep. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple WP:RS giving detailed coverage of Dibling Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 7 January 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!} 04:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Pepper

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

Doesn't appear to be a notable musician. Sourcing is from the defunct website for his independent record label, the website globaltopia.org he created, his wife's blogger.com account profile, and a few sources trivial on the subject. The account Jeffersonpepper, which may be the subject, had significant additions and activity on the article through 2010. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, fails notability. Unable to find sources that meet WP:BASIC. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I only get hits on Jefferson Airplane and Sgt. Pepper. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He knows how to get his releases into online directories and how to assemble moderately-known studio sidemen onto his songs, but he has been largely unnoticed by the reliable music media. The article's quotes from publications like Cashbox and the Belfast Telegraph cannot be found online and are possibly fake. The article is dependent on his own business and blogging sites, and some of those are now dead. His act of copying his own promo materials and personal biography was apparently unnoticed at the time, but it was during WP's dark ages. Better late than never. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found his albums on Apple Music, but many of the citations included here no longer existed (I removed some in a recent edit), and I believe it fails notability under WP:MUSIC.--Born of Iron (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it may matter at this point for this case, but those citations may still exist. The pennyblackmusic.co.uk link you removed can be found on Wayback Machine. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: also didn't find much except for seemingly self published sources, Of the checked sources from American Fallout all were extinct, or dead links Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:23, 10 January 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 Procedural keep. The nomination has been struck-out as the work of a sock, and it does not appear to me that anyone is suggesting deleting the article. The question of whether to redirect it, as well as the other editing disputes that have arisen during this discussion, are not matters to be resolved here; I would urge the involved editors to discuss these on an appropriate talk page. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dah Hanu

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

There are now two different entries on the twin villages of Dah and Hanu in Ladakh, as well as a third article on Aryan Valley, making a total of four articles on these two Ladakhi villages. That renders this article superfluous, hence I propose its deletion. Hassan Janhal (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)(sock strike. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, India, and Ladakh. Hassan Janhal (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - obviously, "Aryan valley" should redirect here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan:Yes, I had the similar idea that Aryan valley should be made a redirect to Dah Hanu because Aryan valley is a newer article compared to Dah Hanu, but Aryan Valley actually comprises four villages in addition to Dah and Hanu, according to the sources listed by the author on the article. Hassan Janhal (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's also correct. The main villages, though, seem to be these two. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Dah and Hanu are the two main settlements; the other two are hamlets. In fact, the entire area, currently known as Aryan Valley, was formerly known as the Dah Hanu region.^[1]^[2] Hassan Janhal (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hassan Janhal:, Dha village ,Hanu village ,Garkone village and Darchik village are the main four different villages . The Hamlets of each village is mentioned in their individual pages .

THE DHA HANU REFERS TO the village of Dha only and hanu village only. As it is clearly mentioned in the articles. Dha and hanu are in leh district . While Garkon and Darchik village are in Kargil District. Dha hanu( dha and hanu ) were only allowed for tourists visitor . Whil Garkone and Darchik are restricted for tourism.

On the other hand ,Dha Hanu region and Dha hanu district refers to all four village viz, dha,hanu ,garkon and Darchik. Garkon is one of the biggest village in these regions Minaro123 (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Minaro123: I don't get your argument; we are discussing the fact that Dah and Hanu villages already have separate articles, negating the necessity for a Dha Hanu article that also discusses the same two villages. Furthermore, according to you, the terms "Aryan valley" and "Dha Hanu region" refer to the same four villages. Therefore, Aryan valley could be combined with "Dha Hanu" and redirected there, or Dah Hanu could be renamed "Aryan valley," and the newly created article "Aryan valley" could be deleted. Hassan Janhal (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Janhal,

Oppose: Keep Dha hanu twin village was created on 2004 , because at that time ,only dha hanu twin village was opened for tourists , It is 17 year old article . DHA HANU was a popular for Brokpa village of leh district . Even Former Jammu and Kashmir map have named Dha hanu in the map, dha hanu is a well known and branded name . Minaro123 (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The articles about Dah and Hanu consist of little more than geolocation and census data on occupation. The Aryan valley article survived its AfD by barely an hour before being stripped of everything but a discussion of why Mona Bhan thinks that the decision (of the l of an administrative area that no longer exists) to rename the area was somehow invalid. Apparently it is "government propaganda" to talk about a cultural museum created by the Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts. Far from a proliferation of articles on one topic, I see editors righting great wrongs who seem to believe that the Minaro culture should not be discussed in this encyclopedia, at all, because that is somehow "propaganda". Elinruby (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aryan Valley per nomination Ideally, Aryan Valley should have been redirected to the subject. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redrect to Aryan Valley, which is the current name of the region. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yesterday the Aryan valley article used to be an article about a region with well-defined boundaries and a distinct culture.

Ninety minutes after the AfD closed as "keep", the nominator in that AfD began a complete rewrite of Aryan valley, which has resulted in an article about how nefarious the name is and, to this effect, cites an article that the uninvolved editors said was irrelevant. The sections on jurisdictions, culture, and history have been removed. The section on the local museum was also removed and dismissed as "government propaganda". (By the autonomous Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts (!)) The sourced section on the Line of Control and the Kargil War, which absolutely have been a factor in this border community, was removed as "clueless drafting".

I reverted the first changes because they were not discussed, only be myself reverted. When I warned Kautilya3 about edit warring, he/she demanded diffs and "proof", and TrangaBellam (talk · contribs) told me that I have no standing because Cinema of Africa is "incompetent". (Perhaps it is. I don't think I have ever looked at or touched that article, and therefore I wouldn't know. At most I may have done a copy edit a couple of years ago. The point is, TB at best is working too fast to be careful.)

Nonetheless. Even I *had* written the thing, the state of Cinema of Africa would most especially be irrelevant. I stopped reverting on Aryan valley, because this is a discretionary sanctions article. I did make several more attempts to discuss on the talk page. The most recent was greeted with the comment that "there is nothing to see here" because the section was already completely rewritten.

A dictionary, which the author had cited three times separately in order to include the relevant quotes, was summarily dismissed as "not reliable sources". Plural. I actually have not examined this source to see if it is self-published, which is a concept I have been introducing to the article author. But TB hasn't examined the article text well enough to notice that the three references were to one source, singular.

None of this smacks of a good faith attempt at collaboration with current. The collaboration amongst these three editors is obvious, although I don't understand it's reason, here they are, the same three editors, trying to merge the article out of existence. Certainly, material that was deleted from the Aryan valley article because it discussed the history of Dah has not been added to the article about Dah, so protestations that we should write articles about the individual villages don't inspire me with faith that the material will reach those articles.

Since yesterday's article about a location has been steam-rollered into an article about a name, it may seem, superficially, a good idea to merge. Especially given the errors of English, which are new.

But an AfD close just yesterday said that the location was independently notable and should have an article. I suggest that the nominating editors write their own article about why they think Jammu and Kashmir should have chosen another name, if they feel that this is so important. But it the name is not the most important attribute of this area, which just yesterday was found to be notable Elinruby (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN (or WP:ANI) is the venue you are aiming at. Ctrl+F "Cinema of Africa" on your u/p. Btw, who are these three editors - me, K3 and ? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not on Windows
Possibly you mean my talk page, as I once participated in a Cinema of Africa event. But if you were going to fish in my archives for the participation trophies, I would have thought that you would have read the page and noticed that somebody gave me a barnstar for dealing with *you*. You're hilarious. Look at my *actual* user page.

My advice to you: assume less and read more. Elinruby (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mean to say that your user-page does not feature a shiny badge about being the Editor of the Week for the week beginning December 1, 2019, which proclaims Cinema of Africa to be among your "Notable Work(s)" alongside Corruption in Brazil and Operation Car Wash?

That said, if you have issues with my behavior, you shall take me to AN/ANI than bicker at an AFD and throw veiled aspersions about "colloboration" between editors. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As fascinating as it might be to discuss with you why you would choose to mock that, of all the other barnstars on that page, you are embarrassing yourself in a very public venue, and at this point I don't even care. I know what you are: one of the reasons the topic area needs discretionary sanctions. I will proudly display the one for trying to reason with you alongside all the others. Elinruby (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the umpteenth me, please take me to AN/ANI/AE (or wherever you feel like) since you have particularly strong feelings about my conduct. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid nomination- This is a discretionary sanctions article. I just noticed who actually made this nomination: Hassan Janhal (talk · contribs) registered December 13, 2022, and has 265 edits. Elinruby (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link to the policy that forbids AfD nomination of AC/DS article from such editors? Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to discuss this with your editing partner Kautilya3, who tried to intimidate me with the template the first time I commented on the Aryan Valley AfD. Elinruby (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why shall I ask of Kautilya3 to provide a link to the relevant policy when it is you who declared the Afd to be an "invalid nomination". If you believe that K3 had intimidated you, please try AN/ANI/AE.

@Vanamonde93 and RegentsPark: are you acquainted with any rule prohibiting AfD nomination of ARBIPA articles by non-EC editors? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unaware of any such restriction. The Indo-Pakistani conflict was under general ECR for some time, but that restriction has since been subsumed into DS, and also this wouldn't obviously fall under it anyway. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Yeah, I am talking about EC restrictions. There is a recent precedent in the EE area -- if they can't edit the article they can't participate in the AfD. I am not sure what "subsumed into DS" means. Are you saying that EC restrictions are *not* in effect for IPA? Isn't that the minimum level of DS protection? Actual question, not sarcasm, although it does look to me like the TA needs more protection not less. Elinruby (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EC restrictions were never in effect for ARBIPA except for sometime, for a subset of articles concerning the India-Pakistan conflict. The case in other AC/DS regimes like ARBPIA is different. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I realize they are different, which is why I asked. And, note, did not ask *you*. There are discretionary sanctions in place, and I am trying to clarify them. If in fact there are no EC restrictions on IPA, then my logic above is in error, although the intent of the rule where it exists is to prevent exactly what we have here, sockpoppets abusing AfD. I am not certain what effect this has on the close. I will look into some things, since Vanamonde93 hasn't answered yet Elinruby (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CU note I have blocked the nominator as the sock of a banned user. I would close this procedurally, but I see that other editors in good standing have commented, so will leave the closure to someone else. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: There are not, and never have been, generic EC restrictions in the ARBIPA area. There were briefly community-authorized EC restrictions for the Indo-Pakistani conflict specifically, but these are no longer in place. There is a generic EC restriction in the ARBPIA area, which is perhaps the source of your confusion. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It quite possibly is, since I thought that was what I was talking about. Did I get the acronym wrong? Elinruby (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Bray, John (2008). "Corvée transport labour in 19th and early 20th century Ladakh: a study in continuity and change". In Martijn van Beek; Fernanda Pirie (eds.). Modern Ladakh: Anthropological Perspectives on Continuity and Change. BRILL. pp. 43–66. ISBN 978-90-474-4334-6.
^ p. 46: "A 16 century dispute over King Tsewang Namgyal's authority in the Dha-Hanu region illustrates how the hierarchies could be both extended and contested. The king summoned the people of Hanu, who until then had been closer to the Maqpon (ruler) of Skardu, to assist in the construction of a road".

~~Keep~~: Justification : Dha Hanu is only used for the twin villages that is Dha and hanu village of Leh District. Often named as Dha hanu valley . These page was created on 2004 , Until recently the Dha and hanu were only allowed for visitors and other brokpa village such as 'Garkon' and 'Darchik' was restricted due to border area . There are more than thousand website,articles etc. are talking about Dha hanu ,if we search in google .

However The Dha Hanu region or Dha hanu district ,is used for all villages that is Dha,hanu, Garkon and Darchik .

We have similar example of other region of naming too : Kashmir valley is used for only valley of Kashmir . And Kashmir region Is used for four region and valleys that includes Kashmir Valley , Jammu region , Ladakh region and Gilgit Baltistan region.

Conclusion: Since Dha hanu articles itself says it is a twin village that is Dha and hanu . And the Dha hanu valley( Dha and hanu village) that is ok Lhe district has been popular because of being opened for tourists, anthropologiest, rearacher etc . And The dha hanu valley was/is also in the official Map of Jammu and kashmir and Ladakh .

Proposal: We need to add a disambiguaty link in the articles to differentiate between ' Dha hanu valley and Dha hanu Region or District. Minaro123 (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Dha Hanu district? Some other editors here seem to think not.Elinruby (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minaro123, you can comment all you like but can only cast one "vote". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dha hanu region or Dha hanu district is a same thing . Dha hanu district is used during British Raj ,while Dha hanu region is used after British Raj for the same region . And Brokyul is a Ladakhi and tibetan name for these same region .Minaro123 (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been working to help Minaro123 mitigate some legitimately-tagged RS problems in a group of related articles he has authored. This has been hampered by language issues and, more importantly, by POINTy interventions whose fervor I do not fully understand except that they seem to be politically motivated.

This area is only a few kilometers from a military front. Any discretionary sanctions that apply to that conflict should apply here. I would like for Minaro123 to be allowed to work. He is responsive once an issue is explained to him. I will continue to help him as long as he wants me to, although I am tied up today. I urge him to ping me if he has questions.

As to this AfD, It is my understanding that saying "Dah Hanu area" is akin to saying "Silicon Valley". Both are ill-defined areas that include several municipalities yet can be considered as separate entities whose components share certain attributes. I oppose deletion, and suggest draftifying if that's considered necessary, as it looks as though a trip to the drama boards may be necessary once I clarify which one has jurisdiction. Open to any helpful suggestions. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I see a consensus here for two factors: a) that the article should be Kept and b) that the article is in bad shape and needs a lot of work. But apparently, there is enough good content in it that the majority of editors are not arguing for TNT. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Health effects of electronic cigarettes

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

Horrible article. Primary author is now deservedly topic-banned from medicine. The encyclopaedic content is already in Electronic cigarette; this is just that plus immense amounts of repetitive trivia, hilariously rated as "mid-importance". The very first edit to this article's talk page described it as "bloat". Proposed for a merge by others, but I don't see any useful content to merge.

If deleted, then for WP:PATT reasons, the deleting sysop will need to preserve attribution with Nicotine, Nicotine poisoning and 2019-20 vaping lung illness outbreak. I expect the simplest way to do this might be to make a page like this. —S Marshall T/C 04:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 04:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Electronic cigarette#Health effects: I agree that this page is awful, but the content is important. I'd say that the redirect name is useful too. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per TNT. Draken Bowser (talk) 12:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~or merge/redirect.~~ ~~First, just as a point of order, DocJames is not topic banned from medicine as stated in the nom, just from the narrow topic of drug prices.~~ That said, I agree with the part of the comment above that "the content is important". The solution for notable and encyclopedic information that is badly written is revision, even if the revision should start with a major blanking – but the solution is not AfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After considering more recent comments, I've also struck the merge/redirect part, because I'm now persuaded that this is a straight-up case of keep. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say Doc James was topic banned. He started the article but the lion's share of the text is by QuackGuru, who is topic banned. To the extent that the article consists of encyclopedic information, that information is already in Electronic cigarette. Nothing of value will be lost in its deletion, and the solution most definitely is AfD.—S Marshall T/C 22:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, and I struck that part. It would probably be simplest to blank the page and redirect it, then. Still no need to delete it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the purpose of a redirect, because that's not a plausible search term and the daily page views are vanishingly small even though it's wikilinked from better and more prominent articles, but if you insist then we can redirect and after a polite interval I'll list it at RfD.—S Marshall T/C 23:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not convinced that it needs to be TNT-ed. There are graphics that should be removed, and it's obviously too verbose. The talk page shows very little effort to engage with fixing the page after QG was banned. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be fair to Beland, he's had a pretty good go at fixing some of it. I appreciate Beland's effort there quite a lot. Fixing QG's prose is incredibly time-consuming, as I've learned by slogging away at it at the main article on this topic: electronic cigarette (which should be the only article we need).
The reason why it's so hard is because it's not just QG's phrasing that's the problem: he also doesn't seem to use the source material in the way that you and I do. You or I would read the sources, understand them, think about them, evaluate which was the best, and then summarize their conclusions in terms that are accessible to the general public -- right? But I don't think QG does.
I think that QG's writing method is firstly, to find an impeccably reliable MEDRS and cite it very carefully and precisely; secondly, to cherry-pick the single sentence in that source that most closely supports QG's personal view (in this case, the most skeptical or negative sentence in that source); thirdly, CTRL+C/CTRL+V; and fourthly, to group the resulting sentences by topic.
I know that's a pretty harsh thing for me to type, about an editor who's topic banned and doesn't have the right to reply. I've said exactly the same thing to Arbcom when he did have the right to reply, and he didn't engage with me on it.
But, Tryptofish, I would be genuinely delighted if you could prove me wrong on this! You're very welcome to try to fix this article right here during the course of the AfD. A WP:HEY level rescue is within your grasp if you wish, and I solemnly swear that I will strike my own nomination and type out a heartily apologetic "keep" !vote if you do it.—S Marshall T/C 02:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a big and important subject that deserves a separate sub-page, while the corresponding section in Electronic cigarette could be made a little shorter. I do not think anyone really objects this. The argument here is different: this page is very difficult to fix, hence the WP:TNT. However, after looking at the page (it is very big and well sourced), I think it should be fixed rather than deleted. I think some people did way too much work here for a TNT. Yes, it is excessively detailed, but it does not warrant deletion. Is it promoting some POV? I do not see it as non-expert in this particular subject. My very best wishes (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it's POV, largely through being out of date now. There's a recent Cochrane review which postdates QuackGuru's topic ban. It could be fixed but (a) the effort involved is far greater than it would take just to write a decent article from scratch and (b) the fixed version would look a lot like the several paragraphs about health effects we already have in Electronic cigarette, so it would just be duplicative.—S Marshall T/C 02:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep 300+ citations from peer-reviewed journals, the article is great; it's almost too long and needs a split into further topics. This is a well-documented medical issue. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a comment, the number of citations alone isn't enough to prove notability. The topic should have coverage from independent secondary sources generally to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. Not saying that this is not a good article to keep only the argument that number of citations => notability, is not wikipedia's notability policy. EvilxFish (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The proposal to delete the page is more or less the nominator's distaste for the current state of the article. But the article subject is notable, its contents are well-referenced, and the primary complaint is that this needs to be trimmed down. The deletion policy notes that [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. And, frankly, the only complaints here are ones that can be solved by ordinary editing and discussion—that a page is excessively detailed is not a valid reason to outright delete it. I also do not see a convincing reason that this is a time whereit is better to cover this notable topics as part of a larger page about a broader topic. Rather, much like Health effects of tobacco, it seems like this page is warranted in its own right and that it should not be merged. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you propose to fix this page soon, Red-tailed hawk? Or shall we redirect it until you've finished?—S Marshall T/C 22:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how this works. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 9 January 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 Barney & Friends episodes and videos. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barney in Outer Space

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No reviews found in a BEFORE DonaldD23 talk to me 03:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment This isn't a film but a home video release, so it can't meet NFILM and the rationale needs revision. Nate • (chatter) 21:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that home video releases fall under the film policies. DonaldD23 talk to me 10:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, asking for a revision to the rationale; it was taped in the same style as every other Barney episode, on a soundstage on videotape. It's not a film. Nate • (chatter) 03:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you are comparing it to Barney episodes, then it also fails WP:NTV if you use the criteria for television. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Whether or not, this subject is a film, one can still argue for whether or not there exists SIGCOV of this video.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I tried looking on Common Sense Media, but it appears this is too old to have a listing there. I'd be fine with a redirect to the main "List of Barney & Friends episodes and videos" article. Nothing else found; this episode was made over 20 years ago and hasn't had much happen with it since. Oaktree b (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Barney & Friends episodes and videos. Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV related to this specific home video. Frank Anchor 04:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is probably the best eventual outcome, but List of Barney & Friends episodes and videos does not even have minimal plot summaries for the home videos, films and specials section. Those episodes should be in the same table format as the regular episodes making merging in straightforward. We should not delete this page until that is done, so my position is temporarily keep. SpinningSpark 00:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement for a redirect target to have ":minimal plot summaries for the home videos, films and specials section." This video is mentioned by name on the target page, which is sufficient. (That said, I would not be opposed to adding such content which can be pulled from the history of this page which is preserved in a redirect.) Frank Anchor 13:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not, of course, mean to imply that there was any such requirement. I was coming at this more from a wish to WP:PRESERVE (bullet #5) the information we already have. We are supposed to be building an encyclopeadia, not tearing down the parts of it that are not perfect. SpinningSpark 16:19, 5 January 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!} 08:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tramonto Circuits

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Ref 1 is a promotional press release, ref 2 is general coverage about Flexible Electronics and does not cover this company significantly, ref 3 is an interview, whereas ref 4 is another press release from PR Web. None of the sources meet WP:CORPDEPTH, my search didn't find CORPDEPTH-meeting material so this should be deleted. VickKiang (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The company does not appear to be notable. The contributor is listed as the website designer. Appears to be promotional.
Constant314 (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate outcome—It might be suitable to add this company to List of EDA companies, although that list does not appear to have an 'electronics manufacturing companies' section, but it does have an 'electronics distribution companies' section. I agree that a standalone article for this company is not justified based on notability. I am just thinking that there might be some 'home' for a mention of the firm in another article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:PROMO. My search for sources finds more press releases, the company website, LinkedIn profile, Indeed, Crunchbase, YouTube channel, and regurgitated press releases on low-quality websites, and an interview with the president/owner. Beccaynr (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'd be down with Ceyockey's suggestion of adding the company in List of EDA companies. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 04:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - from my view, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:ADS (and similarly, WP:FAILCORP), there do not appear to be sufficiently independent sources to support a merge at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC) - update comment to reference WP:FAILCORP - Beccaynr (talk) 18:41, 4 January 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 delete. Sock creation. See note. Star Mississippi 14:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Blakey (musician)

AfDs for this article:

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

In addition to the AfD at this title, also deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Blakey (music producer). Not a G4, but nothing to indicate that the factors surrounding deletion have changed. Sourcing appears of insufficient quality, depth and reliability Star Mississippi 01:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Star Mississippi 01:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments in previous AfDs. The most likely route to notability would likely be the association with Tears for Fears, but I couldn't find anything to substantiate that. Jfire (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as incessant puffery. Note that the creator of the previous version, User:JessicaBruton, was blocked for undisclosed paid editing. And now we have a brand new account whose first edits are creating this one... Fram (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article and sourcing does little to establish the subject's notability. I can't find a good source for his involvement with Tears for Fears which is currently unsourced, except a few sources like this.[27] Beyond the state of the current article, it's already been deleted twice, and both prior AfDs included what has been tagged or commented as suspected sockpuppets and COI. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Trivial sources that don't pass WP:BASIC. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: Article creator blocked as a sock. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:54, 3 January 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.

[1] Bray, John (2008). "Corvée transport labour in 19th and early 20th century Ladakh: a study in continuity and change". In Martijn van Beek; Fernanda Pirie (eds.). Modern Ladakh: Anthropological Perspectives on Continuity and Change. BRILL. pp. 43–66. ISBN 978-90-474-4334-6.

[2] . 46: "A 16 century dispute over King Tsewang Namgyal's authority in the Dha-Hanu region illustrates how the hierarchies could be both extended and contested. The king summoned the people of Hanu, who until then had been closer to the Maqpon (ruler) of Skardu, to assist in the construction of a road".

[1]

[2]