Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 16
![]() |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
SOS United
- SOS United (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and album-specific notability policies. Possible redirect (preferable) or merger (less preferable) to SOS Children's Villages. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Austria. UtherSRG (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete No album reviews found in Gnewspapers, or Books. Allmusic and Discogs have nothing. No sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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! 22:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Rankings of business schools in South Africa
- Rankings of business schools in South Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is a compilation of a few business-related academic rankings in a specialized academic domain only in a specific country. Per WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTSTATS, all the rankings data could be redirected into the relevant university page and there is no need of a separate page to compare the rankings of business schools in South Africa.
The only other related page that I found for business school rankings is this one for US business schools which is very detailed in methodology and it is not just a few Financial Times business rankings or other data that are not explained properly, as in the case of this South African article. Since there is seems to be a quite small coverage on South African business rankings overall, there is no need for a compilation of such academic, very specialized rankings. Chiserc (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and South Africa. Chiserc (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Apparent listcruft. Orientls (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Fails CLN and NLIST. // Timothy :: talk 14:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Yuantang (language game)
- Yuantang (language game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to be an ephemeral one-off creation, no sources whatsoever Remsense聊 20:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Games, and China. Remsense聊 20:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: The Chinese Wikipedia article lists four seemingly academic sources, which suggests notability. _dk (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator In that case, I'll flesh out the article with them real quick. I should've checked, thank you! Remsense聊 01:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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! 22:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Allstate Crossbar Classic
- Allstate Crossbar Classic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject doesn't meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of independent, secondary coverage. What coverage does exist simply quotes the press release announcing the inaugural game. Let'srun (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and American football. Let'srun (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep If early season kickoff games such as the Aflac Kickoff Game, Duke's Mayo Classic, Camping World Kickoff, Vegas Kickoff Classic, Cowboys Classic, and Texas Kickoff get their own article, then the Allstate Crossbar Classic should also get its own article Michiganwolverines2014 (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Pointing out other articles is not a valid argument. The article on this particular game must stand or fall on its own merits. Frank Anchor 21:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG. The only coverage in the article or on a Google search were WP:ROUTINE announcements that this particular, already scheduled game was going to become the first in a series of games under this nickname. Frank Anchor 22:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Outside ESPN and Learfield arranging a branding for it, this is a bog standard Tide home game and it'll be the same next year for whichever two teams they find to paste a logo on the field for. Nate • (chatter) 00:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Unlike most kickoff games, it appears this isn't even a neutral site event — just a sponsorship deal applying this name to what otherwise would simply be a run-of-the-mill home game. Neutral site games, while not necessarily notable in and of themselves, at least have the potential of garnering the requisite significant coverage — there's almost no way that will ever happen with this one. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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! 04:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Digital Group Audio
- Digital Group Audio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Digital Group Audio was founded in 2007, and may have made some small splashes (some of the citations do not verify the claims) as "promising start-ups" and "Small Biz Contest nominee", but no significant web or news coverage can be found. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and California. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: I don't find much for the company past the announcements in 2008ish. Even what's used in the article isn't helpful for notability. Might not even be in business anymore. Oaktree b (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete fails NCORP by the looks of it.-KH-1 (talk) 10:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Transmission risks and rates
- Transmission risks and rates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It might have been OK to have an uncited article about "Transmission of an infection" in 2009 but we ought to know better these days Chidgk1 (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Unsourced... the term is used, but in everything from Covid articles to AIDS in peer-reviewed journals. I'd delete and use the term if needed elsewhere. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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 Bielino, Płock County. Daniel (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Wirgnia
- Wirgnia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
In re-reviewing articles for NPP I was unable to find any RS to confirm that this place passes our WP:GEOLAND guideline. Lightburst (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, I invite yiu to read the first line of WP:GEOLAND that you linked. "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." Artemis Andromeda (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sources seem cited... @Stok Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete or Redirect to Bielino, Płock County, which Wirginia/Wirgnia is part of. The sources cited in the article describe it only as "part of Bielino" (część wsi Bielino) providing no other detail - this is not evidence of being a legally-recognised populated place since this does not list it as a legally-recognised class of populated place, but as part of another. Even if it was WP:NOPAGE has something to say about articles that cannot be developed. On balance I favour deletion over merging because I simply don't believe anyone will credibly be searching for this term and expecting to land on the page for Bielino. "Wirgnia" anyway appears to be a mis-spelling of the original name of Wirginia (the Polish version of "Virginia") which is a first name (see, e.g., Wirginia Maixner). Merging is unnecessary as all the relevant content is already at the article for Bielino (i.e., that Wirginia/Wirgnia is part of Bielino). FOARP (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per above, google brings up a map and the page looking through archive cant find anything significant, the article foor Bielinio is quite small and doenst benfit from having this branch. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect. For now I don't see anything that suggests this passes WP:GNG. A merge and redirect seems reasonable, merge being mentioning of the fact that part of the village is named such and such. PS. I nominated this for deletion discussion at pl wiki (pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2023:10:17:Wirgnia) where I also mentioned our discussion here. Maybe some useful arguments will emerge from there - let's wait another week or so before closing this while checking for any comments there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect per Piotrus and FOARP. Ping me if anything comes out of the Polish Wikipedia discussion.
- Redirect per Piotrus and FOARP as valid AtD. // Timothy :: talk 14:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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 Janice Vidal. Liz Read! Talk! 04:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Wish (2010 Janice Vidal album)
- Wish (2010 Janice Vidal album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It's just reversion of Wish (2009 Janice Vidal album) John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 13:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 13:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Janice Vidal: Found zero evidence of notability. Also put Wish (2009 Janice Vidal album) up for PROD as I didn't find anything for it either. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Scratch that, redirected Wish '09 which makes way more sense and I'm silly for not just doing that first. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Janice Vidal per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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 Baron Fermoy. Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Maurice Roche, 6th Baron Fermoy
- Maurice Roche, 6th Baron Fermoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This nobleman from the peerage of Ireland, who is also a businessman, has no particular claim to notability other than the title. Fails WP:BASIC. BEFORE did not turn up anything other than passing mentions due to being related to Diana Spencer, and a Tatler interview, which is not independent from the subject. Pilaz (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Ireland, and United Kingdom. Pilaz (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Clear WP:ATD would be a redirect to Baron Fermoy. Curbon7 (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Baron Fermoy. Or, failing that, simply delete. Another of these articles on title-holders which seems to exist only because they are a title-holder. The holders of titles are not automatically notable. (Nor are military people, business people, relations of royals or attendees of royal weddings.) I can find no additional sources to establish notability (under SIGCOV or similar) and the single ref in the article is of a type not considered to be suitable to either support article text or to support a notability claim. Guliolopez (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Baron Fermoy. Very few (or zero) reliable sources. FatCat96 (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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! 04:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
MetaZoo
- MetaZoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Most of the references, are primary, a few that seem to be independent are press releases, stakeholder interviews, and a article from VOX that mentions that VOX Media will get a commission if you click on any of the MetaZoo links. There is a article from Professional Sports Authenticator but I don't think that one article pushes this over the notability guidelines.
BEFORE did not bring up anything that is not already amongst the references. Sohom (talk) 09:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Sohom (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- week keep Between coverage in Polygon and Den of Geek, this is probably notable. Hobit (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - Polygon, Den of Geek, https://www.journal-news.com/what-to-do/events/metazoo-trading-card-game-tourney-in-mason-to-be-streamed-on-twitch/YL6AHKB2QJBAJE7MMKS6RDIK7E/, and https://icv2.com/articles/news/view/55088/metazoo-games-reveals-hello-kitty-crossover-set demonstrate there is notable activity. Needs clean up though. - Indefensible (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)- Keep Notable enough with coverage from Polygon and Den of Geek.
- RowanJ LP2 (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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 discounted a number of 'keep' !votes which were totally deficient in their argument relative to policy (including some early in the debate, as well as two notable examples since the last relist, where Rosgull noted it was heading towards 'no consensus'), and what I was left with was no solid consensus either way. Daniel (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
List of roles in the British Army
- List of roles in the British Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject fails WP:NLIST. The subject itself fails WP:GNG as there is literature about some roles, but there are not sufficient sources about the "the roles in the British Army". Redirects are costly. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I can't find any article like this for other nations. Most of the entries don't link to their own articles. There is Template:British_Army_navbox, Template:British Airborne Forces, and Template:British Infantry already. Dream Focus 18:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Well, we do have List of United States Navy ratings, List of United States Naval officer designators, List of United States Coast Guard ratings, Air Force Specialty Code, List of United States Marine Corps MOS, List of United States Army careers. The last two in particular are pretty similar to this list. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- DreamFocus, These templates you listed have absolutely nothing to do with the page. There is a list of USMC MOS's (roles), and a list of US Army careers, this is the exact same. RAFRegtRockApe (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per NLIST. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCAREERCOUNSELLOR. And "Armoured AS90 Gunner" is really absurd; overspecialisation rears its ugly head. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Clarityfiend: you really should strike or re-word that. Referring to someone's job title like that is just insulting. (Definitely a far cry from 'thank you for your service'.) jmho - wolf 03:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- I find a really specialized job for one specific weapon, not a type of weapon like self-propelled guns in general, but one and only one, to be odd. It is not intended to be insulting, nor do I consider it reasonable for someone to take offense at a jibe at a job title. I'm not spitting on someone's flag; it's a freaking job title. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hmm, yes... well I'm sure all the AS90 operators out there will comforted by your words. </sarcasm> - wolf 15:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- That would be because it's the only SPG that the British Army currently uses! If they used more than one then the job title probably would be a generalised one for all SPGs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, well then, carry on. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's not overspecialisation at all. It refers to a gunner on a self-propelled gun, as opposed to a gunner on a towed gun. I'm guessing there is a substantial amount of difference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm very confused on how you think this is overspecialisation? Why is Armoured AS90 gunner so absurd? What a strange hilarious comment. It is a specific Army role on a specific gun which specific artillery regiments are solely trained on and operate in. RAFRegtRockApe (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Do you know anything about the Army to be so confident in saying this? Can you help me understand how 91F Small Arms/Towed Artillery Repairer or 94H Test Measurement and Diagnostic Equipment (TMDE) Maintenance Support Specialist for example on the List of United States Army careers page is not overspecialisation, if AS90 Gunner is? RAFRegtRockApe (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Calling people's comments hilarious is not helpful. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Nor is saying that an official designation is "really absurd". -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. It needs expansion, but I don't see there's a problem with it. These are official job titles of roles within the British Army, no different from similar roles in the United States military. It's not a good article at the moment, but it could be much better, especially if it includes historical roles that no longer exist and a lot more information on the roles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- And I'm sure I don't (or shouldn't) need to add that what's relevant at AfD is the notability of the topic, not the current state of article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per my reply here. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 17:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Category:Military specialisms by country These articles are common, and do provide valid information that benefits the encyclopedia. Dream Focus 17:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Dream Focus: Yours is not a policy-based argument. You are forwarding ILIKEIT inclusionism just as others are doing. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, List of United States Army careers exists therefore List of British Army roles should. There's no difference. RAFRegtRockApe (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- @RAFRegtRockApe: See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Also, you are the editor who created this. It is a norm for you to announce that here, if you comment at all. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Isn't it more common for the article creator to comment/vote rather than not? Hey man im josh (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Also, you are the editor who created this. It is a norm for you to announce that here, if you comment at all.
No, that is completely untrue. The creator is perfectly entitled to express an opinion and has no obligation whatsoever to announce that they are the creator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)- No Chris, that is not "the norm", and it should not even be expected. Someone can create a legitimate stub that can then be drastically changed by another user or users. Demanding they attach to their !vote a declaration that they initially created the article in question seems like a means to diminsh the weight of their !vote. Besides, their name is already attached at the top of the article, any closing admin can easily take note of that. (And you already know all of this.) - wolf 03:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- @RAFRegtRockApe: See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Also, you are the editor who created this. It is a norm for you to announce that here, if you comment at all. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, all information is sourced and of benefit to wikipedia Dolphinwaxer (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Leaning delete, unless some kind of codification can be added comparable to the U.S. Army list. How can I tell from this list, for example, whether "plumber" is a designated specialization, or just a task that personnel with a more generalized designation sometimes undertake? BD2412 T 00:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- (Sounds like a suggestion for improvement, not an argument for deletion. - wolf 03:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC))
- ...all of these are a soldiers exact and only job. They're all designated specializations. There is no MOS code like the US military. RAFRegtRockApe (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- @RAFRegtRockApe: Is there a source for the proposition that "these are a soldiers exact and only job", and these are "all designated specializations"? MOS code or not, is there an official list somewhere of designated specializations? BD2412 T 04:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Surely it does not make a list any less valid because the British Armed Forces do not use codes for specialisations like the US military? That would be leaning towards making Wikipedia Americanocentric. "They don't do it like we do it so it's not a valid article". -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - per Necrothesp & RAFRegtRockApe. - wolf 03:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep for now, seems encyclopedic. But open to potential reorganization of this and other similar topics (for example List of Roman army unit types) in the future. - Indefensible (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per Necrothesp.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep has a sizable majority, but delete arguments have a firmer grounding in policy. I considered closing as no consensus at this time but I think this can benefit from another relist despite the amount of discussion thus far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep by the Arthur Mee children's encyclopaedia test: "Is this a list a reasonable reader of an encyclopaedia would expect to see?" Yes, it is; it's exactly the sort of stuff I used to go looking for when I was a kid. We would be failing my inner child if we delete this. Elemimele (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Big enough to have its own page. Editorkamran (talk) 04:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Warrants its own article. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Sanilac/GB Broadcasting
- Sanilac/GB Broadcasting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
These radio broadcasters simply don't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Let'srun (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and Michigan. Let'srun (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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. A reminder, if you have criticisms of either the nominator or any other editor participating in an AFD, it's preferable to bring the issue to their User talk page rather than introducing it into a discussion of the article and its merits. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Francis Dolarhyde
- Francis Dolarhyde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sources in the article do not prove the character's notability, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to Hannibal Lecter (franchise)#Cast and characters (perhaps not the best redirect target, but I can only think of that). Spinixster (chat!) 02:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, Film, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 02:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, meets GNG. Here's a couple things I found in just a couple minutes on ProQuest[1][2] (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Crawford (character) for my concerns about this set of 8 nominations in 7 minutes) —siroχo 07:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- The first source only briefly mentions the character twice. The second source mentions the character more, but there doesn't seem to be enough analysis going on to prove notability (it's mostly plot summaries, but it's still very brief). Spinixster (chat!) 07:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Comment.In my Clarice Starling searches, I found an article in Project Muse (Elliott, Jaquelin. This is my Becoming:Transformation, Hybridity, and the Monstrous in NBC's Hannibal. University of Toronto Quarterly Volume 87, Number 1, Winter 2018. [3]) which has a fair amount of coverage on Francis Dolarhyde. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)- The analysis on the character is brief (the source mentions the character a lot, but it's mostly in a few plot summaries), but I'd say it's usable. More sources would be needed, though Spinixster (chat!) 07:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- It seems pretty strong to me. There is definite analysis relative to the werewolf trope, speculation on links with Jekyll & Hyde, stuff on gender/sexual identity, and on deformity, &c&c. Certainly not just plot summary. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- To summarize what I saw, the character is based on the BTK killer, he has problems with his gender and sexual identity, and is considered by the writer to be the most sympathetic villain of the series. Those parts can be used. The others are just brief plot summary. I never said it's not usable. Spinixster (chat!) 07:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't have time to look through them now but Project Muse has 12 book/journal results for "Francis Dolarhyde" (including the above) so some of the others might well be useful. Espresso Addict (talk)
- At least based on the brief search on MUSE, the sources that can be used are:
- "Becoming: Genre, Queerness, and Transformation in NBC’s Hannibal" has a chapter dedicated to Francis.
- "Real Phonies: Cultures of Authenticity in Post-World War II America", chapter 3 ("They Didn’t Do It for Thrills": Serial Killing and the Problem of Motive) mentions Francis.
- To be added as I continue searching through the sources.
- I just quickly skimmed through the books and articles, and it's pretty hard to search the entire book on MUSE so I have to guess what chapter the character is mentioned, so maybe not all of them would be usable. Spinixster (chat!) 08:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- "it's pretty hard to search the entire book on MUSE" -- the search engine tells you which chapters the search string is found in. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- At least based on the brief search on MUSE, the sources that can be used are:
- It seems pretty strong to me. There is definite analysis relative to the werewolf trope, speculation on links with Jekyll & Hyde, stuff on gender/sexual identity, and on deformity, &c&c. Certainly not just plot summary. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- KEEP JosephWC (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Since this discussion has less traction so far, here's a couple more sources to chew on.
- —siroχo 23:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Sources found by me and Siroxo are enough for GNG. The nominator's nomination of Clarice Starling at the same time calls their discrimination into question. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Discrimination? I did not discriminate against anyone here. If a character is not notable then it's a delete and vice versa. Sources have been found, so it's a keep. Spinixster (chat!) 01:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Alicia and Annie Sorell
- Alicia and Annie Sorell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable actresses. Natg 19 (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, and United States of America. Natg 19 (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Hot Twin and screaming woman are trivial roles. I'm not seeing anything that would satisfy ACTOR here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sourcing found is a Youtube video, wiki mirrors/blogs and in Gnews, they're in a list of hottest twins. Oaktree b (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Current sourcing is obviously deficient, and I was not able to find GNG or NBASIC meeting references per a search. The roles are especially minor and fails WP:NACTOR. VickKiang (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Phalloides
- Phalloides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete per the well-argued consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristis (2nd nomination) (2020).
If this page is deleted, Phalloides (disambiguation) should be deleted per WP:G14.
Consider adding phalloides to List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names. Narky Blert (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organisms and Disambiguations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm in two minds. I'm okay with delete on this specific list, but I think it's really important this doesn't become a campaign to delete (willy-nilly?!) all list articles concerning Latin words used as species names. For example, Officinalis is a well-written list of considerable encyclopaedic value, and Palustris isn't bad. The main objections to Phalloides is that it's really only useful to a handful of people interested in mycological smuttiness, and the list is too small to be particularly useful. Elemimele (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Delete as none of these dab entries is ever referred to by just the species epithet alone. Loopy30 (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Programmer's Broadcasting
- Programmer's Broadcasting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP as a radio broadcasting company. Let'srun (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and North Dakota. Let'srun (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:NCORP as no secondary coverage could be found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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 Combustion instability. Daniel (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Intrinsic flame instabilities
- Intrinsic flame instabilities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
page does not have any indication of notability. at the very least, draftify DrowssapSMM (say hello) 18:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. DrowssapSMM (say hello) 18:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Merge to flame. The topic does seem borderline notable as the topic of a review or two (one linked in the article), but is a hyper-niche subject that probably is not well served by its own article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Combustion instability, deleting current content. That seems to cover the topic far better. I suggest a redirect to the full article rather than a subsection, although the latter would also work. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Combustion instability, per Ldm. Article content is virtually duplicated from what is already there. Fermiboson (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Characters of the Metal Gear series. Daniel (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Meryl Silverburgh
- Meryl Silverburgh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Character shows no evidence of standalone notability and all reception is from bundled together listicles that do nothing but say she's hot, sexy, and (until a few months ago) a Jew. This article used to have statements in its reception such as "the sexiest fictional Jew since Rhoda Morgenstern" (which also came from a listicle). No sources with in-depth character discussion exist, all of her mentions come from sex appeal listicles. Character fails WP:SIGCOV. NegativeMP1 17:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. NegativeMP1 17:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I think it's important not to judge an article by its current sources. Yes they are all rather poor, but that doesn't necessarily mean that sources don't exist out there that are better. Whether the character "shows no evidence" is less relevant than whether a WP:BEFORE comes up with sources. In this case there is a chapter on Meryl from Metal Gear Solid by Boss Fight Books, and Toward a Gameic World discusses the novelty of having to look up Meryl's codec number on the actual game box. The part about Meryl's codec is also mentioned here. I haven't checked enough to be sure there's significant coverage out there, but we're talking a major character from one of the most seminal games ever made. There's no clear evidence an exhaustive source search was performed rather than just looking at the sources right now and saying they're all bad. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- I ran a WP:BEFORE two months ago when cleaning the reception up and when nominating this article and wasn't able to find much beyond voice acting work both times, hence what I meant by "No sources of in-depth character discussion exist". While those sources you brought up would be helpful, there needs to be actual character reception, of which there's very little that I could find. It'd be great if I was proven wrong and actual sources were found beyond both of my searches, but there's a reason why I nominated the article. NegativeMP1 19:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Characters of the Metal Gear series, or Merge if there's any relevant reception worth merging to that article. The article's reception is very flimsy and there doesn't seem to be anything per the nominator's BEFORE. If any relevant reception is scrounged up, ping me, and I'll be willing to change my vote. Pokelego999 (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Merge/Redirect I agree that mentions at listicles don't mean much unless they are truly a major accolade, like "best video game character of all time". This is supported by only the thinnest of journalism, and could easily be merged somewhere with a brief summary. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect. The current version of the reception is, sadly, indeed based on listicles and similar passing mentions. I found a bit of analysis in Bachelor thesis here (very borderline SIGCOV), and few more mentions in passing. I don't think that's enough to rescue this article, but if someone finds better sources, do ping me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Nashville Kickoff Game
- Nashville Kickoff Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find any sources referencing this game. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Let'srun (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and American football. Let'srun (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete article fails WP:GNG per nom and Google search that shows no references to a game of this title outside of Wiki mirrors. Frank Anchor 18:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Another one of those non-notable 'neutral site' season launch games where the state's big team plays 'on the road' in an NFL stadium to a lesser team which got a big payoff to lose by five touchdowns in a de facto exhibition game. This isn't anything that gained real N at all and was done after the original two-year deal. Nate • (chatter) 19:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Andrey Voronin (psychologist)
- Andrey Voronin (psychologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't think the subject meets notability, and this looks more than slightly promotional to me. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish) 16:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete although the page may seem to be well-cited, upon closer examination, it becomes evident that the sources are unreliable and self-referential. Infinity Knight (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Health and fitness, Law, Psychology, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Reference 17 is the only one that's green per sourcebot and it doesn't even seem to be about this individual when I translate it. I can't find sourcing, the name seems to be rather common. Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Savarapu Vijaya Kumar
- Savarapu Vijaya Kumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Spokespeople for a police or enforcement organisation are not inherently notable on their own for the agency's broader work even when credited in mainstream media sourcing (fails the depth test); authorship of a book is not notable unless reported by secondary sources. The sourcing for rest of article is mostly trade publications (pharmabiz). The rest of the achievements are not encyclopedic and just the work of any other medical professional. Orphaned page that nothing else in mainspace links to, page originally created by COI/UPE sockfarm. Previously was deleted at AfD for similar reasons 2 years prior then recreated in 2018 without additional sourcing. lizthegrey (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police, Medicine, and India. lizthegrey (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Andhra Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: NO hits in Gnews, Gsearch goes to Pinterest, then it's how to pronounce this name, then even less RS... Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Due to RS Worldiswide (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Every sources are related to unearthing of some drug mafia or something like that. No independent coverage, so fails GNG. 42.104.155.220 (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Blaine Hogan
- Blaine Hogan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NACTOR. Three episodes of Prison Break does not a notable actor make. Novemberjazz 16:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Theatre, Illinois, Indiana, and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Andrey Korolev (traveler)
- Andrey Korolev (traveler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Having searched extensively for both the English and Russian (Андрей Королев) versions of this individual's name, it does not seem that he has acquired any significant notability from reliable, secondary sources. The two links provided at the very end might be sufficient, but I am rather sceptical. They are also the only secondary sources provided in the Russian version. An anonymous username, not my real name 16:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Russia. An anonymous username, not my real name 16:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Sportspeople, and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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.
- Are you in too much of a hurry, An anonymous username, not my real name? Please restore the article to my personal space. There are reliable sources that can be added!--Pustov (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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 close. AfD opened by non-EC editor, which means that they do not have standing to propose the deletion of an article covered by WP:ARBPIA. This close is without prejudice to renomination by extended-confirmed editors in good standing. signed, Rosguill talk 17:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Bushra al-Tawil
- Bushra al-Tawil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm nominating this page for deletion as a breach of Wikipedia's policy on WP:BLP violating WP:V and WP:PARTISAN. Two sources come from [Samidoun] which is not suitable for Wikipedia, another source comes from Addameer also clearly a partisan source. The lack of reliable sources on this topic causes this article to have little to no pertinent information, instead being a list of events. Given that this is a biography of a living person with close to no reliable sources available, it should be removed. Dazzling4 (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Journalism, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Sources aside, nothing in the article satisfies WP:N. Just because something is related in some way to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict does not make it notable for inclusion - Wikipedia already gives too much unwarranted much attention this topic.
- Xiaoreo (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- New, non-extended-confirmed user whose second (and outside of their user page, only) edit is to comment on this AfD. Comment should be struck per WP:ARBECR. Jfire (talk) 04:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note to admin: Should this AfD even proceed given that the topic clearly falls under the ARBPIA CT area and the nom is not extended confirmed? Please can the relevant page notices be added. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep article needs more sources which an Arabic speaking Wikipedian can help find, not a rushed deletion.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Those sources need to show that this article warrants inclusion by Wikipedia's policy on notability WP:N. Wikipedia generally considers individuals notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable, independent, and verifiable sources (it is clear that, at least in English, this article lacks WP:SIGCOV), but notability can also be established if the person has made significant contributions to a specific field, has received notable awards or honors, or has played a significant role in a notable event or movement. If Bushra al-Tawil has achieved recognition or prominence in her field or through her work, and this recognition has been documented in reliable sources, she may be considered notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, based on my searches, I could not find anything that shows notability on either account. Dazzling4 (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- People who only do a cursory english language search can find themselves deciding that any major person outside of the West isn't notable. Her search results in english google will not be reflective of her overall fame. Stop the rush to delete and let's wait for some arabic speakers to help find sources.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep for general WP:GNG reasons. The page hasn't been written up correctly in the lead, but the subject is notable for being placed under arbitrary administrative detention without charge for a prolonged period for nothing more than their journalism. Another source on the subject's arrest is here (and there are a variety of links from humans rights watchdogs and news links out there) - the saga with this particular individual appears to have been ongoing for quite some time, and so is clearly WP:SUSTAINED, and is a notable part of the overall tapestry of abuses against journalists in the conflict. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Consensus about Middle East Monitor on WP:RSN (1, 2, 3) trends toward "attribute" or "unreliable" so the source you linked (and the other MEMO source already in the article) likely do not help establish notability and we'd need to be careful how we use them in a BLP. (I'm undecided on this AfD at this time. It would be helpful to locate additional sources at or above the reliability level of the Al Jazeera article.) Jfire (talk) 04:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- There are also mentions on Wafa, Palestine Chronicle, Dawn and Mondoweiss, and a further, more extended profile on Mondoweiss here, as part of a news round up. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Mondoweiss is not appropriate for Wikipedia. As for each of the other articles listed, the name Bushra al-Tawil is only mentioned once, in passing. "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability," as per WP:NBASIC. Dazzling4 (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Why do people always selectively quote guidelines as if no one else knows them or is likely to read them? That is preceded by:
"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"
. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)- Multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, but trivial coverage by multiple independent sources is not sufficient for notability, which is what I was pointing out. You were compiling a list of sources that mentioned the name, but these trivial mentions are not sufficient to establish notability Dazzling4 (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Mondoweiss is suitable, per WP:RSP, with attribution. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Mondoweiss is WP:MREL and considered heavily biased. You should be using, its attributions if they are reliable, and not Mondoweiss itself as a source for factual information. For opinions on a debate you can reference Mondoweiss's position. Dazzling4 (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Dazzling4: Please note that you shouldn't even have started this internal project discussion as it's covered by WP:ARBPIA and you are not an extended confirmed user. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Why do people always selectively quote guidelines as if no one else knows them or is likely to read them? That is preceded by:
- Mondoweiss is not appropriate for Wikipedia. As for each of the other articles listed, the name Bushra al-Tawil is only mentioned once, in passing. "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability," as per WP:NBASIC. Dazzling4 (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Al Jazaeera English is a WP:RSP. Can't see a problem there. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- There is also coverage in The New Arab and a ToI mention. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- There are also mentions on Wafa, Palestine Chronicle, Dawn and Mondoweiss, and a further, more extended profile on Mondoweiss here, as part of a news round up. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Consensus about Middle East Monitor on WP:RSN (1, 2, 3) trends toward "attribute" or "unreliable" so the source you linked (and the other MEMO source already in the article) likely do not help establish notability and we'd need to be careful how we use them in a BLP. (I'm undecided on this AfD at this time. It would be helpful to locate additional sources at or above the reliability level of the Al Jazeera article.) Jfire (talk) 04:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete mainly for WP:N reasons and for the lack of partisan sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBigHerp (talk • contribs) 07:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- I assume this post means lack of "non-partisan" sources, but again, this AfD is clearly within the scope of ARBPIA and non-ECP editors should not be participating. Admin input needed. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Not only this journalist isn't significant enough to warrant an article, but the sources cited about her are also heavily biased and unreliable. It's essential to maintain the integrity and credibility of our content, and this article simply does not meet the standards we should uphold. Eladkarmel (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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 Wayne Rooney#Personal life#Family (ATD). Daniel (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Tommy Rooney
- Tommy Rooney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Played 22 minutes of the lowest possible example of professional football, in League Two for Macclesfield in 2004, plus one minute in the FA Cup two weeks later. Dropped into non-league after that and untraceable since 2008, when he was 24. Sources so far are four lines on joining Macclesfield, a passing mention in a list of releases, and then a load of dead link transfer stories from a specialist non-league website. A Google search overwhelmingly gives results for a Gaelic football journalist, which when you consider the difference in popularity between soccer and Gaelic football, is not really a sign that this is a notable footballer. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- In a passing mention, Tommy Rooney was playing Sunday League with relatives by the age of 26. [6] This man passes the defunct WP:NFOOTY but clearly not WP:GNG. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 16. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 15:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect In my opinion I would just redirect to Wayne Rooney#Personal life#Family. Regards. Govvy (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Also fine with a redirect. GiantSnowman 20:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Rooney's claim to notability is fleeting at best (a few minutes playing time in the EFL and FA Cup) and there is no enduring or sustained coverage of him to sufficiently demonstrate notability. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, plenty of coverage and some of the sources on page already satisfy GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Everyone's entitled to their opinions but apart from his minutes at Macclesfield all we have are transfer reports from a specialist non-league website and one local newspaper report in Leigh. We have no proof he was ever any more than a trialist at TNS so the best he went on to was the Conference North (6th tier), and we have no evidence for his life past the age of 24 (except the Sunday League ref I found). This article wouldn't even exist if he had any other surname. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article are routine news and databases, BEFORE showed the same, nothing that meets WP:IS, WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indpeth. WP:BLP requires strong sourcing, this article fails. // Timothy :: talk 18:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to List of Star Wars characters. Liz Read! Talk! 04:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Grand Inquisitor (Star Wars)
- Grand Inquisitor (Star Wars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Minor fictional character from Star Wars. No reception section, outside plot summary, or list of works he appears in we just have a 'concept and creation' based on primary sources and mentions in passing. Seems to fail WP:GNG (SIGCOV). Considering ATD, maybe redirect (merge a bit?) to List of Star Wars characters? I don't think the single source that mentions him in-depth CBR is of use (it seems to be just a plot summary). There is also this but it is just about a piece of art featuring this character, very niche trivia. PS. BEFORE showas few more sources but the coverage is limited to effectively: "this character has been redesigned from one side-show (Rebels) to another (Obi-Wan Kenobi) which upset some fans who complained about canon consistency". I don't think this is enough to merit keeping this (Screenrant, Screenrant again. The latter is discussing a fan theory. This is not encyclopedic stuff IMHO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Soft merge and redirect to List of Star Wars characters. Yeah, I mean not much to go off of here. There's some WP:SIGCOV, but it's mostly partial at best. That being said, there's enough controversy regarding the character that can be included in Star Wars Rebels, but the redirect to the aforementioned. Conyo14 (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect per Conyo14. It's an unlikely search term, but there is a valid target. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Zajączkowo, Tczew County. Daniel (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Zajączkowo-Wybudowanie
- Zajączkowo-Wybudowanie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Mass-created article by Kotbot. a bot operated by retired editor Kotniski.
Name means literally "Zajączkowo-Construction".As is visible from satellite images, this is actually a small industrial estate, and is described as a part of Zajączkowo on the Polish regulation on place-names (see p. 2518 here). I could not find a listing for this place on the Polish government statistical database, though this holds data for Zajączkowo going back to 1988. Importantly, businesses located at this site list their location simply as "Zajączkowo" (see here as an example, here for another), which is no surprise as "[placename]-construction" would be a weird way to describe your address anywhere in the world.
As such this place fails WP:GEOLAND, since it is not a legally-recognised populated place, but instead just a part of another place with no specific status of its own. Even if it did pass WP:GEOLAND, no page is needed for it per WP:NOPAGE.
This is likely another example of Polish communist-era infrastructure (e.g., state farms, forestry offices, mills etc.) being included as a territorial unit (probably some kind of no-longer-existent communist-era construction-related site), and then turned into a Wikipedia article by bots and bot-like editing.
I'm agnostic about deletion or just redirecting to Zajączkowo - either is good.
TL;DR - fails WP:GEOLAND, WP:NOPAGE, WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. FOARP (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Stok? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- I corrected the article, coordinates and sources in Polish official documents. Formally it is part of the village. "XXX-Wybudowanie" referred to small settlements emerging outside the village of XXX. Articles about places in Poland are available on pl.wikipedia and are verified with the database of the Statistical and Geographical Office. Every town with SIMC listed is an official town in Poland. If in doubt, I advise you to check the SIMC field in the Polish article. Stok (talk) 06:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding.
"Every town with SIMC listed is an official town in Poland"
- the issue is that SIMCs were also given to many things that manifestly aren't towns, villages, or even hamlets, but instead state farms, railway stations, mills, forestry offices etc. Just having a SIMC doesn't mean that something is or was a town. FOARP (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)- @Piotrus,@Stok - Also, though my Polish is far from great (as you will know if you ever read anything I've written in Polish!) translating miejscowośc as "town" I think may be causing a some misunderstandings.
- In English, a "town" is an inhabited place that is larger in size/population than a village, but smaller than a city. Villages, hamlets, farms, etc. are not "towns". Whilst miejscowośc can be translated as "town" in some contexts, I think in the context of TERYT and the Polish regulation on place names, miejscowośc may be better translated as "locality", since it seems to include units that are much larger than "towns" (e.g., the city of Warsaw is included on TERYT under SIMC ID 0918123) and smaller than "towns" (e.g., the small locality of Warszawa, Bytów County is included on TERYT under SIMC ID 0746998). These are not towns, but they are locations, so "locality" seems a better fit here.
- Or am I wrong here? FOARP (talk) 09:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding.
- Merge or redirect to Zajączkowo, Tczew County as I don't see stand-alone notability for parts of the villages. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect and merge per Piotrus to Zajączkowo, Tczew County
- Merge per Piotrus to Zajączkowo, Tczew County. Good AtD. // Timothy :: talk 18:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Zajączkowo, Tczew County. Daniel (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Zajączkowo-Dworzec
- Zajączkowo-Dworzec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Mass-created article by Kotbot. a bot operated by retired editor Kotniski.
Name means literally "Zajączkowo-Station". As is visible from satellite images, this is actually a railway station/marshalling-yard, and is described as a part of Zajączkowo on the Polish regulation on place-names (see p. 2518 here). Whilst the article includes a population, I could not find a listing for this place on the Polish government statistical database, though this holds data for Zajączkowo going back to 1988.
This is another example of Polish communist-era infrastructure (e.g., state farms, forestry offices, mills etc.) being included as a territorial unit, and then turned into a Wikipedia article by bots and bot-like editing.
I'm agnostic about deletion or just redirecting to Zajączkowo - either is good.
TL;DR - fails WP:NTRAINSTATION, WP:GNG, WP:GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect. Per TERYT, this is part of Zajączkowo, Tczew County. I don't see what makes this have stand-alone notability separate from the village it is a part of (this is most likely just a "cluster of few buildings next to the train station in the village"). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Zajączkowo, Tczew County. Another bogus bot creation.
- Merge to Zajączkowo, Tczew County per Piotrus. // Timothy :: talk 18:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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 12:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival Awards
- Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Disputed draftification. Draftify 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Please read the list of AfDs and the nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival Awards South before offering an opinion here 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Awards, and Maharashtra. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Copycat awards per WP:DADASAHEB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sid95Q (talk • contribs) 17:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. This seems to be exactly the same issue discussed in the previous AfD, and the sources in this version aren't particularly convincing either. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete and ECP SALT - As explained at WP:DADASAHEB, an imitation award. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Nominated this as draftify. I have had more time to consider. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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! 05:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Angie Phillips
- Angie Phillips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has been here for many years. The subject is an ordinary weather presenter doing her job and fails WP:BIO. A WP:BEFORE failed to reveal any new sources for me. The existing sources are not useful in establishing notability. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Television. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete insufficient sourcing and nothing better found. Star Mississippi 16:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Some celebrity-type articles covering her mentioned in the first AfD; same level of things still talking about her now. She showed up to work wearing the same blue dress as another news anchor [7]. Nothing I'd use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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 12:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Sani Bello Science College Dawakin Kudu, Kano
- Sani Bello Science College Dawakin Kudu, Kano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While this is a disputed draftification there is little point in sending this back to draft because schools are no longer inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. No notability asserted, nor verified, nor can I find any with WP:BEFORE. Needs to be deleted to save the creating editor from expending further time upon it. If it gains notability then an article may be reconsidered, but I do not recommend a soft delete because of the GNG failure. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Nigeria. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as nommed; I couldn't find anything either that would come even close to meeting GNG. (Cases like this really make you wonder why educational institutions aren't speediable!) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Can't meet WP:GNG. Lorstaking (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Regrettably, this topic needs to deleted for lack of coverage from reliable sources. The lack of reliable source for this topic is largely due to the lack of coverage in Northern Nigeria. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 08:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Tempo (film)
- Tempo (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable enough to pass WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 10:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 10:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: There is a review in DVD Talk. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 10:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete DVD Talk review is fine, but that's all there is. I can't find anything. Gnewpapers has some links to a film from 1986, but that's not this film. 13:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC) Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment found this review [8] DonaldD23 talk to me 14:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Excellent work to Somebodyidkfkdt and Donaldd23. I consider both DVD Talk and Contactmusic.com to be suitable and reliable sources/reviews. I therefore withdraw this nomination. The Film Creator (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I would also like to add that Christopher Null, who wrote the Contactmusic.com review, is a notable film critic. The Film Creator (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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 Vachirawit Chivaaree. Liz Read! Talk! 04:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Cloud9 Entertainment
- Cloud9 Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A new article about a very young company. Feels promotional though use of peacock wording, but without any direct advertising. Has numerous references, though some of dubious quality. May possibly be saved if notable and copy-edited. Listing to gain consensus. Osarius 14:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Osarius 14:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Thailand. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Osarius 09:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Vachirawit Chivaaree. There is zero coverage of the company that is independent of its owner and (as of now) sole artist; the company itself is simply not notable on its own, yet. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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 2023 Israel–Hamas war. There is a clear consensus below that the article cannot be retained (I'd argue near-universal agreement). Debate was split between 'delete' and 'merge', and then within 'merge' to various different targets (including existing articles and potential new articles).
Based on this, I have closed this discussion as a redirect to the top-line article. This means the history is preserved behind the redirect at Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Editors can now, editorially and using normal consensus-building tools such as the talk page and relevant noticeboards, merge or split this content into any potential new articles as they see fit. This redirect can also be re-targetted from 2023 Israel–Hamas war to a more suitable target should a merge or split occur. Daniel (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis
- Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Duplicates content already at Amin al-Husseini and 2023 Israel–Hamas war
The connection between the content is also very tenuous; while individual aspects might meet GNG, the totality does not. BilledMammal (talk) 08:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. BilledMammal (talk) 08:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Keep(I created the article). The allegations that Hamas is committing genocide against Israelis are broader than just this year's war – the 2009 law journal article I cited by Justus Weiner and Avi Bell accuses Hamas of genocide against Israelis, but obviously is not talking about the current war, since it was published almost 15 years prior. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 08:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)- Changed my position on keeping this. See new position further down. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete or draftify: This page was created with good intentions in draft as a stimulus for discussion, but it should never have been moved to mainspace. As mentioned by the nom, the connection of the content is extremely tenuous and essentially WP:SYNTH, at a systemic level, for reasons already raised on the talk. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Iskandar323: I don't see how it is a "SYNTH" because the synthesis is in the sources, not of my creation. I didn't invent the allegation that the Palestinian cause is a continuation of the Holocaust; I'm citing an Israeli academic who accuses Netanyahu of making that claim; I'm also citing a couple of American academics who make that claim. You may think that A and B have nothing to do with each other, but if there are sources presenting them as connected, then the claim that the connection has been made (which neither I nor the article ever endorse as accurate) is not a SYNTH. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- The fact that the connection is based on claims made by Benjamin Netanyahu is really pretty much all that needs to be said about this. "A politician said X" is not a reason to create a topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- The connection pre-existed Netanyahu, and had been made by other pro-Israel figures before him, as the 2009 cite from Dershowitz demonstrates–six years before Netanyahu's infamous address. When Raz-Krakotzkin accuses many of his fellow Israelis of unfairly conflating the Palestinian cause with the Nazi Holocaust, he's not presenting Netanyahu as the origination of that conflation, merely as the highest profile expression of it. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, so the one half-decent source says the topic is idiotic. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- If notable people are making idiotic claims, what is wrong with documenting their idiocy? SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe it has a home on some page somewhere, under idiotic ideas for the ages, but not here, on its own page, giving the idiocy undue credence. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- "Maybe it has a home on some page somewhere" seems to be an argument for "Merge" rather than "Delete". And I'd actually be okay with "Merge" as an outcome. The question is, merge where? My original idea was not a separate article, it was a subsection at the end of the Genocide against Palestinians article, but both you and User:Scientelensia were opposed to the idea of a section in that article; Scientelensia suggested a separate article, so I've done what Scientelensia suggested. As I've said all along, I think it is more important that the content live somewhere, whether it is its own article or a section within some other article is less important to me. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe it has a home on some page somewhere, under idiotic ideas for the ages, but not here, on its own page, giving the idiocy undue credence. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- If notable people are making idiotic claims, what is wrong with documenting their idiocy? SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, so the one half-decent source says the topic is idiotic. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- The connection pre-existed Netanyahu, and had been made by other pro-Israel figures before him, as the 2009 cite from Dershowitz demonstrates–six years before Netanyahu's infamous address. When Raz-Krakotzkin accuses many of his fellow Israelis of unfairly conflating the Palestinian cause with the Nazi Holocaust, he's not presenting Netanyahu as the origination of that conflation, merely as the highest profile expression of it. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- The fact that the connection is based on claims made by Benjamin Netanyahu is really pretty much all that needs to be said about this. "A politician said X" is not a reason to create a topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Iskandar323: I don't see how it is a "SYNTH" because the synthesis is in the sources, not of my creation. I didn't invent the allegation that the Palestinian cause is a continuation of the Holocaust; I'm citing an Israeli academic who accuses Netanyahu of making that claim; I'm also citing a couple of American academics who make that claim. You may think that A and B have nothing to do with each other, but if there are sources presenting them as connected, then the claim that the connection has been made (which neither I nor the article ever endorse as accurate) is not a SYNTH. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete: article created merely to prove a point. The other article should be deleted as well. Make knowledge, not war. Marokwitz (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- My original plan was not to create a separate article, it was simply to add a section describing Israeli genocide claims to the Genocide against Palestinians article. I only decided to create another article instead when the feedback I got from other editors was that they didn't think the content belonged in the same article, and they advised me to create a separate article instead. How can it be that "article created merely to prove a point" when I didn't originally intend to create a separate article at all? My point was simply to document the fact these allegations have been made – a fact many people seem to be ignorant of – if we merged this content into some other article, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Because I think the allegations are notable (because the people who make them are notable). SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete or merge with a section on another page. I don't believe that a population can be said to be experiencing genocide whilst it is also increasing in size. I understand why some are reaching for this extreme language, I don't really see that en.wiki needs to treat it as much more than a WP:FRINGE idea. JMWt (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't believe that a population can be said to be experiencing genocide whilst it is also increasing in size
The definition of genocide under the Genocide Convention doesn't require a population to shrink (or even stagnate). Under the Genocide Convention's definition of genocide, an ineffective attempt at genocide still counts as genocide. As Jens David Ohlin argues in "Attempt, Conspiracy, and Incitement to Commit Genocide" (2009). Cornell Law Faculty Publications. Paper 24: "However, the crime of genocide has, in a sense, an inchoate component already built into it, since the crime does not require the successful destruction ‘in whole or in part’ of an ethnic group or another group protected by Article II of the Genocide Convention. Indeed, the crime of genocide simply requires the intent to destroy a protected group and the actus reus of the offence does not require the actual destruction of the group. In one sense, this suggests that all crimes of genocide are better characterized as attempt to commit genocide" (my emphasis) SomethingForDeletion (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)- Ok, I'm not arguing with you about genocide. JMWt (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- There are several competing definitions of the term "genocide", and in many cases the biggest factor determining whether or not something counts as "genocide" is which of those definitions you choose to use. You give me the impression you are only familiar with one of those definitions, the narrowest one. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm not arguing with you about genocide. JMWt (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- @JMWt: since you say "or merge with a section on another page", would you support or oppose the below proposal to merge to Second Holocaust? SomethingForDeletion (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Merge the two articles together to an article titled Accusations of genocide in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. nableezy - 14:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- This is the only suggestion in this whole discussion that would produce an article that could possibly be neutral, if these were common topics of scholarship. They aren't, and this will still become a coatrack of claims given undue weight. – SJ + 00:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Articles can not be merged into a nonexistent article. Please do not suggest this before the article is created. Liz Read! Talk! 05:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- merge to the genocide of Palestinians article and rename that one. That work? nableezy - 00:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Articles can not be merged into a nonexistent article. Please do not suggest this before the article is created. Liz Read! Talk! 05:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Nableezy: since you are saying "Merge", would you support or oppose the below proposal to merge to Second Holocaust? SomethingForDeletion (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Some odd SYNTH, with no sources from RS we'd use. One is green per sourcebot, but that's not enough for a whole article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
no sources from RS we'd use
. Sources for the article include a chapter in a book published by Columbia University Press, and a law journal. Why are they not "sources from RS we'd use"?One is green per sourcebot
What is this "sourcebot" tool? Is there a page explaining how it works? SomethingForDeletion (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete: per G3 criterion (pure hoax). It's just petty revenge against the creation of the "Genocide against Palestinians" article. (Which by the way, is just a bunch of postmodern activists proposing the expansion of the definition of genocide to conveniently include the Palestinians. There's no way someone would take that seriously. It's comically harmless, not even worth deleting, and it's going to be merged with another article soon). That should pacify the Israelis. –
Daveout
(talk) 20:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)pure hoax
It isn't a hoax that some pro-Israel sources accuse Palestinians of committing genocide of Jews/Israelis. Did I invent articles in the San Diego International Law Journal, a major Israeli newspaper, and a well-regarded group blog by law professors claiming that? Did I fake the quote from a well-known Harvard law professor in which he claimed that?It's just petty revenge against the creation
I'm not engaging in revenge. I just thought the existence of these allegations was noteworthy and the fact they have been made ought to be documented. I have never once claimed they are true. One of the sources I cite in the article (the book chapter by Israeli professor Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin) argues they are essentially an Israeli smear job to equate the Palestinian cause with the Holocaust. I think you should WP:AGF.Which by the way, is just a bunch of postmodern activists proposing the expansion of the definition of genocide to conveniently include the Palestinians
That's a historically ignorant argument. The guy (Raphael Lemkin) who coined the word genocide defined it in an extremely broad way. Nobody is expanding the definition; on the contrary, the popular definition is heavily narrowed from the original one, and scholars and activists who you accuse of "broadening" it are just relying on the older broader definitions. No "factual relativism" involved here, just the perennial truth that different people define the same words in different ways, and most people are ignorant of definitions that differ from their own–even when those definitions are older. If I had an "agenda" in creating this article, it wasn't anything to do with trying to be pro or anti either side of the conflict, it was to do with trying to counter the ignorance of people who insist their own ahistorically narrow definition of "genocide" is the only correct one. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Not encyclopedic, fringe use of polarizing language where inapplicable. Here again: There was no such genocide, we shouldn't have an article on allegations about it. – SJ + 00:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Devoid of useful content and can't be fixed. This is only a "thing" in fringe circles. Zerotalk 10:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
This is only a "thing" in fringe circles
This isn't sourced to InfoWars or the National Enquirer; it is sourced to a law journal article, an article in a major mainstream Israeli newspaper, a blog post by the dean of Cornell Law School writing in a notable law professor group blog, a chapter in a book by Columbia University Press discussing a speech by the Israeli Prime Minister, a blog post by a famous Harvard law professor on the website of another major mainstream Israeli newspaper, an article in JSTOR, etc. Those aren't "fringe circles"; they aren't people like Alex Jones or David Icke, which is the kind of circles we normally consider "fringe" SomethingForDeletion (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Merge into Second Holocaust: There is no reason to have two articles for the same topic. Parham wiki (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for that suggestion, I support it. It doesn't seem like there is support for this as an independent article, so I am changing my !vote to agree with yours. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Better yet, merge into "paranoia" or "Conspiracy theories" Lol –
Daveout
(talk) 22:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Merge into Second Holocaust: (article creator) seems like an appropriate merge target and doesn't seem like there is going to be support for keeping this as an independent article. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Totally Unencyclopedic! Using Wikipedia to gain sympathy against what that hardly exists. Palestinians don't have a military or armed forces to conduct this. The only force that do this is Hamas which itself is created due to Reverse genocide effect.Tousif ❯❯❯ Talk 09:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Merge both this and the Israeli one into Allegations of genocide in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, per nableezy above and my comments in the Israeli AFD. Levivich (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as pure WP:SYNTH. Serial 11:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Can you explain why you think it is a WP:SYNTH? All the sources the article cites have a common element – they all concern pro-Israel accusations of Palestinian genocidality against Jews/Israelis, either as direct instances of such accusations, or as sources which describe those accusations without endorsing them. Where is the SYNTH in that? SomethingForDeletion (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as fringe and intentionally provocative, and with little chance of ever achieving NPOV. For policy choice, I'd pick WP:TOOSOON with a side order of WP:NPOV and WP:N. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Merge this one, along with with Genocide against Palestinians into Genocide question in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.VR talk 04:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to History of paper. Liz Read! Talk! 04:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Kaghaz
- Kaghaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Page for a single Persian word. Better off as redirect to paper? William Graham talk 04:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. William Graham talk 04:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Merge with History of paper. Amir Ghandi (talk) 11:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, as there doesn't seem to be an actual topic beyond the word itself (WP:NOTDICT). A merge to History of paper doesn't seem to be appropriate, since this article just contains a couple random little contextless factoids that wouldn't fit into the pretty well-developed history article. Even a redirect is no good per WP:FORRED. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge or Redirect and to determine what the target article should be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Merge to History of paper, some of it can be valuable to that article. We can use the summary that traces the word, the bit about the spread into Armenia and Georgia, and perhaps some from the final paragraph. —siroχo 07:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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. Looks like we're not going to get agreement on this. The merge proposal by TimothyBlue sounds promising; that discussion can happen away from this AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Pokémon and pornography
- Pokémon and pornography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There doesn't seem to be much that makes Pokémon porn a unique subject that deserves its own article. Remember Rule 34, if it exists, there is porn of it. Overwatch pornography at least has some sort of influence (whether that influence is good or bad is up to you), but this... really doesn't feel like something worth noting besides that it exists. Most of what the article discusses, furthermore, is typical pornography related things that really isn't exclusive to Pokémon (reddit communities, fanfics). The doujinshi incident might be okay to stay as an article though. NegativeMP1 09:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Anime and manga. NegativeMP1 09:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete It's mainly propped up on a few sources, and there's no indication of long term effects on most of the subjects involved. It's not a notable enough subject regarding the franchise as a whole, and the article feels like a coatrack as a result.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Meets WP:GNG with multiple sources that give significant coverage to the topic of Pokémon porn, including this Vice article, this Destructoid article giving significant coverage to both erotic Pokémon fanfics and Pokémon porn, sources discussing Pokémon parodies as a general topic such as this one and this one (especially the former), and others. Skyshifter talk 12:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Added some academic mentions. Skyshifter talk 23:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree with Skyshifter above. Other sources include:
- Rolling Stone:https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/four-ways-pokemon-go-ruined-our-lives-252143/
- AskMen:https://www.askmen.com/news/entertainment/brazzers-makes-pokemon-go-porn-parody.html
- International Business Times:https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/pokemon-go-pokeporn-searches-increase-pornhub-after-game-release-1570321
- The porn search spike from Pokemon GO is actually already mentioned in there. A bigger problem with the article as a whole is there's no overlapping tie between these other than "it exists". The individual notable elements like Gardevoir and GO can be covered in their respective articles, but trying to squeeze them into one doesn't quite work. Even in Skyshifter's addition of the Sterling Destructoid bit, the fanfiction is barely mentioned (which is part for the course for how flimsy a lot of Sterling's early articles were).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's not only "the fanfiction", points 7. and 8. talk about erotic Pokémon fanfics and Pokémon porn respectively as general topics (especially point 8. much more than 7.), I think it counts well for GNG. Skyshifter talk 00:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- Rolling Stone and Ask Men appear to be passing mentions; Ask Men might support GNG for Pornstar Go XXX Parody, but not for a general concept/genre article. International Business Times is redlisted as generally unreliable at WP:IBTIMES. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- The porn search spike from Pokemon GO is actually already mentioned in there. A bigger problem with the article as a whole is there's no overlapping tie between these other than "it exists". The individual notable elements like Gardevoir and GO can be covered in their respective articles, but trying to squeeze them into one doesn't quite work. Even in Skyshifter's addition of the Sterling Destructoid bit, the fanfiction is barely mentioned (which is part for the course for how flimsy a lot of Sterling's early articles were).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete One could apply Rule 34 to literally any topic, and it will exist. Existing doesn't mean it is notable, and a few websites making Poke-porn does not add up to a notable topic of "Pokémon and pornography". This is cruft, and synthesis as well. Zaathras (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Of course, there is Rule 34 of everything, and it wouldn't make sense to create "X and pornography" articles for everything. However, we have articles for notable examples of Rule 34, such as Overwatch and pornography and Clop (erotic fan art). Per my arguments above, Pokémon and pornography is another notable example. Skyshifter talk 23:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect Just make a section about Pokémon porn on the rule 34 page and have this redirect there. There is no need for this topic to have its own page. LordEnma8 (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete and Redirect to Rule 34 per above. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Non notable topic (notability isn't inherited). --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 16:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- Nobody said it's inherited. Skyshifter talk 23:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep. The sources I see in the article, even if news, not academic, seem to be sufficient for SIGCOV. I would like to hear more about BEFORE done in Japanese. Was it done at all? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- If someone that speaks Japanese wants to do a source search they can, but I don't speak Japanese and was limited to doing BEFORE in English, in which I found nothing. NegativeMP1 00:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Piotrus I've searched through Japanese sources on my end when working on Gardevoir and found no particular reaction for the porn as a whole. I know this article's been compared to Overwatch and pornography above, but I feel there's a stark contrast between the two for notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- I am a main author of ja:ポケモン同人誌事件 and ja:ケモナー. It is safe to assume that there is no RS in Japanese dealing with this subject. Although press articles on the Pokémon doujinshi incident might be considered an exception, these articles focus only on the specific case and do not address the relationship of Pokémon and pornography comprehensively. --Nux-vomica 1007 (talk) 05:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. I am a bit surprised but then those topics can be very under-researched (academic mentions cited seem to be mere passing mentions) or shunned by media. Nonetheless, I think there is sufficient coverage in English media (Vice, Yahoo, Daily Dot, Digital Spy, Cosmopolitan) to warrant keeping this. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- If someone that speaks Japanese wants to do a source search they can, but I don't speak Japanese and was limited to doing BEFORE in English, in which I found nothing. NegativeMP1 00:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Japan. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per above, not a notable topic. I've reviewed the sources and I doubt GNG is legitimately satisfied. I've also reviewed the arguments in favor of keeping and found them to be weak at best. -FASTILY 07:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Strong keep. The fact that Pokémon and pornography has been analyzed by academic studies is a very strong indicative that it is perfectly encyclopedic. The article itself is sufficient, at worst. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Of the three scholarly sources, the first is paywalled so I can't check it, but the second mentioned it barely in passing, while the third is about hentai as a whole and not offering discussion on the subject itself (which was also a pain due to it being in French).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:SOURCEACCESS +
WP:NONENG. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- You appear to be missing the point, you're arguing the subject was analyzed in academic sources. Of the three in the article, only one I haven't checked and the other two were not analyzing it or even actively discussing it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Of the three scholarly sources, the first is paywalled so I can't check it, but the second mentioned it barely in passing, while the third is about hentai as a whole and not offering discussion on the subject itself (which was also a pain due to it being in French).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The Vice article is a solid basis, but GNG cannot be passed with a single source. The others are fluff, listicles, trivial mentions or not specifically about the concept. I don't think it's notable as a standalone topic, though it can certainly be integrated into a Cultural impact of Pokémon article if the creator wishes to take another crack at it from a more broad perspective. I just don't think that this specific subtopic is pageworthy and there isn't any single obvious target for it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Weak Delete That articles cover taboo cultural subject matter shouldn't invalidate an article where its content establishes general notability. That said, the article is not good at maintaining focus on its subject matter and at times works as a loose repository of the various manifestations of Pokémon pornography. In the broad world of postgraduate scholarship, that the odd academic study has examined it as a phenomenon isn't a settled argument in itself. I think this article could have the potential to be self-evidently notable, but it would have to have sourced content that more clearly identifies a common thread to its community, general cultural impact, and analysis, rather than a set of loose references to various porn sites, incidents and memes related to the subject matter. VRXCES (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep As mentioned by a few users above, there have been multiple scholarly articles published focusing specifically on Pokemon rule34; the same cannot be said for the vast majority of other franchises regardless of how much pornographic content has been made for them. I feel this puts Pokemon r34 on a level of notability that merits more than just a generic r34 redirect. (This might be the weirdest topic I've ever contributed to) 134340Goat (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - The sources seem to demonstrate the topic has sufficient sigcov to rise beyond the minimal threshold for inclusion; however like ZXCVBNM, I think the topic might be better covered as a section within a "Cultural impact of Pokémon" or "Pokémon fandom" article. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 09:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'll try a second relist, otherwise this looks like No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, for now, per Salvidrim. Andre🚐 00:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Merge: a trimmed version (1-2 paragraph) to Rule 34, this seems like a fad with fad passing refs, nothing substantial that makes this notable for its own article, by WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth.
- Now I am worried that internet ads are going to start appearing for Pokémon porn. // Timothy :: talk 18:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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 Geospatial metadata#Geospatial metadata tools. Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Pycsw
- Pycsw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Pretty small open source project - its Github repo has less than 200 stars. I'm not seeing the coverage needed to justify GNG.
https://github.com/geopython/pycsw BrigadierG (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. BrigadierG (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect, possibly selective merge, to Geospatial_metadata#Geospatial_metadata_tools where it is mentioned. Because it is an Open Geospatial Consortium reference implementation project, redirecting to Open_Source_Geospatial_Foundation#Metadata_Catalog, where it is mentioned, would also be a possibility. Basic facts are verifiable in RS, e.g., [9], and it is a plausible search term. Hence a redirect that places it in context and perhaps a brief merge of verifiable facts is a reasonable and preferable alternative to deletion per our policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}
18:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)- That article is looking rather too WP:NOTDIRECTORY/WP:COATRACK already for my liking. Probably due a cleanup. BrigadierG (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several possible outcomes are mentioned here and we need a consensus for one in order to close this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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! 04:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Dell monitors
- Dell monitors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Largely unreferenced, and most of the references provided are primary sources from Dell's support site. It's probably not hard to find capsule reviews for these products, but they're largely not notable. Also, WP:NOTCATALOG; the list is just a summary of features and specifications with no establishment of notability for individual items. Mikeblas (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, Computing, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. While Dell monitors are undoubtedly notable, this runs into multiple WP:NOT problems. It's a brochure-style advertisement (NOTADVERT). And this is a true violation of NOTDIRECTORY. I don't see a path to an article without TNT. —siroχo 08:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE and there is nothing that indicates this particular brand of computer equipment is notable in its own right. Ajf773 (talk) 10:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, agree with TNT arguments under WP:NOTCATALOGUE. This article also doesn't serve a navigational purpose, since the monitors it lists don't have individual articles. DFlhb (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- DFlhb, listed items are not required to have articles nor are they required to meet the same notability requirements as standalone articles. See WP:NLIST (Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists) and WP:SELCRIT (Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria). The listed items just have to be verifiable by reliable sources as qualifying for the list.
- I find list articles great alternative to lots of individual articles. Dell comes out with a new monitor, the Dell Acme 3240, so you add it to the list (with a citations to a reliable sources). Someone wants to add a marginally acceptable article about the particular monitor - you just redirect it to the list.
- --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Naturally they're not required to have articles. I was addressing the non-notability, non-WP:NOT reason to keep: WP:SAL:
Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability
and WP:N:these requirements [...] do not, however, apply to pages whose primary purpose is navigation (e.g. all disambiguation pages and some lists)
. "Product catalogue"-type articles that just contain notable entries are typically safe from deletion for those reasons, but that's not the case here. DFlhb (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Naturally they're not required to have articles. I was addressing the non-notability, non-WP:NOT reason to keep: WP:SAL:
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Beautiful and Unemployed
- Beautiful and Unemployed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
12 episode Polish TV series. No evidence of wider impact or reception. Nominated for deletion on pl wiki. My BEFORE fails to find anything beyond the standard information summarizing plot and casting, and the usual these days "will there be a second season" stuff that might as well be AI generated. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Poland. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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 Arch Linux#Derivatives. Disregarding Mr vili's contribution, the sole argument to keep was from Astrophobe - and I find Aoidh's reply compelling. Based on this there is a consensus not to retain the article, so redirecting as suggested per ATD. Daniel (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
CachyOS
- CachyOS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability, very minimal third-party sourcing and not much in-depth coverage available. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - Article's subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, and WP:NSOFT. I have an essay on why DistroWatch is not a reliable source, and the only source that would be considered third-party in any way is this. MakeUseOf has only been discussed as a reliable source (that I can tell) here, which was not a conclusive discussion either way in terms of reliability, so for the purposes of establishing notability I'm inclined to lean towards "reliable" if only slightly. However, it is a single review, and is the only source that could be considered independent of the subject while also discussing the subject, and each of the applicable notability guidelines requires multiple reliable third-party sources at minimum. - Aoidh (talk) 06:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. I found the following seemingly independent in-depth coverage in some of the standard outlets for this sort of thing: ZDNet, Linux Insider, Computer Base, and the It's FOSS newsletter. Also something in this website that I know nothing about. At least three of these --- ZDNET, LinuxInsider, and It's FOSS --- are widely used in practice on Wikipedia, and I have no knowledge of any precedent deprecating them. Computerbase also looks like a standard software news site in Germany. They also all look independent and in-depth to me. I think GNG is satisfied with one or two independent reliable sources to spare. - Astrophobe (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think these show notability either, there are questions regarding the continued reliability of ZDNet, this is an interview and while they may be used on Wikipedia, ItsFoss and LinuxInsider are indiscriminate in which Linux distributions they will review (evidenced by their reviews being within days of each other, which is commonly an indicator of a distro asking en masse these sites to review them). WP:NSOFT is specific that the mere existence of reviews is not in itself an indication of notability unless the reviews are all reliable sources that give indication that the software is in some way notable, and the reviews don't do that. As far as WP:NCORP, these reviews are all from Linux-specific websites that generally are indiscriminate in which distro they will review (i.e. if you have one and let them know they will review it) so are narrow interest publication as described by WP:PRODUCTREV. I think at most you have one, maybe two of these reviews (ZDNet and MakeUseof) that would meet PRODUCTREV, and two reviews (at best) is not enough. I don't think five of these generic reviews would be enough, even if they were all without question suitable; it needs more than what's here to meet WP:NSOFT or WP:NCORP. - Aoidh (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Arch Linux#Derivatives as it's mentioned there. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think a redirect is a reasonable alternative to deletion. - Aoidh (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep as per User:Astrophobe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr vili (talk • contribs) 09:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. In AFDs, please avoid giving a "per X" vote and join the discussion with your independent assessment of available sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Arch Linux § Derivatives as {{r with possibilities}}, or stub and keep. It appears this is notable. ComputerBase is reliable. And while modern ZDNET is due scrutiny after being purchase by Red Ventures, the author of the piece linked above is well-cited in Wikipedia and has been covering Linux for decades, so this piece should be considered reliable. However the article has a fair bit of unabashed promo including a check-mark bullet list of buzz, and so we can't keep this without reducing it to a stub. —siroχo 08:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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 Nigerian film directors. Liz Read! Talk! 04:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Andy Chukwu
- Andy Chukwu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet notability or GNG, just a few passing mentions in small Nigerian publications Nswix (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Nigeria. Nswix (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of Nigerian actors (or directors). There are a lot of films mentioned, a lot of interviews about his films/documentaries, a lot of passing mentions/celeb news in which he is described as "Veteran actor cum director" so I wouldn't be shocked nor surprised if he is found notable enough to have a page and really am not against the idea, though. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different redirect target articles proposed. We need to get that down to one suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep has been in a fair few films and has a few articles at (small) media publications, found another potential source [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr vili (talk • contribs) 09:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Gistflare is an unreliable source. See WP:NGRS for list of reliable sources. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 09:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of Nigerian film directors: He majors mainly as a director. His acting were just minor roles. Reading Beans (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Lanser Broadcasting
- Lanser Broadcasting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I doubt a one-market (Zeeland, Michigan, near Grand Rapids) radio station owner has anywhere near the significant coverage to meet WP:CORP or GNG. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Except for some passing mentions, I could not find any results about this subject, which as a result is nowhere close to meeting either WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. User:Let'srun 14:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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 draftify. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 03:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Daria Lodikova
- Daria Lodikova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tennis player who does not satisfy general notability or tennis notability. This article is a contested draftification, which was moved from article space to draft space correctly by User:TheChunky the first time for better sources. The second draftification was technically incorrect, but was a response to the failure to provide the requested reliable sources. The one reference says that she played in the main draw of the Hong Kong Open, which is not one of the highest-level tournaments listed in the tennis notability guideline.
Reference Number | Reference | Comments | Independent | Significant | Reliable | Secondary |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | wtatennis.com | Bracket, showing that she played in the first round of doubles in the Hong Kong Open | Yes | No, a database entry | Yes | No |
- Draftify as nominator to allow time either to find coverage or for her to receive more coverage by playing in more tournaments. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Russia. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Draftify per Robert McClenon. Most likely a case of WP:TOOSOON and would be better suited for development over the following months. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 02:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment This article was draftified multiple times which is inappropriate unless it's the result of an AFD like this. I tagged the article for speedy deletion, CSD A7, because of the player's low ranking in the sport but the deletion was declined. I think it was wise to bring it to AFD for further review. Liz Read! Talk! 03:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Draftify: This article, along with some other articles created by the same user, is based on one source, which is a database entry. I felt that the article is not ready for mainspace yet, so I moved it to a draft. The creator of this article moved it to mainspace without following the AfC procedure. I reverted their edit, but by mistake, an error occurred, and in conclusion, I draftified it again. The creator again moved it to mainspace. To avoid edit warring, I added a warning on their talk page and also added a note on the article's talk page. Faced with this type of behavior by a 3 years old user with about 2000 edits, it doesn't seem good. Also, their understanding of BLP articles seems to be lacking. I suggested reviewing the other articles too. If they are good, they can be patrolled; if not, they should also be draftified. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 08:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Haven't looked in to sourcing yet (Russian sources aren't going to be easy for me to find), but to correct a misstatement in the nomination, the Hong Kong Open is one of the tournaments on the 2023 WTA Tour, so the player does meet WP:NTENNIS. Also, whoever tried to A7 this should be trouted. Iffy★Chat -- 09:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Draftify: Insufficiently referenced. Sort it out in Draft, please 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Draftify - she technically scrapes an NTNENNIS pass but I'm not seeing any evidence of WP:GNG and, in light of WP:NSPORTS2022, this is problematic. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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 draftify. ✗plicit 03:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Unofficial flags
- Unofficial flags (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article lacks sources and may involve original research. 日期20220626 (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- user:Ghren has proposed the deletion of the article on the Chinese Wikipedia for the same reason, and the Chinese Wikipedia article is translated from the English Wikipedia article. If anyone can find reliable sources, please let me know, as this might keep of the article on the Chinese Wikipedia as well. 日期20220626 (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete or Draftify. Seems like a dictionary definition, despite examples of it at the bottom. Brachy08 (Talk) 00:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Draftify - It seems like a useful article to me, but it does lack sources. Plus, it violates WP:SOURCES. We truly don't know if the information in the article is true or not, and one of the whole concepts of editing Wikipedia is to always have sources. Geko72290 (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 00:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)- In my opinion, I also feel it deserves to be blown up and redone. Brachy08 (Talk) 01:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, probably. If that's the case, community members will decide. Geko72290 (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 00:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- In my opinion, I also feel it deserves to be blown up and redone. Brachy08 (Talk) 01:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Move to draft. I have heard the expression used, but I am not a source in this field. BD2412 T 01:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Draftify While the article isnt in the best shape, this does seem somewhat useful to have.Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Politics, and Geography. Skynxnex (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete This has been around since 2005 so I'm not sure what draftifying is supposed to do. I don't believe this is a notable topic. Sure, people can make up their own flags or use them even without official adoption by a government entity, but that doesn't mean we need an article on it. At best a few sentences in Flag. Reywas92Talk 14:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Draftifying is supposed to move the article to draftspace as an AfC submission. Brachy08 (Talk) 22:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Lol I know what it means, I just don't think giving it a little longer in draftspace is actually going to result in a better article, especially if 18 years hasn't... I mean if someone really wants coverage of this topic, I don't think this is even a good starting point and they'd be better off starting from scratch or in another page. Reywas92Talk 01:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Draftifying is supposed to move the article to draftspace as an AfC submission. Brachy08 (Talk) 22:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- delete It's a dictdef and examples, and it's not even clear that it's a single coherent idea. Mangoe (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Draftify I saw this last night but waited to ivote. I first thought about sending it to article rescue but decided to wait for others to weigh in. I think sending the article to draft is a good option. If it is not improved it will be deleted in 6 months. So there is no harm in draftifying. Lightburst (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Who among you suggesting draftification is going to work on the article if that is done? The original author hasn't done any real editing in over a decade, and their last participation was to get a block (for uploading non-free material, specifically, flags) lifted. I question whether I would trust them to work on this article, but it makes no difference: they aren't going to do so. Which of you is going to take their place? I don't see pushing this off into a draft unless someone is going to feel the obligation or whatever to finish it. Mangoe (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Soft Delete as not an encyclopaedic topic. We have Category:Unofficial flags that could be used to populate a list article, as well as plenty of standalone articles about individually notable unofficial flags, like Doug flag, Flag of Antarctica, Jolly Roger, Boxing kangaroo, etc. I think Flag of Northern Ireland is a section redirect to a well-sourced notable subject. This article does a very weak attempt at introducing the idea of unofficial flags and would need to be rewritten entirely.All the sources I've been able to find about unofficial flags tend to place them in context, like a political context of separatism, independence, or resistance; or a sociological context like group solidarity (sport events, pride parades, families of prisoners of war, etc). This article doesn't talk about any of the historical, political, or sociological reasons an unofficial flag might find popular usage. Meanwhile, it dips into recreational vexillology by including flag designs "that have been published".I could see the possibility of an article about the psychological benefits of unsanctioned flags, or the art of modern flag design, or the historical use of unofficial flags in different contexts, or the history of failed flag proposals, but the article as it stands is too broad to be a single topic, and too barebones to be a starting point for anything more encyclopaedic. Folly Mox (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Interesting, although it seems to be more of a loosely-defined dictionary definition made up by the article's initial creator rather than an actual encyclopedic topic. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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 00:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Tom Bowl
- Tom Bowl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fan-created joke bowl game without sustained coverage in reliable sources. Was nominated for deletion back in 2005 and was kept as it had "at least a modicum of mainstream media coverage", however our notability requirements have become much more well-refined since then. funplussmart (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence of significant coverage and there’s lots of cruft. Also, the article needs to be blown up and rewritten to fulfil the holy manual Brachy08 (Talk) 00:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Michigan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Delete - Looks like some kind of advertisement, and lacking reliable sources as well. Plus, the article is written in third person view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geko72290 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 00:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)- Delete - No live sources come up in multiple search attempts using different search engines.--Eastview2018 (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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.