Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 18	October 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Waggers TALK 09:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

London Informer[edit]

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

I searched and think this is not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and United Kingdom. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - Agree, not notable - 17:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment in the page present state it is ofcourse delete

1keyhole (talk) 09:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bubble Man[edit]

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

No Japanese article so probably not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Japan. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The ja article is バブルマン. But the articles are in a pretty poor state so no comment on notability. Jumpytoo Talk 06:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found no indication of notability on either the English or Japanese version. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article cites zero sources (also in the Japanese version). Quick search on google.co.jp yields several non-RS hits, like this Reddit article. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Waggers TALK 09:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Walker T[edit]

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

An individual that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG. None of the sources currently in the article are valid for establishing notability, being database listings. Searches for both his stage name and real name did not turn up any significant coverage in reliable sources. The article was WP:PRODed way back in 2014 but was contested, so bringing it to AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Rorshacma (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Jamaica and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, he has 0 monthly listeners on Spotify [1]. The only link I can find is unrelated [2]. Delete for lack of sourcing; feel bad for the guy might just go give his Spotify a listen.Oaktree b (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article was created in 2014 by User:ReggaeMusicWriter, who is either Walker T himself or an associate, and that user has done nothing in Wikipedia outside of Walker T. Meanwhile, props to Walker T for proclaiming himself a "Reggae Superstar" but nobody in the reliable music media has said the same, or much else about him either. This article is clearly a promotional attempt that fell through the cracks here for a long time, but better late than never. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG quite miserably. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sounds like an interesting guy, but also an article that is primarily promotional and, more importantly, doesn't fit the guidelines for inclusion. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. The nominator has effectively withdrawn his nomination by voting keep due to the extra sources added to the article and there are no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals[edit]

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

This article has not been provided with any sources whatsoever for years. There's also no information found suitable for the article's preservation on Wikipedia. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, Christianity, Florida, and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is a mess, but the (mostly defunct) organization will continue to factor in the history of Pentecostal churches that affirm LGBT persons. I added some, but not all, of the references from scholarly sources that mention GAAAP in their studies of the topic. --

Jaireeodell (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you have referenced some feasible sources, I'd say keep. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article definitely needs more sources and a bit of work on tone but I think that due to the sources already referenced, it's kind of a big deal and could get rescued. ❤History Theorist❤ 23:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mariana Dražić[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted. Couldn't find any significant coverage from reliable sources, just passing mentions and stats. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. FatCat96 (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Tennis, and Croatia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I opened the previous AfD, but that AfD is no longer relevant as the player now passes WP:NTENNIS. Haven't had a chance to look for Croatian sources yet. Iffy★Chat -- 09:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quickly found some good looking Croatian sources that suggest this player is notable. [3] [4] [5] Iffy★Chat -- 10:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I looked for Croatian sources, but didn't find any. FatCat96 (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. Sources found. FatCat96 (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre of Muslims in Shamakhi[edit]

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

This article is largely derived from two sources: the unpublished PHD thesis of Michael A. Reynolds, an Armenian genocide denier,[6] and Jorg Baberwoski, who is also known as a WP:FRINGE falsifier of history.[7] A massacre of 30K people would have a large amount of reliable sources, but instead the subject is only mentioned among small genocide denialist circles. The article is WP:UNDUE and should be deleted. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Events, History, and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with the Armenian Genocide or related issues, so the claim of denial is unfounded and the article Massacre of Muslims in Shamakhi is a separate topic. There are also archival documents about this (I have seen some of them myself), and reliable sources are also cited in the mentioned works.

Meanwhile, Christoph Vandreier, who criticizes Jörg Baberowski himself, should not be considered a reliable source, and his problem with Jörg is not related to this topic, but rather to the left. Therefore, it is irrelevant in this case.--Qızılbaş (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has everything to do with this, because if an author like Reynolds publishes fringe narratives, they are not a reliable source. WP:PRIMARY sources are not preferable; if want they claim was true then it would've likely been repeated by many other sources a century later. Vandreier is not the only critic of Baberowski, Baberowski been faced many charges by German courts in the past which have ruled students have the right to call him a "right-wing radcial".[8] This is not the kind of source that an article can stand solely on. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into March Days: This article is the subject of a very controversial event under the AA3 sanctions. It is essentially entirely based on two sources. The first is an unpublished PHD thesis of an Armenian genocide denier, why is this relevant? Because this particular thesis is directly about the Armenian genocide and twists information in a denialist way that violates WP:FRINGE and is almost exclusively cited by Armenian genocide deniers. It is inappropriate to use an unpublished source with such fringe claims contained within it as a primary source for this article. Next, we have Baberwoski’s work, published in Russia by ROSSPEN, this particular source has been criticized by editors at the reliable sources notice board for being published in an authoritarian regime that is known for falsifying history and has poor academic standards[9], the author as mentioned above also has a history of being called out for misusing sources and outright falsifications. In such a controversial area, these being the only sources are unacceptable, especially when other more reliable sources contradict them, these events are already covered in the March Days article; I don’t see any reason to WP:POVFORK that article into this one when these events are exclusively mentioned within the context of March Days. TagaworShah (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. The sources cited in this article are simply too fringy to support the claims. Unfortunately, it remains the case that massacres of Azerbaijanis during WWI and its immediate aftermath are under-researched in sources that I would consider reliable. (t · c) buidhe 06:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TagaworShah's reasoning and research. Having this article in mainspace is clearly WP:UNDUE for what is clearly a fringe view. Cheers, Last1in (talk)

Keep the first link about Reynolds refers his interview. I watched that part and saw Reynolds doesn't even say anything that supports genocide denial. All he says is that the term genocide is not a term for historicians, but for lawmakers. The second source about Baberowski is not a reliable source. You can read more about it's talk page. There's a potential WP:BLP violation. About the argument that this article is being derived from 2 sources, I just googled and found lot's of sources(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). We just need to extend the article rather than deleting. Thanks. Aredoros87 (talk) 10:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the source you brought forward are WP:RS, they’re all published in Azerbaijan and call this event the “Şamaxı soyqırımı” which means the “Shamakhi Genocide.” That is a WP:EXTRAORDINARY and WP:FRINGE claim to label this as a genocide, none of these sources are internationally recognized as reliable. The fact that the only sources that exist are these fringe sources making extraordinary claims is even more grounds for deletion. TagaworShah (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"they’re all published in Azerbaijan": To be honest I didn't expect an editor with 2.7k edit count would make such a weak&racist comment. So do we dismiss all the books because of the locations they were printed or because of the authors' ethnicity? According to WP:RS no. I'm sure that you're aware of the books printed in Armenia and are being used on Wikipedia. Should we delete all of them now?!

call this event the “Şamaxı soyqırımı”: Neither me, nor you can give a juridistical value. The authors can not to agree with each other. But we – the editors are not subject to this. There're some sources are being used on Wikipedia calls 2023 Nagorno Karabakh clashes as a "genocide". Despite UN said that we didn't see mistreatment to the civilians and despite there was about 10 civilian casualties.

PS: I just googled for "Shamakhi massacre" Google Books. And it took a few seconds. If we would search we can find a lot of materials there.

PSS: I made my statement earlier and felt urgency to reply that groundless racist comment. I'm not willing to turn this thread into forum (see WP:NOTFORUM). Ending the conversation here. Good luck to everyone! Aredoros87 (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan is an authoritarian regime known to falsify its history, various historians with expertise in this area such as Victor Schnirelmann, Robert H. Hewsen, George Bournoutian, and many others have issued warnings about using sources published in Azerbaijan due to their misuse of primary sources and state-sponsored falsification of history (see Falsification of history in Azerbaijan). There are plenty of independent Azerbaijani researchers published in the west that constitute reliable sources, such as Arsene Saparov or Mikail Mammedov but these authors you presented do not belong in that category and are making Wikipedia:EXTRAORDINARY claims, it’s not about ethnicity, it’s about the reliability of the sources, something any editor editing under the Armenia-Azerbaijan contentious topics should understand and not cast personal attacks. I would recommend striking through those attacks. TagaworShah (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Alipoor[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Iran. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - probably delete International career in Mini football??? I don't even know what that is. I am not sure this is passable for English wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Suitskvarts (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Although we'd like to see more contributors to these discussions to ensure a decent community consensus, this has been open for 3 weeks with nobody at all arguing for the article to be kept. Waggers TALK 09:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kivika A Achumi[edit]

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

PROD removed, so here we are. I could not find substantial, non-promo coverage for this individual. Notability seems to hang on the large number of Youtube views. Oaktree b (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nagaland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Five hits in Gnews, simply confirming appearances at various events. Nothing we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Discussions on merging Rahul Ligma into this page should be made in a new merge discussion. (non-admin closure) Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 15:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ligma joke[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG, there's no significant coverage of the joke itself, only instances involving its use with celebrities. Every little meme does not need to have its own article. Could possibly be merged and redirected to List of Internet phenomena. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Internet. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Reference 2 is the closest to a reliable source on the subject, but is really just confirming it exists. So I don't think there is much if any significant secondary coverage in RS. And Wikipedia shouldn't be an archive documenting everything that ever existed on the internet. If it were important there would be reliable secondary sources. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV easily and coverage from 2018-2022 meets WP:SUSTAINED. Much of the material in this article had previously been in the Rahul Ligma article as background information to help the WP:READER have context. I would not have voted to split this off to its own page, but the nominator wanted that background material removed. What might be the best presentation is to have the Rahul Ligma be a section in this page, but first this one has to survive AfD. As page creator(s). BBQboffin (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it has passed little meme status and coverage is notable for some scenarios, which is usually sufficient for article status toobigtokale (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BBQboffin --(Roundish ✡t) 19:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To List of Internet phenomena. WP:GNG has not been demonstrated, and the keep arguments so far amount to WP:ITSPOPULAR. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSPOPULAR is a policy about subjects which might have spread by word of mouth but for which there are no reliable sources. When a subject like this one has WP:SIGCOV in WP:THREE reliable sources like the Daily Dot[10], The Verge[11], and Snopes[12], you'll need a different rationale for deleting it. BBQboffin (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough of the sources are detailed coverage of the meme itself, or describe the meme in significant detail while covering incidents with its use (which are also covered in the article), that this easily passes WP:GNG. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see one source that is directly about the meme itself, dictionary.com, and WP:NOTDICT applies. The rest, as you mention, are all about its use in incidents with celebrities, and notability is not inherited by simply being affiliated with a few famous people. If we added an article for every meme that a few notable people used at one point or another, we would be well into WP:INDISCRIMINATE territory. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The dictionary.com source is a article written by a staff writer about the meme which provides history and context; it's not a crowdsourced urban dictionary entry. As for celebrities, the Dean Miller article[13] does not mention any celebrities, but chronicles how the joke/meme became a 2021 hoax about it being a variant of Covid-19. BBQboffin (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was. And that Lead Stories article is primarily about Danny Hellman's use of the joke rather than the joke itself, so it falls into the same category as the rest. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But Danny Hellman is no celebrity; we have him as "a freelance illustrator and cartoonist". You said there are "only instances involving its use with celebrities", and this reference contradicts that. Perhaps it was not yet part of the article at the time of your nomination. BBQboffin (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semantics. Celebrity/famous person/notable person, all the same. I think it's reasonably clear what I meant. Let's not draw this out unnecessarily, we've both said our piece. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree on what constitutes significant coverage vs. passing mentions. As an example, the Daily Dot source about the Ninja death hoax is about that hoax, but that hoax is based on the meme and the article also describes it pretty thoroughly, or as thoroughly as you'd expect for a topic like this (a joke where the receiver is expected to ask what it means). Narcity, Eurogamer, Lead Stories, and The Verge coverage of the Ninja hoax are all the same - articles about people being fooled by hoaxes based in this same meme. The other Verge piece on Rahul Ligma and the Snopes debunking are both passing mentions for sure, but still demonstrate the meme's sustained cultural impact over a significant time period (at least 2018-2022), and the sources all together tell the story of a meme that's been deployed in at least five entirely separate hoaxes, counting the Jimmy Fallon death hoax in late 2022 as reported by HITC. And besides the sources already in the article: TurboFuture has a detailed description of the meme itself written in 2023 (but the site is blacklisted, I'm not sure why); OpIndia has a detailed article about the meme written in 2022 (also blacklisted); The Sun has one that describes the meme before the hoax; Otakukart has one that only describes the meme being used on TikTok (this was written last week; I don't know about the source's reliability); and then there are sources that genuinely describe the fictional disease ([14], [15], [16]) which aren't suitable as sources but demonstrate the meme's ongoing impact, as well as being good examples of why we have higher standards for medical sources. Even if all of these are "only instances involving its use with celebrities", they cover enough separate incidents of the same meme being used over an extended period of time to demonstrate sustained notability. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BBQboffin, Ligma is a notable part of internet culture and definitely deserves to have its own article. In addition, all sources in the article are suitable for Wikipedia. There is no reason for deletion. EditorEpic (talk) 9:45, October 19, 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is enough signficant coverge to establish notability. -- Mike 🗩 19:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; as much as I dislike it, there's coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stupid, but notable. Suitskvarts (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And after Wikipedia does its $1 Billion name change[17], articles that aren't about male genitals will be nominated for deletion, so we better save all the ones we can now! BBQboffin (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Wemple[edit]

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

Violation of WP:BLP. Unsure if 'won significant critical attention' (WP:POET) is covered by the Naomi Long Madgett Poetry Award and the Pushcart Prize nomination - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 19:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Poetry, and United States of America. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 19:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unsure of the awards, perhaps not notable. Would being the editor of an anthology book (that's been reviewed) fix notability issues: [18]? He's listed here as a notable anthologist [19] Oaktree b (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmation of one of the awards mentioned [20] and some talk about him here [21] but I can't open both items in my location due to Google not liking my location. Oaktree b (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Hope for more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would concur that the "Naomi Long Madgett Poetry Award" isn't notable as searches almost exclusively lead to the prize's namesake. The Pushcart prize is a little more ambiguous, however I'm also inclined to say that it doesn't fulfill "significant critical attention" as most coverage I've been able to find is about the prize itself and not the winners. And, for what it's worth, the user that created the page has a username that is shared with the article subject. That, combined with the fact that the only edit on its history is the creation of the page makes me question if the editor has any WP:COI - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 16:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mesivta Birkas Yitzchok[edit]

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

Notability not demonstrated. Likely CoI or promo and other edits adding uncited content seem to potentially have a close connection as well. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Judaism, and California. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Scattered mentions of the institution in six hits in Gnews, mostly name drops. What's used for sourcing in the article isn't helpful. This is the best in a RS I could find, but it's simply a rating [22]. Gsearch goes straight to the school's website. All totaled up, nothing we can use for reliability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renzo García[edit]

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

Seems to be a case of WP:REFBOMBING. Several references, but none of them seem to cover the biographee with any depth. The same article was twice deleted from Spanish Wikipedia. Rkieferbaum (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Colombia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Scattered mentions of the person, seems to be PROMO as they're running for mayor. Doesn't seem to pass notability for academics either. Reads like an extensive resume Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b. The article reads like campaign literature and the subject lacks WP:SIGCOV. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of WP:RS to ensure notability. Suitskvarts (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ largely based on lack of participation. 4meter4's comment on 22 October remains unrefuted. No prejudice to renomination if someone wishes to do so, although they would probably need to refute 4meter4's comment as part of their nomination. Daniel (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Rude Gesture: A Pictorial History[edit]

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

Believe this article is never likely to meet the notability criteria for music publications at WP:NMUSIC, being a minor single

Better merging any info up to band page. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 11:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about the other singles that are still pages? I've made similar edits to the ones that are still there. And if there's a different criteria for WP:NMUSIC then can you point them out? I'll take a look. TTrentham (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read it and I see the criteria that you're using. But if that's the case, then I guess I'm arguing for consistency. And I don't really want to do that because I don't agree with it. Why is this policy in place? It's effectively saying that there is never going to be a page dedicated to a single unless it's REALLY popular. And I'm not sure I can even understand what "REALLY" is defined as based on the criteria that are listed. TTrentham (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, who's going to go through and delete ALL of the articles that exist that don't meet that criteria? There have to be quite a few, not just for Shellac. TTrentham (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that's the implication, but this article clearly doesn't meet policy.

I don't really see that almost any single would be notable enough for it's own article, especially for minor bands.

Really should just be for those with a particular impact.

As for the others, we can only solve one article at a time OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 16:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can solve the inconsistency for all of Shellac's singles. It's just a few. It's no big deal one way or the other to me. I was interested in getting involved and I just happened to look this single up and wondered why it didn't have a page when the other two from the same era did. I can do the opposite and request that we delete the other ones if that's the policy that Wikipedia is enforcing now. Clearly it wasn't when those were written. TTrentham (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
review from Punk Planet and the already present AllMusic review may be enough to keep this. Didn't find much else, though there's also this brief mention which would make for a good pullquote. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in hopes of having more editor's evaluate the article and its sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. In addition to the two critical reviews (All music cited in the article and the Punk Planet review provided above), there is also coverage in Peter Buckley, ed. (2003). The Rough Guide to Rock. Rough Guides. p. 930. ISBN 9781843531050. in which there is some commentary on the single as well as a claim that the song topped the Billboard Indie chart. The song is also included in a list of "Important 7 in. Releases" in Andrew Earles (2014). Gimme Indie Rock: 500 Essential American Underground Rock Albums 1981-1996. Voyageur Press. p. 393. ISBN 9781627883795. There is also some commentary on the song in Colin Larkin, ed. (2006). "Shellac". The Encyclopedia of Popular Music. MUZE. p. 1970. and Colin Larkin, ed. (2000). "Shellac". The Virgin Encyclopedia of Nineties Music. Virgin Records. p. 352. ISBN 9780753504277. Was a proper WP:BEFORE done?4meter4 (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

J. L. Langley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Under-referenced BLP for over a decade, fails WP:NAUTHOR. The AfD from 2010 was started by a sock and closed as a speedy keep. Regardless, AfD has changed since then and I don't think the arguments in the keep votes-- that her work has been translated into other languages, or that some non-RS websites have reviewed her books, hold up now and days. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Arts, Literature, and Sexuality and gender. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with DGG :-( that it's a sign of notability, but the sourcing I can find doesn't back it up. It's all social media and other non RS. Star Mississippi 02:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also agree with DGG (may he rest in peace) that having a novel translated into another language is a sign of nobatiblity. However, to prove notability we need significant coverage from independent, reliable sources, which I cannot find. -- Mike 🗩 19:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I feel like this individual should be notable, but I can't find much. [23] is a match on the name, but I'm unsure if it's the same person... One of the books is mentioned here [24], but it's basically a plot summary. Oaktree b (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even using ""J. L. Langley" romance novel review" all I get are links to buy the book or reviews on user generated sites. Nothing we'd use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I ran into the same @Oaktree b. Something should exist, but it does not appear to. Star Mississippi 01:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] is definitely a different JL Langley -- digging up wayback archives of the author's site, we're looking for a woman from Texas, not a man from California, and probably younger. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful delete. It looks like this author is pretty open that she also writes under the name Jeigh Lynn, so any sources for that author or those books could support this article too. But, I can't find anything at Kirkus or Booklist for either name, which is usually a "gimme" for reviews. I found an archive of her author site, which is usually a good source of breadcrumbs for RS because authors like to quote from good reviews, but no dice. I feel like this is an awkward blind spot for wikipedia in general: genre writers with meaningful audiences (see, e.g., this thread of people wondering about her) and even formal publishers, but no RS because reviewing in this genre happens in blogs rather than magazines. I'm not sure where Long and Short Reviews falls in terms of being "a blog" versus "an online magazine" -- unlike the others I found, it doesn't call itself a blog, it has an editorial team, they are selective in what they review, etc. But that's the best sourcing I was find for JL Langley or Jeigh Lynn. And I can't convince myself it's enough. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asaad Babiker[edit]

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

The subject plays in the Finnish third division. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources to meet WP:GNG. I did find this short article, which is not independent of the subject. JTtheOG (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Finland. JTtheOG (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Babiker does most likely have coverage in Arabic speaking media, being an Egyptian player abroad, and having played for a top division club. I will look for any sources I can find when I am home. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Babiker is not notable, could not find anything in Arabic media besides a couple of mentions of him being an expatriate and some Facebook links. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Changing my vote to draftify as Babiker, while currently not notable, is still on the fringe of Finnish first division side Lahti, is only twenty years old, and is performing well for the reserve team (1 goal in ~3 games as a winger). Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sudan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - could potentially become notable in the near future Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Marvel Comics characters: B. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beetle (comics)[edit]

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

Only non-primary source is from screenrant, a content farm. Also mostly a plot summary. Industrial Insect (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. Industrial Insect (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: B in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: B in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on improvements made to sourcing in this article. BOZ (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. What improvements (BOZ?). This is just a plot summary and list of appearances. Fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to know the improvements, @BOZ: can explain it to you? --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Piotrus. Fails WP:GNG without any real world analysis in reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I copied content from Abner Jenkins and Janice Lincoln. What do you think about merging these articles with this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higher Further Faster (talk • contribs)
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: B#Beetle, fails WP:GNG: no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Mika1h (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Welsh law#Wales-only laws. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wales-only laws[edit]

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

Poor quality article, mostly talking about a single law (Welsh Language Act 1993), no sources cited (other than the law). Content is already covered at Welsh law. Elshad (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there are other laws passed by Westminster which exclusively affect Wales. If there are, I think it's a valid WP:LISTPURP-NAV. I think it should go without saying that a list of one item is not a list though, and any argument to the contrary is WP:TOOSOON... BrigadierG (talk) 12:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Welsh law#Wales-only laws, if it is covered there for now, can suit being a redirect. However, there is a Category:Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom concerning Wales, and if this is the same laws, then per WP:TNT a more extensive article could be made then (I would also consider Keep), as quality is not exactly a WP:DELREASON. However, oppose full deletion. Dank Jae 12:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Redirect. The topic is relevant to Welsh/British politics/law so including it somewhere is useful and redirecting ensures that people searching for "Wales-only laws" will come across it. Horarum (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the aforementioned page. Suitskvarts (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Once Upon a Time in Hollywood#The Films of Rick Dalton. RL0919 (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Films of Rick Dalton[edit]

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

This is a speculative article about an unpublished book. It appears to be mainly WP:OR and WP:SYNTH Rvert (talk) 04:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now to Quentin Tarantino#Books or to Once Upon a Time in Hollywood#The Films of Rick Dalton until publication details are confirmed, which includes the title (is it not The Man Who Would Be McQueen: The Films cf Rick Dalton, after all?). There are too many reliable sources that deal with this upcoming (or not) book to simply delete the page, I find. PS- Also, I would recommend re-redirecting Rick Dalton, which redirects to the page, to Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - It likely will be notable in the future, even if it is not notable now. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No point in moving to draft, unless it is clear notability-proving sources are going to be available within six months. Redirect is more likely to preserve the material. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~If the consensus is to redirect, then it should be to Quentin Tarantino's unrealized projects#The Films of Rick Dalton where the info already exists.~~ Agreed, Rick Dalton, should redirect to Once Upon a Time in Hollywood Rvert (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Done -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors have agreed that redirecting is the best outcome, but it isn't clear where the redirect should target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could see this as a brief subsection in the article about the first film, most is speculative in non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The first film"? You mean Once Upon a Time in Hollywood? The Films of Rick Dalton is a book. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Once Upon a Time in Hollywood#The Films of Rick Dalton - While there are a couple of possible targets, its section in the article for the film the book was spun out from makes the most sense to me, as it provides the most context for what the book actually is meant to be. If the book is eventually released and becomes notable enough to be covered in its own article, then it really needs to be reworked quite a bit from this current attempt, which has way to much in-universe cruft. Rorshacma (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am persuaded by the above analysis and have put a strikethrough on my earlier suggestion to help achieve a clearer consensus. Therefore the redirect target should now be Once Upon a Time in Hollywood#The Films of Rick Dalton. Rvert (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If User:Oinkers42 considers agreeing with that, and assuming Oaktree b indeed meant what I think he meant (see above), it seems a consensus has been reached. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

J.A.M. Awards[edit]

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

Non-notable. Sources include dead links and 404 errors. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 19:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 19:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Music. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to have been a single year concert. With the periods, I don't see this as helpful redirect to the artist, but wouldn't oppose one if consensus forms. Star Mississippi 02:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

USCIS processing times[edit]

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

Not notable enough for a standalone article. Proposed to be deleted. If there's disagreement, it can also be merged into United States Citizenship and Immigration Services or Immigration to the United States or something. NM 19:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NM 19:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Additionally, parts of this read like a guide. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 16:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of crossings of the River Thames. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Water Eaton House Bridge[edit]

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

Nothing on the page to show that it meets the notability criteria. Footbridges are marked on maps but that doesn't make them notable. JMWt (talk) 08:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 08:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is clearly notable in the context of the local area and in terms of crossings of the Thames and so should not be straight deleted. Merging to be part of a larger article is the obvious alternative, but it's not immediately clear what the target would be as it crosses the border between two parishes and communities and so does not fit cleanly in either. Possibly it could be moved to Water Eaton, Wiltshire a former settlement now just a farm (c.f. Latton, Wiltshire#Eysey) which it is already partly about (the manor and weir). attests also. It could be merged to a section at Latton, Wiltshire but I favour that less as it isn't in that parish. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely in favour of a merge as opposed to outright deletion. I'll have a look if I get the chance for newspaper sources. Garuda3 (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "clearly notable in the context of the local area" specifically with reference to the notability criteria, please? JMWt (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the notability criteria are to establish which topics should have stand-alone articles, and I agree this does not meet that threshold. However there does exist subjects, and this is an example, that are not notable enough for a standalone article, but are notable enough that they should be included as part of an article about a larger topic. Members of notable finite sets (in this case crossings of the River Thames), even if not notable themselves, should be mentioned somewhere and the title should be a blue link. Thryduulf (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of crossings of the River Thames. No evidence of notability, but a useful redirect especially for navigation templates. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose this, although I do think merging the content somewhere would be better. Thryduulf (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of crossings of the River Thames. If there are multiple significant sources covering the manor house site that could be covered elsewhere independent of this discussion, but that and the weir seem totally irrelevant to the footbridge. The source there is [25] which doesn't seem particularly significant for inclusion here.Reywas92^Talk 19:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Split between merge and redirect with two possible targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of crossings of the River Thames#Oxford to Cricklade as this is the section in which the bridge is listed. It's the title we're redirecting not the content. As User:Reywas92 points out most of the article content is not about the bridge. The content could be merged to Latton, Wiltshire as current mapping of civil parish boundaries shows the bridge and farmhouse to be wholly within this parish — the article looks to be referencing two Church of England ecclesiastical parishes. Rupples (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just found this source which has a paragraph on the bridge.[26] Rupples (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of American collegiate athletic stadiums and arenas[edit]

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

This article is effectively a duplicate of List of NCAA Division I FBS football stadiums and List of NCAA Division I FCS football stadiums. The generic title of the list suggests the intention is for it to cover stadiums and arenas for all sports at all levels of college athletics. Such a list would be too large to be practical. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed per nom. Only football stadiums currently listed and its too clunky/long already without basketball, baseball or other sports as well. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, redundant to those pages and otherwise too broad. Reywas92^Talk 20:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject is far too broad for a standalone article. User:Let'srun 02:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as blatant hoax by User:Bbb23‎-- Mike 🗩 20:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Lukinson[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. A WP:BEFORE search did not provide evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Annh07 (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - long-term abuse. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Alexander Lukinson. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-I can't find anything about "Alexander Lukinson" being an actor anywhere on the internet. And also see the above comment.

MaximumCruiser2 🚢 (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for speedy deletion per "long-term abuse" MaximumCruiser2 🚢 (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Van Buskirk[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:BIO. A WP:BEFORE search turned up only press releases, social media, alumni coverage from her alma maters, and an interview on Quartz [27]. Couldn't find secondary coverage about her winning the Stevie Award. Draft:Jennifer Van Buskirk was speedied G11 on 8 Oct, and the article creator is a WP:SPA, with COI evident in the edit history and the promotional photo uploaded by article creator as own work. Wikishovel (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. Wikishovel (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Georgia (U.S. state), Texas, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SpiralScouts International[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Scouting and Paganism. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn with no deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Mark (2012 film)[edit]

(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) 17:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, found this review [28]. Not sure of the reliablity consensus of the site however. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Carpenter, Edwin L. "The Mark". The Dove Foundation. Archived from the original on 2023-10-20. Retrieved 2023-10-20.
  The review notes: "This movie has a strong faith-based message and points to Christ as mankind’s future and only hope. It should be noted that there are moments of strong violence in the film including people being shot and a couple of characters display very bloody wounds and the blood flows on their clothes and on a man’s hands. A woman is shot too but it is not shown in a graphic manner. There are a lot of fights and punching and kicking and guns held on people as well as a knife. Several people do die. Despite the violent moments there are strong themes of faith so we are awarding our Faith Based Seal to the movie with a caution for violence."
2. "The Mark". Movieguide. Archived from the original on 2023-10-20. Retrieved 2023-10-20.
  The review notes: "The Mark is an action packed thriller. The characters are poorly developed, but the production design is very good, giving it a realistic feel that makes it quite suspenseful. It has a strong Christian worldview about forgiveness, redemption and following God’s plan for our life. There are scenes of both prayer and conversion. There is some action violence with shooting and some blood, so a light caution is recommended."
3. "The Mark". Filmausweider: Das Splattermovies Magazin (in German). 2013. Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Google Books.
  The review notes: "Und das kann man so auch Alles locker auf,,The Mark" übertragen. Zwar fängt der Film von James Chankin, sogar noch halbwegs subtil, als überaus billiger Allein-gegen-Alle-Actioner a la,, Passagier 57" an, doch schon, wenn im dystopischen Vorspann von Christen in Gefahr gequatscht wird und wenn eine Reporterin die Bibel ins Spiel bringt, dürfte beim minderbemitteltsten Videothekengänger das erste Stirnrunzeln auftreten. Und da hat man gerade die ersten 10 Minuten hinter sich gebracht! Doch keine Sorge, die Gespräche über Gott, Christentum und die Bibel zu den unpassendsten Augenblicken nähmen im Laufe des Films inflationär zu, und schaffen es dann auch in regelmäßigen Abständen, die ohnehin seltsam anmutende Handlung. nicht nur in Lächerliche zu ziehen, sondern auch noch gehörig auszubremsen. Aber das ist ohnehin nicht so schlimm, wie Das, was in der Mitte folgt. Denn spätestens, wenn in der Mitte die Entrückung kommt und auf ..."
  From Google Translate: "And all of that can easily be transferred to "The Mark". James Chankin's film starts out, even somewhat subtly, as an extremely cheap solo-against-all actioner a la "Passenger 57", but it does , when the dystopian opening credits talk about Christians in danger and when a reporter brings the Bible into play, the first thing the least wealthy video store visitor is likely to do is frown. And you've just finished the first 10 minutes! But don't worry, the conversations about God, Christianity and the Bible at the most inappropriate moments increase exponentially over the course of the film, and then at regular intervals they create the already strange plot. Not only to make people look ridiculous, but also to really slow them down. But that's not as bad as what follows in the middle anyway. Because at the latest when the rapture comes in the middle and..."
4. Tyrkus, Michael J., ed. (2017). VideoHound's Golden Movie Retriever 2011: The Complete Guide to Movies on VHS, DVD, and Hi-Def Formats. Farmington Hills, Michigan: Gale. p. 688. ISBN 978-1-4103-1643-1. ISSN 1095-371X. Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Internet Archive.
  The review notes: "The Mark 2012. So the world is on the verge of economic collapse and ex-soldier Chad Turner is the unexpected guinea pig who's implanted with a biometric chip that's supposed to be explained at the G-20 summit. Naturally, there are bad guys who want the chip and they hijack the plane Chad is on, fighting and stuff follows. Pretty reporter Dao says the chip is evil because there are strange faith-based elements mixed in with the action, but the plot doesn't make that much sense anyway. 98m/C; DVD. Craig Sheffer; Eric Roberts; Gary Daniels; Ivan Kamaras; Sonia Couling; D: James Chankin W: Leland Jourdan; C: Wych Kaos; M: Edwin Wendler."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Mark to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw per Cunard’s contribution. The Film Creator (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crying Wolf[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 16:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Animal, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Environment, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:NFILM. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 17:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I could not find coverage in reliable sources in my searches for sources. The film does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. RL0919 (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Fingleton[edit]

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

Article created by a WP:SPA whose only other edits are to the article on the subject's brother. All sources are primary. I found one substantive independent RS that could be used: https://www.donegaldaily.com/2019/10/06/a-special-sean-fingleton-art-collection-opens-at-lyit-picture-special/ - but this is, right now, a directory entry, and I don't see how to make it more than that. Maybe others can find some actual sources, rather than catalogue entries? Guy (help! - typo?) 16:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ARTIST 4(d), having works in major collections, as I already stated ten years ago when I unprodded this; my unprod edit summary appears not to have been noticed by the nominator. Creation by an SPA is not a valid deletion criterion. From the article: Two of his works are in the collection of the Irish Museum of Modern Art. His painting, Coastal Scene, is part of the European Parliament art collection in Strasbourg. The source links have gone stale but searching his name on their sites verifies these claims. Additionally, the resulting page on the European collection site [29] provides in-depth material about the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ARTIST, also member of Aosdána and previously received a GPA Award - Alison ^talk 18:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ARTIST (both exhibitions and awards) and above comments - and as a member of the national academy, Aosdána (a few hundred from thousands of Irish artists). Can use improvement, sure, but I see no good grounds for deletion. SeoR (talk) 00:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ARTIST per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programs broadcast by TV One (Pakistan)#Drama series. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anjaane Nagar[edit]

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

No WP:SIGCOV, all the references are about Haseena Moin. Fails WP:GNG ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 15:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and Pakistan. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 15:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by TV One (Pakistan)#Drama series, where it is listed as Anjanay Nagar.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All-American Amateur Baseball Association[edit]

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

This amateur baseball organization fails to satisfy WP:NSPORT. There is no indication of significant independent coverage of the organization. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Baseball, and Pennsylvania. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United States of America, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this isn't even a league, it's just an organization that holds an annual tournament. Spanneraol (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not pass WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. User:Let'srun 03:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Law & Order characters. RL0919 (talk) 11:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Fontana (Law & Order)[edit]

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

Sources in the article are primary, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of Law & Order characters. Spinixster (chat!) 13:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 13:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as plot summaries cited only to primary sources (for 18.05 years!) do not an article make. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Law & Order characters. I concur with the above arguments except redirects are WP:CHEAP, no need to hard delete this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't have enough reliable coverage to pass the WP:GNG. A redirect is cheap. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Law & Order characters per Piotrus. BD2412 T 15:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. Consensus appears to suggest that the article needs work, but may merit a legitimate article in the future. Moved to draft rather than userify due to the creator requesting additional help from others. A strong indication has appeared that it will need a large re-write prior to being acceptable. (non-admin closure) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 20:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The State of Non-timber Forest Resources in Nigeria[edit]

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

I was about to try and rescue the article by cleaning up the prose and performing a page move to a more encyclopedic title, but I found that all of the citations are generic and not specific to Nigeria. I'm getting the sense this is an AI generated essay and the content uses a very large amount of filler. I don't think there is much actual usable content here. Even the images are generic. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 15:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but WP:TNT. A few of the sources cited are legitimately about Nigerian non-timber forest resources. Therefore this is a topic that has attention in secondary sources, so notability is met. But the article is ultra-general, with essentially nothing in it that is Nigeria-specific or even Nigeria-related. It does read like it was AI written, although the references I checked are real so at least it's not a hoax. But as it stands this article is not adding anything to Wikipedia. I could also support draftify. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt, the article is my very first, and I think that in my attempt to adhere to the given guidelines for a standard article, I have somehow constrained the write-up. I guess I was overly cautious about it sounding like my personal take on the issue. Basically, it's a well-thought-out research, so the citations are not all generic. Over 70% of them are specific to Nigeria, and those that are not, tend to support ideas or facts that are generic to Non-Timber Forest Resources (NTFRs). Yes, some of the images are generic because I wouldn't upload images for which I have no license. To provide visual aids, I imported images from Wikimedia Commons, which has a free use license and very closely associated with the Nigerian system.

Fact is, the article is not yet complete. I was still researching journals to draft other sub-topics that would present the current state of NTFRs in Nigeria as the present is an overview of the topic, then I saw the banners. So, if I may request, Can I move it to my sandbox, take some days to rewrite and make the necessary adjustments to the article? Of course, with your help if you're willing. Thanks.

~~~~ Geospatial John (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy userfy per creator request above. Folly Mox (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Al-Zakrouti[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC, even when searching in Arabic. I can't find anything outside of database sources and Wikipedia mirrors. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

St Joseph's Primary School, Mysore[edit]

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

Unreferenced. Primary schools are rarely notable and this one fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Karnataka. LibStar (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 15:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom NM 19:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fernandes Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Two sources is not enough to show WP:GNG or WP:NORG and a search for sources turned up partial matches of other companies, an Indian business of the same name, unreliable sources etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and South America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A search on "fernandes soft drinks" yields plenty of hits. The products are popular in Dutch-speaking markets, so English speakers might have a bit of trouble with sources, but we should not be prejudiced in favor of products popular with English speakers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueMoonlet (talk • contribs) 17:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Search hits are not evidence of WP:GNG or WP:NORG, as again what comes up is unreliable sources searching "fernandes soft drinks" yields sites which sell said drinks which are not WP:RS. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find anything meeting WP:ORGCRIT.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find anything meeting WP:ORGCRIT. Even if there were reliable media mentions about its products, then the page should be about the product, not the company.Topjur01 (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 11:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dhanesh MC[edit]

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

Stats stub with no obvious claim to notability. In my searches, I found a passing mention in The Hard Tackle but we need something way better than this for WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

British Society for Ethical Theory[edit]

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

No independent RS on the page to show that the GNG is met. It is not clear why this particular academic society should be considered notable. JMWt (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Organizations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bilifang Nazary[edit]

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

This goalkeeper played a couple of games over a decade ago and then seemingly disappeared. I can't find any evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC from searches or from the current article, which includes some references that don't mention Nazary/Narzary. The best sources found were The Hard Tackle, which is a trivial mention about making the 'save of the week', and Live Indian Football, which has 2 sentences on him regarding turning a loan move to ONGC permanent. Neither of these are examples of significant coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Assam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daroga Prasad Rai College[edit]

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

Lack of non-primary sources, fails WP:GNG Sohom (talk) 09:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bihar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Hotel (California)[edit]

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

Seems to be written as guff, nothing to suggest why this is considered notable compared to all other b&b hotels. There are a few review articles I've found, but these seem to me to read like advertorial (and/or using uncited material from en.wiki) JMWt (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks OK to me. Pinging article's creator Missvain. Not sure what nominator means by "guff", but perhaps article creator can add enough to save this. — Maile (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has plenty of sources, including some noteworthy travel guides, and a bit of searching also turned up a recent in-depth profile in a Bay Area lifestyle publication. It's also been a hotel since the 19th century, which is a lot longer than the average B&B (in North America at least). There's some fluff in the article that should be trimmed, but AfD isn't cleanup. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a historic building comparable to other historic buildings listed at Category:Bed_and_breakfasts_in_California. If it was a newer building then obviously no. 5Q5|^✉ 10:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I'm closing this as Keep based on the sources newly found and also the work done on the article by the nominator. I understand if these additions are not considered sufficient, there might be a further visit to AFD but given this particular discussion, I see a consensus to Keep the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth, Lady Thurles[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All the mentions of the subject in the cited reliable sources in the Wikipedia article are trivial. I tried find to additional sources. There seems to be no monograph for the subject anywhere and surely neither in the Dictionary of National Biography (DNB), nor the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB), nor the Dictionary of Irish Biography (DIB). She is mentioned in genealogical sources such as Burke, Debrett and Cokayne. She is mainly known as the mother of James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormond and therefore mentioned in works about him. All these mentions are trivial. On the other hand the article was created in 2012 and has survived until now. I wonder on which merit. Johannes Schade (talk) 07:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, Ireland, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is difficult to find independent sources about women of this period. It is not unusual for details to be drawn from articles about male relatives. Further inline citations would make for improvement.--Ipigott (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The same WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and in this case WP:BASIC criteria apply to women as to men. She married and had children, but that does not make her notable. Johannes Schade (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wikipedia has a long practice of articles on mothers of political figures. Martha Ellen Young Truman is of an era when a woman's main claim to fame was who they gave birth to. In her case, future US President Harry Truman. Many of the same are at Category:Mothers of presidents of the United States. And articles on the mothers of political leaders are not limited to US famous mothers. The hand that rocked the cradle is the same hand that raised a political leader. — Maile (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Maile since you are an administrator, your intervention probably is a final decision on the matter. However, how can being the mother of somebody well-known make a woman notable if WP:INVALIDBIO says "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A"? With all respect due, Johannes Schade (talk) 07:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Schade, I'm not intervening here. I was only adding my input, which here carries no more weight than anyone else who posts here. On something like this, an admin is only adding one more opinion. An un-involved editor will eventually close this AFD, based on all the input above. Your individual input carries just as much weight as anyone else who posts here. — Maile (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it appears more sources WP:NEXIST to help develop the article and support notability, e.g. via GBooks, Writings on Irish History 1996, Irish Committee of Historical Sciences, p. 70: "Elizabeth, Lady Thurles her ancestory and her role in the Rebellion of 1641. In Thurles : the cathedral town, pp 41-5 (1989)." And in "Female alliances in Cromwellian Ireland: the social and political network of Elizabeth Butler, marchioness of Ormonde" (her daughter-in-law), Irish Historical Studies (2021), 45 (167), 22–42), a footnote at p. 42 includes: "On Lady Thurles’ experiences, see O’Dowd, ‘Women and war’, p. 105", and this source also mentions her in context at p. 41. "The Poyntz Family of Acton" by the Poyntzpass and District Local History Society (JSTOR) is not easily accessible but may also have further information and context. Beccaynr (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Maile66. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Bühler[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the notability criteria for track athletes at WP:NTRACK - which may or may not be depreciated but there's nothing to suggest the WP:GNG is met either. JMWt (talk) 07:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Germany. JMWt (talk) 07:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option screener[edit]

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

No real refs on the page for many years. Agree with the hathote from 2014 that it sounds like an essay and no significant improvement for a long time. It needs WP:TNT until someone can rewrite it in an encyclopedic way JMWt (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Economics. JMWt (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This software appears to have shifted to various apps now [30] but sourcing is very much PR items and crypto blogs. Oaktree b (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As the OP author, this article really shouldn't have been written. Kill it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronnotel (talk • contribs) 20:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC) Comment moved from above debate header post-close by Daniel.[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 23:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Mascot[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:BIO: CEO of a startup, and in a WP:BEFORE search the best I could find was this interview in a RS (but interviews are a primary source) and an article about his company in TechCrunch, a source for which WP:TECHCRUNCH says "may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for the purpose of determining notability". None of this amounts to SIGCOV or WP:GNG. Wikishovel (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Wikishovel (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or draftify): I must admit, I would have probably just moved this back to drafts and declined at AfC, but the OP is right that if a BEFORE finds nothing amounting to notability, then draftifying would only buy time in the hope that more and better sources show up. I'm okay with either deleting or draftifying, but one or the other it must be, as this cannot stay in the main space as it is. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftifying would only create more work for volunteers; the creator would probably move it back to mainspace and we would still have a second nom. My thoughts. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 08:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article content is more about his Curacel Systems start-up than about the person, but retitling / reframing as an article about the company wouldn't work as it is non-notable. Considered as a biographical article, his education and prior roles in sales, and present start-up role are not indicative of attained encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator's rationale. Subject is yet to garner in-depth coverage. Clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I'd redirect to a new article about the company Curacel, which seems to have limited coverage; any mention of this person is always in relation to the company. Oaktree b (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Curacel does not meet WP:NORG. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article creator has belatedly declared COI [31], following an attempted move of the article to draft. Wikishovel (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, they did acknolwedge a COI but COI, on its own, is not a reason for an article deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. Wikishovel (talk)

Delete per AllyD's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: AllyD summed it up best. Gjs238 (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the sources cited are just mere links and not reliable. Some point to Curacel rather than the subject. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 17:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Spawn characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nyx (Image Comics)[edit]

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

Exclusively primary sources. No indication of notability. Industrial Insect (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. Industrial Insect (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Spawn characters. Plot summary and little else. Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Spawn characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Kincaid[edit]

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

Sources do not cover him in detail, one is a primary source and the other is a website for a band. Industrial Insect (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. Industrial Insect (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the List of Spawn characters or such. Plot summary and little else. Embarassing section on 'Recent Activity' (poor style). FANPOV to the extreme. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect due to insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Nonte Phonte#Television. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nonte Fonter Nanan Kirtee[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as I didn't find any WP:SIGCOV, relies on single source. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 11:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and West Bengal. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 11:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nonte Phonte#Television, where it is obviously treated.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bjarne Stugu[edit]

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

No obvious indication of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. Tagged for notability since 2021. As typical with people involved in high-energy experiments, he has a huge number of articles (Inspire-HEP lists 2388). But articles from such experiments typically have a very long author list and it is not possible to distinguish individual contributions. Inspire-HEP also allows filtering for papers with 10 authors or less. This list includes 16 papers with very few citations. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Norway. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG as outlined by the nominator. PianoDan (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I concur with the nomination and PianoDan, there is no clear indication of notability. Neither in the article nor is there any media coverage of him to indicate that he may pass WP:NPROF. Doesnt pass the average professor test. Being part of a large collaboration is not enough for NPROF. --hroest 14:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Particle physics is often hard to judge from citations because there are many papers with both huge numbers of coauthors and huge numbers of citations and it's hard to tell how to count these. In this case searching for author:b-stugu finds exactly that. (Including his first name for specificity doesn't work because there are so many authors that they limit names to initials to save space.) So we need either well-cited first-author papers, or some form of external recognition that would help us sort it out. Here we appear to have neither. The best I found was a single-author paper with single-digit citations, "Summary on tau leptonic branching ratios and universality". As hroest says, having a small part in a large collaboration is not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As David Eppstein explains above, the citability record here is insufficiently convincing to indicate notability. The subject's CV[32] does not appear to contain any other information that would indicate passing WP:PROF on other grounds, such as journal editorships, awards, honors, etc. Nsk92 (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clivina jodasi[edit]

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

Article doesn't contain any description about the beetle and does not meet WP:GNG (lacks independent sources and doesn't appear to have widespread coverage) Aydoh8 (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Organisms. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Discussions are underway to put this criterion on a firmer footing, but as for now, all properly configured stubs on validly described species are kept. (Just out of curiosity, what do you consider an "independent" source for a species...?) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, taxonomy articles and their notability sure are an interesting topic. But when you think about it, it can be pretty clear:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://eurekamag.com/research/023/531/023531466.php	I have no idea either, it's not like a species is owned by anyone	original description of species	I won't pay 30 dollars for that one, but these tend to be multiple pages	✔ Yes
https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5ZB4D		assumably reliable dataset	the whole page is about the species	✔ Yes
https://www.gbif.org/species/8426863		per above	per above	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

But you're correct on the fact that adding detailed descriptions about beetles can be hard, if the access to the original publication isn't bought. But it does exist. NotAGenious (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article subject does not "require" additional text to become (more) notable. A description paragraph will be added whenever a future editor decides that they wish to do so. Current sources as provided are independent and subject is covered in multiple venues. Loopy30 (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NSPECIES. Jfire (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first half of the nomination amounts to saying that the article is too short and so it shouldn't exist at all, and the second half is belied by the table above. XOR'easter (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Closing this due to the lack of a valid deletion rationale (and this was okayed by the editor advocating Delete). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Folkestone Vikings[edit]

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

Article is an orphan and doesn't contain much useful information (such as when the club was renamed to Folkestone Vikings and disbanded etc.) Aydoh8 (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, Europe, and United Kingdom. Aydoh8 (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not my subject area and I'm not about to go digging for this stuff, but note that neither of the statements given in the nomination are deletion reasons - for any type of article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG due to lack of SIGCOV. Or redirect to a page on their league, though I am not sure such a page exists. The current iteration of their league, BAFA National Leagues does not describe the league in the 1980s and 1990s, and only lists defunct teams from 2000 and later, so that is not an ideal target. Frank Anchor 13:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Aydoh8's assessment of the nomination statement, and that being an WP:ORPHAN and the article not containing much useful information are not valid reasons. I am okay if the AFD is procedurally closed for this reason despite my delete vote on other grounds. Frank Anchor 13:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per criteria 1. There is no deletion rationale being proposed here. Let'srun (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Łącznościowiec Szczecin[edit]

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

I don't think they are notable but apparently deletion could be controversial Chidgk1 (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Handball and Poland. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No pl interwiki, no sources. Delete. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A basic WP:GNG pass. I see some news reports in what appear to be reliable secondary sources, e.g., [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. FOARP (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to pass WP:GNG per sources found by FOARP. ~Kvng (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FOARP's good work.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Punjabi films of 2017. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kirdar-E-Sardar[edit]

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

Fails WP:NF. Only includes a single reference and I'm not aware of any other reliable sources that've covered this in great detail. Jurta ^talk/_he/they 20:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, and India. Jurta ^talk/_he/they 20:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Punjabi films of 2017 (where the film is listed) with a source (this review or this, in the Times of India for example, which contains the release date. Note about the Times of India: noticeboard says not to use it for political subject matters, but the Indian task force clarifies: "Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable".). A few articles about production/promotion/premiere exist (and probably sources in other languages, fwiw), so I wouldn't find a Keep outrageously shocking.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 02:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd.

Logs: 2017-09 ✗ PROD ← 2017-09 ✗ PROD

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. leaning Keep. I'd prefer a longer discussion but it's been relisted 3 times already so let's bring this to a close. It would be great if editors could move any sources that were brought up in this discussion to the article to support claims made in it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FaceGen[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NPRODUCT. No sustained significant in-depth coverage can be found at all. In direct relation to video game, WP:VG/S's custom search of reliable sources has two (2) hits, one of which is a press release that an unrelated game engine included this software in a new release, and the other is a copyright notice. Google searches, such as the news search, for "FaceGen" (quotations required because "face gen" refers to a common technical term) has only five total results... Only one of which actually mentioned the software, only in passing as explaining "this image was made with FaceGen". The rest are false hits. The researchgate link in the article goes to a paper that does mention the software, but not as a subject of coverage. It is a tool they use in the course of discussing face modelling in general, and almost more of a "how to". Tagged unreferenced since 2009. -- ferret (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Computing. -- ferret (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I made this article way back in 2006. I see on the talk page that in 2009 I complained that the interview that gave it significant coverage at Discovery Channel's Daily Planet (TV series) no longer worked. Talk:FaceGen#Interview_no_longer_where_it_was. There was coverage way back then and big name game studios were using it for their notable games. But whatever, doesn't really matter nowadays, there so many competitors, and most games have their own systems they make themselves. Dream Focus 21:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That software is outmoded shouldn't affect its notability, so long as coverage is available. I'll take a look and see if I can find some older sources. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmm, well, it's not self-evidently not notable, at least. The software has had good coverage in Game Developer including an in-depth review [38] and descriptions of various versions [39] [40] [41]. I'm yet to find any sourcing on it, but the software does have some fairly wide appearances in the credits of 00s video games, most notably being the software used to create the infamous not-so lifelike faces in The Elder Scrolls III: Oblivion. Still a long shot. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Although usually those sources might be just enough, them being all from a single publication (Game Developer), puts it below notability for me. --Mika1h (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has in-depth coverage at https://www.proquest.com/docview/233640275/C062825AE2704010PQ/7 and https://www.proquest.com/docview/1789237253/C062825AE2704010PQ/9, and sustained usage in scientific articles that can be found on Google Scholar. - Indefensible (talk) 05:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please can the sources be evaluated. If you are asserting scientific cover you need to provide the sources or they won't be considered in the close.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (bordering on weak keep) – Although there's a seeming lack of meaty coverage in "news", the sources above do demonstrate that there probably enough sigcov in RS'es to satisfy the inclusion threshold. The four articles (including one real deep one) in Game Developper Magazine (linked by ＶＲＸＣＥＳ) and the scientific papers linked by Indefensible coupled with supplemental coverage listed in GScholar, in sum total this makes me lean in the direction of keeping. There is also an authored Softpedia review and several mentions of FaceGen that are more "passing mentions" in gamedev articles like https://www.animationmagazine.net/2023/07/delivering-the-facial-animation-for-call-of-duty-modern-warfare-ii/ and science papers like Spatial Heterogeneity in the Perception of Face and Form Attributes Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 13:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Verseone[edit]

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

Non notable company which fails to meet the requirements of WP:NCORP. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Business, and United States of America. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Sources are press releases or sponsored content so not independent. I checked Google News but did not find any independent reliable sources. S0091 (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ranti Bam[edit]

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

I am the artist Ranti Bam. I did not create this page! There are a bits of false information on the page. For my personal mental and physical well being I would like this page deleted Rantihut (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Visual arts, Nigeria, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to be notable, was featured in the Biennial here [42], with coverage [43] and [44]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is also in the collections of two museums. Not sure why the artist wouldn't want to be featured here, nothing is incorrect from what I can read. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Every sentence seems to have a source cited. If there are any "bits of false information" in the article, that seems like a topic for discussion, with specifics, on the article's talk page. Elspea756 (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. This is not the subject's first request; see [45]. That request was made by one of two related IPs on the same Ivorian mobile network (199.168.73.172 and 196.47.133.24). These IPs made repeated attempts to remove or change material. This triggered multiple warnings for vandalism. I can see why this person is very frustrated.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While we should honor the request if legit, I am somewhat skeptical of a request like this: There's a chance this is not the subject, and in fact could be someone attempting to scam the subject by getting the article deleted and offering to re-create it for money. I've seen some good analyses of these from Beccaynr, if they choose to here. —siro χ o 00:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve now seen 3 AfDs with these requests just in the last week. There’s always a lingering question as to whether the request is coming from the real subject of the article. Perhaps we need a policy or guideline amendment requiring people making these requests go through some sort of verification process using the Volunteer Response Team to ensure we’re getting legitimate requests.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree the article should be deleted if the actual subject is requesting deletion. However, I had not thought about the possibility that this is not coming from the real subject of the article. I await further comments and guidance. The artist certainly passes notability. Looks like they have an Insta account. The website appears to be in development or abandoned. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added a welcome message and information on how to request edits on their user page. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep regardless of subject's wishes. On borderline cases, sure we should delete per WP:BLPREQUEST, however, this person is clearly notable. -- Mike 🗩 20:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No response on requestor's user talk page or on the article's talk page. It doesn't seem like a credible request for deletion from the subject of the article. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Marvel Comics characters: B. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodshed (character)[edit]

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

Hasn't received one non-primary source since it's creation in 2006. Industrial Insect (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation. Industrial Insect (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate list of characters, plot summary and nothing else, fails GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: B in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: B in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two different Merge target articles proposed. We have to get that down to one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: B per WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @User:Liz, I think the M is a typo by @User:Rtkat3 rather than a different merge target as as far as I can tell the character has no aliases that begin with M BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The typo has been taken care of. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This appears to be one of those characters that are just so minor and non-notable, that I don't believe are even notable enough to include in one of the character lists. There are no sources currently in the article that are not just issues of comics, and I have not actually found any sources at all that discuss the character outside of an official Marvel page and fanwikis. And if I am understanding those fan wikis correctly, this character has only had a grand total of nine appearances. For all of the "Keep or Merge" votes above, I would honestly like to know what possible rationale is being used for the "Keep" portion of the vote. Rorshacma (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Marvel Comics characters: R. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Razorback (character)[edit]

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

Only non-primary source is from a forum. Industrial Insect (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. Industrial Insect (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: R in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am finding even less on this extremely minor character than usual when it comes to these articles on obscure comic characters. I don't think this one even has the bare minimum amount of coverage or notability to even be included in one of the "lists of characters". Rorshacma (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Marvel Comics characters as an WP:ATD-M Lightburst (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two different Merge target articles (one of which is actually a Redirect page) being proposed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: R per WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zhiyuanduo[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This full-fledged article is based on one primary source and one tertiary source, with the latter being a dead link. The primary source, the Biography of Zhang Ji from the Records of the Three Kingdoms, has only namedropped this rebel leader once, without elaboration on their activities or indeed, their gender (ctrl+f 治元多 from wikisource here). A search to satisfy WP:BEFORE reveals that the tertiary sources on the internet are similarly brief. I mean one sentence brief. One must wonder where the current article's content comes from, if not a hoax or hallucination by ChatGPT. And yes, the citations on the article all do not support the claims made, except one cite to the aforementioned one-line mention in the Records. _dk (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and China. _dk (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correction. I guess I thought that the article's creator, squeezing blood from stones with speculation and dead links, had used up all the references to this individual from good sources, but I didn't double check and misread the nomination statement. There is a second mention, as raised by User:Zhoudadudu, but I've left my original !vote basically as-is, and reply beneath. Folly Mox (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 as a hoax, although quite possibly a good faith hoax given the creator's experience and background in this area.
There is one mention of this person ever in historical records: Chen Shou (1977) [429]. "15: 劉司馬梁張溫賈傳". In Pei Songzhi (ed.). Annotated Records of the Three Kingdoms 三國志注. Taipei: Dingwen Printing. pp. 474, 79注. Here's the sentence in which they appear, with graphs marked as proper terms (toponym, demonym, name, or title) in blue: “涼州盧水胡伊健妓妾、治元多等反，河西大擾。” The topic of the sentence is the Hu people of Lushui, in Jingzhou. It's not clear if the Hu are separate to 伊健妓妾 (Yijian's concubine) or if Yijian's concubine is the Hu tribal leader instigating the revolt (反) along with others (等) that causes such a big disturbance (大擾) in Hexi. What is clear is that Zhiyuanduo (治元多) is a separate person to Yijian's concubine, due to the presence of the listing comma 、.
That's it. Here's all three things we know about them: they were part of or closely affiliated with the Hu people of Lushui, Jingzhou; they took part in a rebellion against Cao Pi (described on the following page but minus any identifying information); they were not Yijian's concubine. That's if we trust the professional editors who have punctuated the original unpunctuated Classical Chinese. If we want to do original research, we could claim that the listing comma is an error, and the subject is defined in the source as "Yijian's concubine Zhiyuanduo" (this does make sense grammatically in the original). There's zero other mention of this person anywhere else in the historical record.
Here's some things that are definitely untrue: The name bestowed upon her by the Han Chinese translates to "There are many rulers." (it doesn't, and that's not how people render names in other languages, which are transliterated); identified as the concubine of a Han Chinese man named Yi Jian (易謙) (the identification as such is contra-RS original research, as mentioned, but the name is badly misspelt, and there's no indication Yijian is ethnic Han, although it could be); 三國志) recorded: "Yi Jian's concubine Zhiyuanduo and other people of the Lushui Hu, in the three counties of Lixian (骊蚠), Fanhe (番和), and Xianmei (显美) (none of these places is mentioned in relation to Zhiyuanduo).
Everything else in this article is entirely speculative. Troop strengths are mentioned in the source, likely vastly overinflated as was customary, and we don't learn the names of any of the rebels or the fates of the commanders. Wei forces cross a river, attack the rebels, and decapitate or capture a bunch of them.
This article reminds me of another I saw at AfD this week, where it described historical background information and major events, and attempted to tie the non-notable subject to them without references. This is different because the identity of the subject is in no way defined, the speculation is obvious and marked lexically, and only one source has the capability of addressing any component of the subject's life.
Two nitpicks: the base text of 三國志 I don't consider a primary source, because Chen Shou made editorial decisions about what to include from his sources, some material may have been copied verbatim from primary sources, but overall I treat it as secondary, by a trained expert. The other thing is that Book of Wei linked in the article is way the wrong target.
I consulted the physical copy of the source in question, and affirm the text at zh.ws is an accurate transcription, including punctuation. My edition lists no errata for this page. Folly Mox (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed analysis @Folly Mox:, though I must question if any hoax on Wikipedia could be seen as be made in good faith. The other tangential thing to point out is that it is possible that 伊健妓妾 here is a non-Han name transcribed into written Chinese using the graphic derogatives to denigrate them as "concubines", thus the rebel leaders would be Yijianjiqie and Zhiyuanduo, not Yijian's concubine (and) Zhiyuanduo. _dk (talk) 04:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the transliteration thing was the first thing that I thought of, because I didn't know (or at minimum, didn't remember) 妓. There are other speculations just as possible as the theory advanced in the article, like graphic corruption through scribal transmission.

I think you're right that "hoax" falls necessarily into the sphere of "bad faith": I guess maybe the word I'm reaching for is closer to "fundamentally untrue, but the creator wasn't aware beforehand." Folly Mox (talk) 04:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I both didn't think of using 女-determinant graphs in transliteration for the purpose of denigration, and also forgot to mention the possibility of transliteration at all. Sorry to overexplain. My first sentence of the above comment reads like I might be making claims to cleverness I don't possess. Folly Mox (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thanks for the excellent reply! @Underbar dk actually shared this article with me a few days ago and our discussion led to the deletion conclusion based on very similar arguments outlined in your reply.

Just to elaborate a little on your reply and also adding some of my own opinions:

I think you meant Liangzhou 凉州, not Jingzhou 荆州.
I have also consulted two separate Modern Chinese translations of the Sanguozhi (https://book.douban.com/subject/1597252/ and https://book.douban.com/subject/3445763/), and both of them interpreted the particular line as two separate people Yijianjiqie and Zhiyuanduo with no clear relation other than the fact that they rebelled at the same time.
Zhiyuanduo is actually also mentioned in Pei Songzhi's annotations to the Sanguozhi (Vol 2, Annuals of Emperor Wen) and in Zizi Tongjian (Vol 69). The context for the mentioning is the same (the rebellion), but only Zhiyuanduo was mentioned, nothing about a Yijian or concubines. Logically, if these people were related, they would likely have been rebelling together with strong ties and thus mentioned together. And if mentioning the "concubine" Zhiyuanduo requires additional elaboration about who the husband was, it would be inferred that the husband would have been influential and important at least in this particular rebellion context. But in fact, we see quite the opposite in other sources where Zhiyuanduo seemed to be the more mention-worthy name with no mention of Yijian or the supposed "husband". I'm therefore cautious on concluding a relationship here without any substantiations.
Given the modifier about the Lushui Hu, I would believe it's clear that at least Yijian was one of the Lushui Hu, and then the claim in the article about "Yi Jian was likely associated with the Cao Wei government, potentially serving as a lower-ranking official in Liang Province" makes no sense, either a source misreading or a claim without substantiation.

Zhoudadudu (talk) 10:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's right: I did mean to transliterate 涼州 properly as Liangzhou. Thanks for that correction. So I'm looking at these two mentions of this name now. The other one comes from Wang Chen; Xun Yi; Ruan Ji (c. 250s). 魏書 [Book of Wei] (official history). This had more editorial oversight and people involved, and it's interesting that in this account we have "叛胡治元多、盧水、封賞等", with 盧水 (transmitted as 蘆水 at zh.ws; Guoxue has it same as the book) being treated here as a personal name rather than a toponym. Since we're already deep in our cups of speculation, I wonder if Chen Shou or some later copyist made a mistake in the base text, and altered "涼州胡盧水" to "涼州盧水胡" in 卷15 based on a misunderstanding.

I'm feeling pretty swayed by the arguments advanced above that 伊健妓妾 represents the name of a person and doesn't mean Yijian's concubine (could also be the names of two people maybe?). Anyway the article is not encyclopaedic and we should remove it rather than spreading misinformation. Folly Mox (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you on the copyist/writing mistake. Wu Jinhua in my copy of his 三国志校诂 commented the same as well.

And yea coming back to the article deletion itself, definitely for deletion given what we have seen. It does also make me a tad concerned about the citing of sources (in this case, the Sanguozhi Biography of Zhang Ji) with minimal or no understanding of the actual source, as evident in errors like "bestowed name", wrong characters for the names and so on. Zhoudadudu (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. There may be more than one editor here voting "Delete" so please BOLD your vote if this is what you are advocating.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Zangxuangao (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, all three of us in the discussion are firmly in favour of deletion. Sorry we used so many words or whatever, but this is a bad relist. Folly Mox (talk) 02:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Folly Mox, Zhoudadudu I'm glad to see the amazing discussion above. However, you guys were discussing about her names meaning and other translation issues, not the notability of the subject. If she was a real rebel leader in the history of China, and this claim is supported by academic sources, then she meets the WP:NPOL as a major historic political figure. I hope she is not a hoax. Best. 1.47.150.18 (talk) 11:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if we weren't clear, but I believe Folly Mox and I had explained above that while this rebel leader did exist, the original source only had a one-liner mention that doesn't warrant an entire Wiki article. Whatever extra information that was added were either misinterpretations or hoaxes. Hence our delete decisions. Zhoudadudu (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1.47, just as a technical note, I didn't receive a notification for your mention from Template:U. I'm uncertain if unregistered editors can generate notifications, just as they can't receive them.
We did do a lot of discussion about problems with the article, which impugn its accuracy in general. As the person who mentioned hoaxes, I should probably walk that back, because the article doesn't quite meet that definition and I should have used more nuance.
We haven't argued that "Zhiyuanduo" is the sinicised appellation of a person involved in a Donghu people revolt against Emperor Wen of Wei. That is clear from the two historical mentions. What's not clear is if the rebellion had one leader or many (both sources mention many, and the first one in each case is not Zhiyuanduo but Lushui), which subsequent military actions any leader was involved in, or what their eventual fate was. Saliently, the sources give no information about who Zhiyuanduo was, in any sense.
Cleanup notes. The Zhiyuanduo article is linked from Fei Yao, Zhang Ji (Derong), and Chenggong Ying, with contextual prose misinformation about "suppressing a rebellion (factual) led by (dubious) a female tribal leader (unverifiable)". List of rebellions in China goes further and blandly accepts the inflated enemy force figures presented in the sources (this is so common a trope that when an advisor gave his general an accurate estimate of opposing forces during the Guandu campaign twenty years prior, it was remarked upon and discussed with explanation). The link from Lady Triệu is a trivial See also. Folly Mox (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Naturism in the United States. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Naturist Society[edit]

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

I came here intending to merge or start a proposal to merge Nude & Natural here, but I do not see WP:ORG level coverage and as a result am nominating both for deletion via this discussion. TNS is occasionally cited in the news for top nudist resorts, etc. but there's nothing in depth about their work or the organization itself. The same is true for the magazine, whose only coverage appears to be via members of the society and writers tied with the publication. NB: While Lee Baxandall appears notable, it does not appear that it is for his work in this field, so I'm not sure a redirect makes sense. Not opposed to it though. Star Mississippi 00:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, and Wisconsin. Star Mississippi 00:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into - Naturism in the United States, due to not being wp:org. A section on activists could be added, merging in the Lee Baxandall article also.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Baxandall has notability beyond naturism, and that article can stand alone. The other two articles can be merges into. Does that require a new discussion? If not, I could do the merges. WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Naturism in the United States. —siro χ o 02:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Song-chol (footballer)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and North Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kuk-jin[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: North Korea and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kyong-hun (footballer)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Myong-chol (footballer)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of unsolved problems in linguistics[edit]

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

This list has never been well sourced and I think there are some fundamental issues with the topic which make it pretty much impossible for it to be so.

unlike say List of unsolved problems in mathematics, it doesn't really aid in navigation between articles on unsolved problems. It just lists a bunch of open ended questions.
if "unsolved problems" includes simple controversies that different linguists disagree on, then the list of unsolved problems in linguistics is potentially infinite. It would be more sensible to compile a list of "solved problems". As such this list is a violation of WP:LISTCRIT as the selection criteria are way overbroad.
any attempt to source this list properly would undoubtedly run into WP:SYN issues - I can't find many sources whose main topic is "unsolved problems in linguistics" which apply such a broad brush for "unsolved problem". It might be possible to write a completely new article with more objective criteria (in which case WP:TNT applies)
Category:Unsolved problems in linguistics is sparsely populated and includes a few articles that probably shouldn't be in there (Latin word order, really?) I don't think the few articles in that category which actually discuss unsolved problems could be usefully summarised in a list.

– filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 00:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 00:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible WP:TNT candidate. Andre🚐 00:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm pretty sure you can solve most of the first set of questions with a dictionary. I can't see the need for this list, half of it is unsourced. Oaktree b (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral to the question of deletion, but amused by how much this !vote reminds me of a certain XKCD cartoon. Cnilep (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:FORUM. This is nothing more than an esoteric and eclectic list of philosophical questions. There are no answers, just questions. Reading through this rambling list reminds me of a title to an early Bill Cosby comedy album: Why Is There Air?. Cosby's answer to his own question was, "There's air to blow up basketballs." In this case, we should ask, "Why are there questions but no answers?" — Maile (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree and Maile. Andre🚐 05:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the version of the article at here, actually is a good article and maybe could be referenced to today's standards satisfactorily. Andre🚐 05:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given by Oaktree and Maile. “Rambling” is the right word. Athel cb (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! Most of these are not that great, and I've never heard of "unsolved problems" being a concept in linguistics. Many of these have a clear but theory-specific answer, the answer to questions about universality are most likel "no", and some of them are rather unsolvable than unsolved. There's also the question of what makes a problem a linguistic problem... I can't see any improvement that wouldn't turn it into something redundant with Outline of linguistics. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 11:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article looks good with references pertaining to the unsolved problems of philosophy, and it would be a quicker reference instead of wasting time looking for multiple websites. But, other users have extremely good arguments. I'm staying as weak keep for now, and there's plenty of articles like this one that list such things with reliable sources. Geko72290 (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 00:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elan Journo[edit]

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

Resume page, fails WP:GNG. The article only has one secondary source, which talks about Journo in very little depth. SparklyNights 00:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Israel. SparklyNights 00:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of independent biographical coverage or reviews. The "secondary source" mentioned in the nomination appears to be reader commentary about one of his articles, not even a reliable source. --RL0919 (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, England, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find anything secondary and significant. NotAGenious (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no SIGCOV. NM 19:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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