Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 6: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:37, 6 January 2023

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 05	January 07 >

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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danish Manzoor Bhat

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

~~This article does not meet WP:GNG requirements. The references provided are insufficient to support the subject's notability and fall short of WP:SIGCOV. Tictictoc (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)~~ striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, News media, and India. Tictictoc (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found. Newsweek isn't a reliable source, so I'd imagine holding a position there doesn't contribute to notable either. We still don't have enough to prove GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found. He works for Newsweek, so they are not an independent source. He won the Jaipur Foot USA Global Humanitarian Award, but this is one of many Global Humanitarian Awards that are awarded by various organizations, and this particular award is not well known as this is the first time it has been awarded. BruceThomson (talk) 09:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. ✗plicit 06:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeem Khan (social activist)

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

I was unable to locate the extensive coverage on trustworthy websites. I believe that this is not meeting WP:ANYBIO. Tictictoc (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Tictictoc (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Overcash

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

Has played the violin on a few films and video games, and was the composer on two obscure shorts. Fails WP:MUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After checking for sources, the topic does not appear to pass WP:NBIO. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added additional information about awards, schooling, and, early life. Don’t the if this would cut it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuxembourgLover (talk • contribs) 13:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICIAN and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sisland. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sisland Carr

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

Whilst Sisland Carr is undoubtedly pretty, it is hardly notable for an article, I propose it be deleted, and its content be added to the Sisland Article, something I'm more than happy to do. Erik Sergeant (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. Erik Sergeant (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep it seems to be a nature reserve but there doesn't appear to be much coverage outside the Woodland Trust. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could we therefore merge it, seeing as there's likely to only ever be one citation, depends, what do you think...? Erik Sergeant (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps to Sisland. Being designated a nature reserve may make it inherently notable per WP:GEOFEAT. If it was an SSSI then probably but I'm not sure being a "nature reserve" is the same thing as many places are referred to as such and in this case may not have much coverage outside of the Woodland Trust which is arguably a primary source for its status as a nature reserve. Given it may not be inherently notable and the only source is arguably primary I'd question if WP:GNG is passed so a merge probably makes sense but I'd be interested to hear what others think. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, I'd say it falls under the first line of the third section of WP:NOPAGE (although whether that entirely helps my argument...), and although there aren't many examples of problematic permastubs on WP:PERMA, I would say Sisland Carr falls under that too. Also, I'd personally rather see an improvement of, and addition to, Sisland rather than one more stub lying around, but my opinion doesn't really count against WP:N. Erik Sergeant (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sisland, maybe under Geography or as a separate section, leaving Sisland Carr as a redirect.

Unless the nature reserve has attracted attention outside of its owner/manager, The Woodland Trust, e.g. for a fact such as it's got the only "species of X in England" or some such, it doesn't pass muster as a separate article under GNG. I haven't found independent sources that give significant indepth coverage.

The Woodland Trust's management plan [1] doesn't reveal anything of particular significance about the site. Perhaps the nearest is its importance for locally rare moths and its recording as a site for noctule bats. However, the document states that sensitive species information about the site is not included in this version of the plan.

The Trust gives its location as "Sisland Carr, Chedgrave" presumably because Chedgrave is more well known than Sisland. However, Ordnance Survey historical and current mapping shows the woodland to be within Sisland civil parish. The access track is from Sisland (access from the Chedgrave side is gated and marked as private on Google Street View) so I think it's preferable to merge content to Sisland. Rupples (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, you can't get through from Chedgrave, and if it's of any significance, there is a sewage processing plant near it, (I think it processes, it does something to sewage, I know that much...) not sure it matters, but I thought I should mention it anyway? Erik Sergeant (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Found a paragraph in Reader's Digest book [2]. Rupples (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sisland. From WP:GEOLAND:
Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river.

Harmless article but it would do just as well in the Sisland article with a redirect for now. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Northcote, Victoria#Schools. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Northcote Primary School

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

Article for local primary school which appears to be non-notable in terms of its scope, facilities or history. Crowsus (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Australia. Crowsus (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Northcote, Victoria#Schools, where the primary school is mentioned. I don't see enough significant coverage for this to warrant its own article, but a redirect to the lowest level locality makes sense here (and it's frequently done; see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is fine, although an argument could be made for notability based on the number of notable alumni. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GEOFEAT #1 - listed on Victorian Heritage Database. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzroy North Primary School

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

Article for local primary school which appears to be non-notable in terms of its scope, facilities or history, other than being one of the oldest schools in Melbourne (the link to confirm this is dead). I don't think the buildings are Heritage-listed or similar. Crowsus (talk) 08:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Australia. Crowsus (talk) 08:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOFEAT#1, as an article on the structure. That the school was on the heritage list indicates to me that this is notable. As notability is not temporary, the subsequent removal should not impact notability. Redirect or Merge to Fitzroy North, Victoria#Education, where the subject is currently mentioned. This clearly fails WP:NSCHOOL. That being said, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says that Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them (generally the case in North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere or where there is no governing body). While WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES simply lists common outcomes rather than serving as a notability guideline itself, I don't see any issue with having a selective merge to the article on the suburb given that there is no school district to redirect/merge this to; it seems like the school warrants mention in the article on the locale. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC) updated 03:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Formerly on the Victoria Government Buildings Register. Was not transferred to the Victorian Heritage Register, however. But I think there's sufficient here to meet WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - a good argument could be made that the building itself is notable as a historic site. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep newspapers.com shows RS material suitable for the article spanning decades: A Grim New Year in the Ghetto: "Most of the children are from migrant homes where nearly all the parents are on the poverty line", A fine day but not for a swim, Gold fever runs hot as schools get Games spirit. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rosebud, Victoria#Schools. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rosebud Primary School

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

Article for local primary school which appears to be non-notable in terms of its scope, facilities or history. Crowsus (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Australia. Crowsus (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Rosebud, Victoria#Schools, where this topic is briefly covered. I lean towards a selective merge; it would probably be best for the schools section of the article on the locality to contain some information on the history of the school. Even if no content is merged, a redirect seems warranted. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I couldn't find sufficient independent sources to show notability. I've added the year the school was established in the Rosebud article but I'm against merging anything else as the majority of the article is unsourced. Suonii180 (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough independent and reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caballero Universal

AfDs for this article:

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

Second time around (first AfD resulted in No Consensus) and nothing has changed; all of the sources are social media posts are from the pageant itself. There are some sources in Spanish that were brought up in the previous AfD, but I don't believe any of them can be used to establish notability. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Venezuela. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not least the lack of sources, there are other male beauty pageants also using the Spanish "Mr Universe" title, which may be more notable globally... Kingsif (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldnt find any reliable sources or sources at all. I did find some small mentions here and there, but it only mentioned it.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 15:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasian Home

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

I couldn't find any evidence that this site is notable, but I might not be the best person to determine that. Willing to withdraw this if quality sources are found (a search in Russian might be more fruitful). BuySomeApples (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics, Websites, and Russia. BuySomeApples (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TNT. Promotional article. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Super Ballon d'Or

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

Redirect to Ballon d'or as a section in the article, article does not meet notability, poorly referenced, highly vandalised — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idiosincrático (talk • contribs) 07:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Football, and France. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added more sources. Passes WP:GNG. Obviously there is a lot of interest in the topic (116k pageviews since creation); if vandalism is a problem, request page protection. Content and sources are good and should not be deleted. Merging to Ballon d'Or is a possibility, but that discussion can happen outside of AfD if needed. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets GNG. A page being vandalised does not make it a candidate for deletion. Giant Snowman 18:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The sourcing could be better and I don't entirely agree that an award granted once in 34 years should have its own short article instead of being merged to Ballon d'Or. It's a new article so I am under the assumption this will see more content and sourcing. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, it's passing GNG, but I'm wondering if this is one of those times where the subject might be better covered in the context of a broader article. Given that the award has been given exactly one time, it might make sense to cover this only in the article on the person who received it, rather than having its own page. That's more of a question for a merge discussion, as outright deletion is certainly not warranted, but I don't see the !votes for keeping this as convincing relative to a merge. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk The broader context is that there has been massive interest in this exact topic immediately following the conclusion of the 2022 FIFA World Cup. There has been a lot of "speculation" about whether or not France Football will present this award again in the near future, leading to a lot of bad reporting in the media (mostly blogs), but also genuine interest into what (legitimate) information about the award and its history can be confirmed. Wikipedia could choose to bury this information on other pages, or it could provide the facts in an easily findable page. Personally I prefer the latter. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I don't have a crystal ball, but I'm not sure that blogosphere speculation is the best reason for an article to be made. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Gevirtz

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

No indication of third-party, non-passing notability. Gingermead (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My WP:BEFORE search does not turn up any sources that suggest notability. Too soon at this point for an article. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poor sourcing. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Vijayakanth. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shanmuga Pandian

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

Only acted in two films, not multiple (three or more). This article was created with the intention that the third film would release. No independent notability. Redirect to Vijayakanth (include snippet about Shanmuga Pandian there). Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabarish. DareshMohan (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vijayakanth: Only two films. And notability is not inherited. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yusr International School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. I could not find significant coverage, only a primary source supplied. LibStar (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Saudi Arabia. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Originally a WP:SPA article about a private school; aside from Tacyarg's removal of a chunk of uncited promotional text in 2019, little has changed since. While it does have a listing page among the 65 Cognia-accredited schools in Jeddah [3], that is not inherently notable and, like the nominator, I am not finding evidence of attained notability. Happy to review though if someone can propose relevant non-English sources. AllyD (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that there is sourcing to satisfy WP:NBOOK. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having a Great Birth in Australia

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

I don't see it meeting any criteria of WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to not meet WP:NBOOK and does not seem to be a significant work. QuintinK (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2 book reviews already cited, didn't even need to look for more, passes NBOOK on the basis of what's already there. Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fixed the link to the AIMS journal review, and it's a solid resource. The book listed here cites the Vernon book but says almost nothing about it - just one sentence that links to the book in the bibliography, but doesn't name it in the text. I cannot find the other book review on the site that presumably hosts it. Not visible in any WorldCat libraries. I also note that it was published by a professional organization, "Australian College of Midwives" so it would be considered pretty niche. Lamona (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having a baby is pretty universal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Foreword is by Sally Tracy and afterword is by a director of obstetrics; midwife-assisted labor and delivery is now commonly offered in major hospitals for low-risk births. Study of outcomes show excellent results from midwife v doctor for avoiding C-section, episiotomy, etc. It's not a niche. jengod (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This source briefly discusses it also: [4]. The peer-review journal is pretty solid, I'd prefer another book review before we ! keep it though. Not so much that the book is niche, but it's still a book; we've usually asked for two solid book reviews at AfD. We've got one and maybe two partially ok sources. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This journal article (behind a paywall) [5]. Ah fine, we'll give it a Weak Keep. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And this review/discussion in a magazine [6] Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 2 book sources and recgonized in this. Passes NBOOK.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 03:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eirene (moon)

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

Five more unremarkable moons of Jupiter, failing WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. They were officially named in August 2019 after a Twitter-based IAU voting contest,^[1] and the articles contain concerning amounts of personal information about those who voted for the winning names. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Public Contest Successfully Finds Names For Jupiter's New Moons". www.iau.org. 26 August 2019. Retrieved 6 January 2023.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to anchors at Moons of Jupiter, as argued by myself and others at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jupiter LI. I wouldn't mind redirecting to the respective groups either (Carme group for Eirene, Pasiphae group for Philophrosyne, Ananke group for Eupheme, and Himalia group for Pandia and Ersa), but the redirection to Moons of Jupiter now already has precedents (S/2021 J 1 etc.) and enjoys greater support. Double sharp (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep, as the consensus at Talk:Moons of Jupiter for redirection has changed, and per the long-standing precedent for having articles for all irregulars. Double sharp (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Despite having completely unknown physical characteristics, these moons have plenty of media coverage about their discovery history and naming. Plenty of interest in these moons still persists after their naming in 2019, showing occasional daily pageview spikes over 20. NASA has individual "In Depth" pages for all of the 2003 moons (all moons discovered afterward are just informational cards), so it would be a reasonable standard to follow them. Nrco0e (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per consensus onTalk:Moons of Jupiter. –DMartin 06:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rachelle Leah

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

Doesn't meet notability Nswix (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not at GNG. Thought she'd have a shot with ACTOR but was only in two shows (listed as guest shots on Rotten Tomatoes), and I don't find any RS for her MMS career. Plenty of photos of the "attractive MMA girl" type, nothing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Shellwood (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Martial arts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find multiple instances of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Pictures and coverage by her employers is not sufficient to show WP:GNG is met and I didn't see any other notability criteria that she meets. Papaursa (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lyon-Japan Japan-France Memorial

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

This is a revamp of a previously AfD-d page in March 2021. Author of the article was blocked on French Wikipedia, being confirmed as the same user/sock-farm that was responsible for the page's previous iteration. Toyota Impreza (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and France. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this is a definitely a real place which exists (there was some suggestion it was a hoax in the previous AfD discussion) - it has a website and a Google maps listing. However, it does not appear to be notable - I can find no independent coverage aside from the sources listed in the article (which are tangential at best, and hardly constitute significant coverage). The fact that this is a page that was previously deleted (and recreated by a sock) is also concerning, though not in itself grounds for deletion. — Jumbo T (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. While it exists, it doesn't seem to consist of more then just an array of flags from France and Asia, the article doesn't cover any other historical context for why it would be notable. -- Epluribusunumyall (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Direção Geral de Jornalismo da TV Globo

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

This page has insufficient content on it, barely mentions sources (2 so far, and cover very little of the article) and it has been heavily vandalized, it is a copy-paste of older versions of the Portuguese Wikipedia article, I suggest that this page receive protection from being created again. Bastewasket (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Brazil. AllyD (talk) 08:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not comfortable soft-deleting this. Need opinions either way. Thanks!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see a couple sources from the pt-wiki article, but none that pass WP:NCORP. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article summarising the management responsibilities of a bureaucratic division of TV Globo. I am seeing nothing to indicate that this is specifically notable, and note that the articles here on TV Globo itself and on Jornal Nacional contain much deeper discussion of the TV news coverage. AllyD (talk) 08:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan–Penn State football rivalry

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

While these two storied programs have played a number of memorable, high-profile games, I don't believe that the reliable sources establish this as a notable rivalry. None of the 76 citations in the article contain the word "rivalry" in their titles and cursory examination of the content of those sources finds no explicit mention of this rivalry. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since Penn State joined the Big Ten 30 years ago, these teams (both ranking among the top 10 programs of all time) have played on a yearly basis, and it has grown into a notable rivalry. This piece from Bleacher Report ranks Michigan at #2 among teams Penn State loves to beat. Also, Michigan has been chosen as Penn State's "White Out" opponent more than any other school. Finally, while the rivalry is not as big as Michigan's rivalry with Ohio State, there are plenty of sources recognizing it as a rivalry. Here are a few examples:

"Michigan vs Penn State: Best rivalry games, an episode of "NCAA Football Classics" produced by ESPN on the greatest moments in the rivalry
"Penn State and Michigan Meet Again. These Are The Top 5 Moments In The Rivalry's History, The Philadelphia Inquirer
"Michigan Penn State rivalry already a biggie", AP story, 1994
"Michigan vs. Penn State: The 10 biggest blowouts in rivalry history", Saturdaytradition.com
The Wolverine this fall wrote about the top 10 match between the programs: "Saturday’s matchup is the first time this rivalry feels like the opening phase from 1993-97."
"A heated rivalry. The Penn State-Michigan rivalry has been dead-even ..."
"Michigan vs. Penn State still a throwback ... The Wolverines and Nittany Lions, both undefeated, have an intriguing rivalry that dates to Penn State's first ...", Minneapolis Star Tribune
"Penn State heats up rivalry: ... 'I think the rivalry was there the day they let Penn State in the Big Ten,' Moeller said."
No. 5 Michigan runs all over Big 10 rival No. 10 Penn State in dominating win, Fox News

Cbl62 (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable rivalry. Cbl62 found quite a few sources to WP:V Bruxton (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can weave some of these sources that establish the rivlary into the article, I will happily withdraw this nominaton. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as a Michigan fan, I certainly don't view this matchup as having the same intensity as our rivalries with Ohio State or Michigan State. However, I think the seeds of a strong rivalry are gradually being sown. While I'm not fully convinced at present, I'd say enough evidence has been presented to retain the article. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources above do not do anything to establish Michigan and Penn State as rivals. Many publications use buzzwords like "rivalry" to get clicks or manufacture hype, but it takes more than a few reporters to think a rivalry exists when it simply isn't so. Going through the list presented by Cbl62:

The ESPN video shows highlights from their game and only describes them as "rivals" in the title.
The Philadelphia Enquirer source, the "Heated rivalry" article, the Saturday tradition page, the Fox news page, and The Wolverine page are all the same way. Uses the term "rivalry" in the title and zero or one time in the article but only describe the series of games as a series of games between any two teams could be described.
The two AP sources only establish the possibility of a rivalry based on quotes from a former Michigan head coach, making it not independent coverage (for the purposes of this article).
The only source that establishes a rivalry may exist by GNG standards is the Star Triblue source which refers to Michigan and Penn State as "rivals" a few times "developed into an intriguing rivalry, "On Saturday in Ann Arbor (...), the rivalry brings a top-10 matchup," and "[Jim] Harbaugh, preparing for the latest installment in a rivalry started nearly 30 years ago" but doesn't do much to support its claim of the teams being rivals.

So we are looking at one source that possibly passes WP:GNG for the purpose of establishing this series as a rialry. And there are several other pages that specifically describe Michigan and Penn State as not being rivals as well. [7] [8] [9] Frank Anchor 04:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Frank, I generally respect your views on football AfDs, but you've cited three bloggers which question whether the rivalry is a true rivalry. That hardly undercuts the dozens of actual reliable sources covering three decades that agree it's a rivalry. I really don't understand the antipathy to such articles. When we don't have sources that call it a rivalry, that's a reason to delete. When we find such articles, folks say "we know better than the reliable sources ... it's not a real rivalry." That's not how this should work. We have many, many sources discussing it as a rivalry. This is one of the most notable series in college football. Cbl62 (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cbl62, I agree that as longtime contributors we are usually we are on the same page when it comes to college football articles among other subjects. This time I just don’t see enough to establish a “rivalry” exists based on my above analysis of the sources presented above. i believe sources using terms like “rivals” once without explaining why the teams are rivals (and being two top programs in the same conference does not automatically make them rivals) is not enough to satisfy GNG for the purposes of a rivalry article

I understand your "true rival"-centric point of view, but here's another perspective. We have about 250 college football "rivalry" articles, the vast majority of which never have and never will receive SIGCOV outside of a couple small college towns. See most of Category:College football rivalries in the United States. They may be rivalries, but they are not even remotely close in notability to the Michigan-Penn State series/rivalry. The Michigan-Penn State game receives abundant SIGCOV every year in national media outlets. Indeed, if you were to pick the three Big Ten matchups that receive the most national media attention and have the greatest impact on the conference and national championship pictures, it would be the triangular rivalry between the conference's big powers -- Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State. Two of the links in that triangle already have rivalry articles (Ohio State-Penn State and Michigan-Ohio State. The current article closes the triangle. Based on sheer volume of SIGCOV, the national scope of coverage, and impact on the championship races, Michigan-Penn State pretty clearly ranks among the top 10 percent of rivalries. This article is overdue and should be kept and improved. Cbl62 (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or weak delete. I agree with Frank Anchor that the cited articles above are mostly just using "rivalry" in the title as a synonym for "long running series". I think similar citations could be found for many Team vs. Team matchups that you would not consider "rivals".

I probably support having more notable "series matchup history" articles like this on wikipedia, but we don't need to pigeonhole them as "rivalry" pages. PK-WIKI (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose a rename to Michigan Penn State “series” (or similar). This series is not any more notable than other conference games for either team (particularly Michigan who has been in the Big Ten for over a cenrury). If this article were kept as “series,” then an argument could be made for any series that has had a notable game or two and could create unnecessary content forks everywhere. This page needs deleted, not renamed. Frank Anchor 13:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose deletion. An every-year match between two of the top 10 programs of all-time is not like "any series that has a notable game or two". This is a plainly notable series ... and a rivalry as well. Cbl62 (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that both teams are in the top ten all time and play each other annually is impressive, but it is WP:OR in terms of establishing a rivalry. No rivalry exists between these teams (as shown by the cited articles not explaining that there is a rivalry and only using the term as it would any other series). FWIW I think a lot of the other pages in Category:College football rivalries in the United States could be deleted as well, but realize I am in the minority in that opinion for those other pages. Frank Anchor 19:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The rivalry is not based on "original research". Major reliable sources, including ESPN, the Associated Press, Fox News, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Minneapolis Star Tribune, etc., all discuss it as and call it a rivalry. Your subjective belief and assertion that these sources don't really mean it (or are misusing the term rivalry) is the only thing here that constitutes original research. Cbl62 (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, per sources shown by Cbl62. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion as it is still receiving new comments today. My first impression though is that those advocating Keeping the article have made a stronger case. But the final decision will be up to the closer.

Just a reminder that a closer can close this discussion whenever they assess a rough consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, what if the content were summarized and merged into both the Penn State and Michigan pages? It does not appear to me that the sources on their own merit notability and sigcov for this to have its own article. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 06:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moops, Where do you propose it be merged into Michigan Wolverines football and Penn State Nittany Lions football? In the rivalry sections? Seems in that case we would be acknowledging Michigan–Penn State as a rivalry, but a not big enough rivalry to warrant its own article? Jweiss11 (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think that is just about what I am saying. I think that still stands up to reason, no? TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 06:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: There's going to be significant coverage that exists for any series nowadays, so that makes it tough to judge what is and isn't a rivalry. However, in this case, it's a little more clear based on the links that Cbl62 has shared, that this is often considered a rivalry. I think it appears to be notable and it will continue to become more notable moving forward. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, this is a notable football rivalry. The sources provided by Cbl62, taken together with the sources in the article, make this painfully clear that this has received significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources over three decades. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter LI

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

At Talk:Moons of Jupiter#Should we stop creating articles for newly-discovered irregular moons?, users expressed concerns about a huge number of stubs about small Jovian and Saturnian moons for which no nontrivial information is available. There are 84 known moons of Jupiter at time of writing, and it is estimated that there are about 600 retrograde irregular moons larger than 0.8 km.^[1]

In particular, this moon fails WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. In particular, there are no papers at Google Scholar that focus specifically on this moon and are not coauthored by the discoverers. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Ashton, Edward; Beaudoin, Matthew; Gladman, Brett J. (1 September 2020). "The Population of Kilometer-scale Retrograde Jovian Irregular Moons". The Planetary Science Journal. 1 (2): 52. doi:10.3847/PSJ/abad95.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Moons of Jupiter, which lists all Jovian moons; or Carme group, where all Jovian moons with similar orbits are described. Indeed, nothing really distingushes this one in particular. Double sharp (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep, as the consensus at Talk:Moons of Jupiter for redirection has changed (so there are no more concerns), and per the long-standing precedent (since 2004!) for having articles on Wikipedia for all irregulars. There is a paper focusing on Jupiter LI and LII. It is also of historical interest, as it is the first Jovian moon to return to the pre-1975 practice of receiving a number but not an actual name; in this capacity it is referred to specifically by the pages Naming of moons and Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons. Double sharp (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to an anchor at Moons of Jupiter, as done with S/2021 J 1. SevenSpheres (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per consensus change. SevenSpheres (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Even though there is a dedicated paper about this moon and S/2010 J 2, it's only relevant to their discovery process, which still doesn't set it apart from other moons similarly discovered in surveys. Nrco0e (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Straying a bit off-topic, I think Jupiter LII (S/2010 J 2) should be kept for being the smallest known moon of Jupiter. It also shows a consistently higher daily pageview count with occasional spikes compared to other unnamed numbered Jovian moons [10].

Changing to Keep per Double sharp above. Nrco0e (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Neskovic

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

This article has been around for nearly a decade but does not contain any indication of notability. Google search brings up fewer than 100 results, none of them sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. ... discospinster _talk 01:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Montenegro. ... discospinster _talk 01:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The single source on the article turns up a 404 and there are no other sources establishing notability. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see he has 33 followers on twitter and wrote a total of six opinion pieces for the Times of Israel. Mccapra (talk) 13:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There isn't anything to indicate that the subject is notable as a journalist or author and definitely fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Adam

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG standards. Quick Google search found 0 hits, aside from an Instagram website (which, for obvious reasons isn't a reliable source.) Sarrail (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. Sarrail (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find anything substantial. A search in French might help but not every player in a notable orchestra will be notable themselves. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and France. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for total lack of RIS. Mccapra (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No article should be nominated for deletion with the justification of a "Quick Google search" when the guidelines call for a range of searches. We should only consider deleting something if someone bothers to check notability as per WP:BEFORE CT55555(talk) 14:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Quick" is a subjective term, so a better path is to ask the nominator for more info. Your "Keep" vote implies that Ms. Adam is notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion if she is notable. I am arguing against deleting based on quick google searches, because that is not what our guidelines call for. I consider this to be a procedural keep argument. CT55555(talk) 17:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a discussion about how to do better WP:BEFORE searches is occurring here and I am ready to update my vote once they are done. Thanks to the nominator for taking my hint. CT55555(talk) 18:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She is indeed a member of several professional orchestras, but is only ever listed as a member and she has received no independent coverage for any of her own achievements or career path. She does not inherit notability from her organizations. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aladdin (Indian TV series)

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

Cable TV series doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No proof of notability, largely unsourced. The Banner talk 10:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chi and Me

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

Cable TV series doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced affair that gives no proof of notability. The Banner talk 10:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Zee Bangla. History is under the redirect if someone wants to merge. Star Mississippi 17:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Waaris (1999 TV series)

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

Cable TV series doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. to Zee Bangla. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (television).`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 05:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I don't readily see how this could be merged to Zee Bangla, but interpret the "merge" !vote as indicating that a stand-alone article is not justified. Randykitty (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ranga Bou

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

Cable TV series doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - coverage is largely WP:ROUTINE entertainment news articles about the upcoming series. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. to Zee Bangla. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (television).`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 05:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any coverage in RS I recognize, the redirect seems appropriate. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This page [11],[12], [13] has enough depth on these reliable sources to clearly pass WP:GNG. Nilpriyo (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable article which doesn't have any reliable sources about this series. 49.32.235.79 (talk) 04:10, 2 February 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bodhisattwor Bodhbuddhi

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

Cable TV series doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - coverage consists largely of WP:ROUTINE articles. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. to Zee Bangla. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (television).`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 05:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This page has many reliable sources. Even searching on Google found reliable sources linked to this page.^[1] Besides This show came in 41st week in 2022 and was TRP rank 19 BARC Viewership of TRP^[2] clearly passes WP:NTV with sufficient WP:GNG. Nilpriyo 8:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can't read Bengali, but ... really? More than one article primarily about this series in The Times of India, one of that country's major national newspapers IIRC? Airing on one of the country's major cable networks, and probably the major one for Bengali-language programming? Easily passes under NTVNATL. Daniel Case (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus was that it fails the relevant notability guidelines. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Proctor

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

There are two theoretical claims to notability in this article; politician and academic. The first is that he is a member of the Leon County Board of Commissioners from the 1st district (so not even countywide). Local politicians are not automatically notable, nor are they not automatically not notable. Reasons a local politician could be notable are longevity in service (Robert L. Butler, Margaret Doud, or Hilmar Moore). His tenure is not significantly longer than other local officials nationally. While the article goes into (quite possibly) all of Proctor's negatives, none of them are so negative they create notability. Unless the situation is someone like Betty Loren-Maltese or Rita Crundwell where the wrongdoing are criminal felonies directly related to their public service role. A clear failure of WP:POLITICIAN. Similar consensus was drawn for Andy Anderson in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Anderson (politician) a man in an identical role in Brevard County, Florida. Brevard is far more populous than Leon.

The second claim to notability would be his teaching of political science. However, he meets none of the criteria under Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I have not through Google Scholar found a single published paper. He clearly fails notability, and thus the article should be deleted.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is clearly far from neutral and needs substantial improvement. However, it cites significant press coverage in major Florida papers, passing WP:GNG. A 25+-year politician with a long, public history of wanton ethics violations would seem to meet WP:POLITICIAN in the "major local" category. I agree he fails the academic notability criterion, but that's moot. QuintinK (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

25 years isn't a particularly notable period of time that differentiates him from others. Also without other content, how can these actually be contextualized compared to other politicians? Also, unless there's some third-party, non-partisan source that says he is by and a way the most ethics rules violating politician in history, the instances mentioned here have no context to decide if he's any worse than anyone else (though he likely is). Short of meeting the criteria for criminal conduct, I don't see how it qualifies. There are 8 citations. Of those, what coverage from "major newspapers" are all in his region. That would be like claiming a local politician in suburban New Jersey was famous because said politician got mentioned in the New York Times.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete GNews brings up several news articles mentioning Proctor, but I'm not seeing any real significant coverage as defined by NPOL. There's this article from the FAMU newspaper, but it's not exactly independent given he works there. All of the others appear routine in nature. I'm not entirely convinced simply being mentioned in multiple articles rises to the level of "major local" under our guidelines. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sources such as this, this, this, and this (that that last one is 'Wayback machine' which always spooks me fore some reason), shows WP:GNG is met. Keep the article, but clean up if need be. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 04:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Current sourcing is a mix of local routine news, two permanently dead links, and a primary source document. Other news I can find is mostly from the Tallahassee Democrat or local Tallahassee news stations and on the line of fundraising, attacking another politician, running for re-election, matters regarding his son, and other routine news. This seems like a local municipal politician with a local scope in coverage. I'm not sure how reliable PC World, from the "highbeam.com" link, is for something as unrelated to computers and as contentious as an accusation of tax evasion on a BLP. I'm open to more information on that. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 07:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The editor Mpen320 puts forth an excellent argument for why this local official doesn’t yet merit his own article. I agree and vote to delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Soft delete~~Keep The article itself has potential of been improved because WP:GNG is slightly meant, ~~that the reason I voted for soft delete. For me draftify would have been perfect~~.Princek2019 (talk) 08:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Princek2019, there is a Keep vote so Soft Delete is no longer possible. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete County commissioners aren't notable, and the article is mostly about the negative aspects of both his political and teaching career. I don't find much for sourcing beyond his run ins with the various forms of law/academic enforcement. Oaktree b (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable per definition. scope_creep^Talk 11:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NPROF and NPOLITICIAN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL ,WP:NPROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No in-depth coverage anywhere. BruceThomson (talk) 09:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota C transmission

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

This article seems like it ought to be an encyclopedic subject. Someone has gone through a lot of effort to fill in all the information.

However... this article is a pretty clear violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTGUIDE. The only citations are to manuals. An IP just edited in what I'm mostly sure is a joke, and now I'm trawling through this reference to find out if it is. I feel there is little short of applying some WP:TNT that can save this article. BrigadierG (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is like the motor oil or transmission fluid articles we had at AfD a while ago, nice collection of technical data, most of it from primary sourcing. Wiki isn't the Hayes manuals, nor should it try to be. No sources found, most of what is found is simply service bulletins and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a list article (typical of many other transmission and engine list articles for most of the major manufacturers) and therefore WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not relevant. It doesn't try to teach/guide you how to fix the transmissions, therefore WP:NOTGUIDE is not relevant. However, it badly needs inline references to support its claims. If you think this needs to be deleted (rather than fixed) then you should also nominate every article in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Toyota transmissions, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Automobile transmissions, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Toyota engines and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Automobile engines. Stepho talk 10:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:INDISCRIMINATE says data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. If that cannot be done, the list is an indiscriminate collection of information, and should be deleted. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - The word indiscriminate has connotations of randomness, uncohesiveness and lack of context. The article is extremely regular (lists transmissions and their ratios) and puts it in the context of which vehicles the transmissions are in. What it lacks is many references. So, it should be tagged with {{refimprove}} or similar to encourage editors to add references. The way forward is to add references - deletion of useful information would be a step backwards. Stepho talk 00:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Transportation, and Lists. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless there's a serious prospect for sourcing it - I'm sorry, but I feel this is one of those topics where you'd be better posting this information on your own website where you can present it yourself in your own words, talk about your credentials as an expert and explain your experience and expertise. That's a more realistic goal. With no sourcing, we have no way to verify that any of this stuff is true. If an IP makes a change replacing one unsourced statement with another, we have no idea who's right. Blythwood (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sorry but Wikipedia is not a repository for manuals, whether sourced, or, as here, not. It's not notable, not encyclopedic, and fails WP:NOTHOWTO. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a how-to article - there are no instructions to follow. Otherwise we would have to delete almost all of the engine and transmission pages for all car companies. Stepho talk 23:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument... I don't really like parts lists, I think they should be deleted if they are not parts that have received some kind of media coverage or coverage in books other than repair manuals and parts lists. On the other hand I dislike deleting anything at all, because someone might find it useful. The issue is that one begets another and they proliferate because the standard has been set. If there are other parts catalogs of items that don't meet WP:GNG they should probably be considered as well. This kind of thing is best placed on a Wiki dedicated to its topic. If this is allowable why not just list all the parts in all cars on Wikipedia? —DIYeditor (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dubious notability, more befitting a different kind of site than Wikipedia, but there are probably many articles like this. WP:NOT should include "not a parts catalog" if WP:NOTDATABASE doesn't cover that. If this is not something mentioned in the media or publications other than repair manuals and parts lists (particularly the individual parts listed here) it is not notable. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Public Contest Successfully Finds Names For Jupiter's New Moons". www.iau.org. 26 August 2019. Retrieved 6 January 2023.

[2] Ashton, Edward; Beaudoin, Matthew; Gladman, Brett J. (1 September 2020). "The Population of Kilometer-scale Retrograde Jovian Irregular Moons". The Planetary Science Journal. 1 (2): 52. doi:10.3847/PSJ/abad95.

[3] "বাংলা টেলিভিশনে প্রথমবার ' বোধ বুদ্ধি ' নিয়ে আসতে চলেছে নতুন ধারাবাহিক ' বোধিসত্ত্বের বোধ বুদ্ধি '". Bangla Asianet News.

[4] "TRP: রেটিং চার্টে অবস্থা শোচনীয় 'মিঠাই'-র! জয়জয়কার গৌরী, খড়িদের". Aaj Tak বাংলা.

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danish Manzoor Bhat}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadeem Khan (social activist)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garrett Overcash}}