Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 03	October 05 >

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 merge‎ to List of Doctor Who audiobooks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Runaway Train

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No references. Fails the general and book specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Popular culture. UtherSRG (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
merge into List of Doctor Who audiobooks: the latter does have a section for Eleventh Doctor. Maybe I am lazy but I failed to find independent sources for WP:GNG.- Altenmann >talk 18:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Doctor Who audiobooks, where it is already listed. I also failed to find any significant coverage or reviews on this. Rorshacma (talk) 14:44, 4 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 see a consensus to Keep this article and, just as importantly, aside from the nominator, no support for Deletion, Redirect or Merger. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Kelso

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

The article has a lot of WP:CRUFT with no proof of notability. Sources are episodes (primary) and a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of Scrubs characters. Spinixster (chat!) 14:22, 26 September 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!) 14:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG. Note, you'll find more results under "Dr. Kelso" or similar.
1. McFarland Book Beyond Sitcom: New Directions in American Television Comedy with a large amount of SIGCOV of the character in a variety of ways [1][2]
2. Character used as a case study for a few paragraphs in leadership book[3]
3. IGN has several articles with secondary SIGCOV of Kelso including several reviews and at least one list, eg [4][5][6][7], we can count this as one very solid source.
4. Some coverage around ethics and kelso in this book [8]
5. Here's some coverage of the character's arc and portrayal through the show 10 years after. [9]
6. Other short bits of coverage related to:
  - diversity and race [10]
  - gender [11]
  - more medical ethics [12]

Note this was not an exhaustive search.

—siro χ o 03:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the sources...

First source mostly mentions Kelso in plot summaries, so I don't think those parts prove notability. I do see parts that compare him to Dr. Cox or talk about their conflicts, so perhaps that can be used, but I don't see it as a reason as to why he's notable.
Second source is just a case study, as you have said, but it's perhaps not the best source to prove notability since it's only a paragraph.
IGN sources include 4 episode reviews and 1 list. I don't think a character being featured on a best characters list, especially a list for Scrubs characters only, really proves notability; the other 4 episode reviews doesn't seem to go much in depth about the character from a real-world perspective (he's mostly mentioned in plot summaries)
The fourth source has a commentary section that uses one of Kelso's decisions on the show as a case study. It's better than the second source, but it is just one episode it's taking the case study from, so it might not be good to prove Kelso's notability, but it can perhaps be used for the character section.
Fifth source only briefly mentions the character and sums up his storylines. It's pretty short and has no other commentary on the character.
Sixth sources:
- Diversity and race source is a brief mention as an example of racism.
- Gender source is also just a brief mention as an example of the slang word "hellcats"
- Based on previews because I can't find a full version of the source anywhere, the Medical ethics source seems to focus more on Dr. Cox and only mentions Kelso when Cox interacts with him.

So overall, there are a lot of sources that talk about Kelso as a character. While not a really good point towards notability, I do think the major sources about the characteristics of Kelso can be used, like the first and fourth. Spinixster (chat!) 04:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First source mostly mentions Kelso in plot summaries. You are mistaken. —siro χ o 04:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emphasis on mostly. I did explain at the end of it that there are some parts that can be used. Spinixster (chat!) 07:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Mostly" is a relative term, and while "Does the source mention the subject?" is an either/or question, "Does the source mention the subject enough?" is not. I think we need to embrace the subjectivity here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Does the source mention the subject enough" is important here because for an article to be notable, it needs extensive coverage (WP:SIGCOV). Plot summaries don't count since they are trivial. Sources that cover the topic extensively from a real-world perspective do. Spinixster (chat!) 03:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be reading that essay in an unconventional way. I'd suggest a careful reread. Most of that essay has to do with Wikipedia articles, with a minor reiteration of the importance of secondary sources. You also may have missed the section of that essay, § Plot Summaries as Sources, which contradicts your own summary of that very essay almost to the word. —siro χ o 03:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That section was added in 2022 with no consensus, and the lead of the article says ... an article about a work of fiction or elements from such works should not solely be a summary of the primary and tertiary sources, they should also include real world context from reliable secondary sources. Coverage of fictional topics should provide balanced coverage that includes both plot summary and real-world context. In this case, plot summaries would be a tertiary source unless there is commentary, and there needs to be enough commentary on the character to prove the character's notability. Spinixster (chat!) 06:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear if you are implying anything and if so what it is. Is it your assessment that Beyond Sitcom: New Directions in American Television Comedy is a tertiary source? —siro χ o 08:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant that the plot summaries with no commentary are tertiary. Again, I explained that there are content that can be used. Spinixster (chat!) 11:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources found by Siroxo. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I used some of the sources provided in the article, but of course I didn't do the ones I can't access. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a sufficiently notable fictional character based on sources identified. BD2412 T 17:41, 4 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 withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 18:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dream (Lebo Mathosa album)

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

Contested draftify, no sources and just a track listing. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 14:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article sucked and should've been left in drafts, yes, but now is clearly notable with the addition of a source confirming multiple award wins. It's still a stub and could use much more work, but that doesn't invalidate its presence in mainspace. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this nomination was mainly TNT (yes, I know, TNTTNT, but this was well beyond the pail), since sources have been found and the article has been expanded, so I'll withdraw this. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 18:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Evidence of the South African Music Awards can be found in these sources, one of which is the indisputable Billboard: [13], [14], [15], [16]. While most coverage of the album is retrospective after the singer's death in 2006, this article can stand on its own after some improvement. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:31, 5 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

White Americans in Arkansas

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

Not needed in its own article. Already covered by the main Demographics of Arkansas article. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 14:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think the statistics are true, from what I understand, people of Greek descent are classified as Mediterranean in US statistics... Regardless, already covered in the demographics article as explained. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary content fork per the nominator's rationale.4meter4 (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The external link to a state encyclopedia article about white flight...this is WP:POINTY and the creator was blocked, so I can't assume good faith about why this article was created in the first place. Nate • (chatter) 01:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction The original creator was blocked and is likely socking via 170.80.111.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Nate • (chatter) 17:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At best, it is an indefensible WP:POVFORK from demographics article and is, as stated above, very WP:POINTY. It fails literally every test for article criteria from WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to WP:GNG and WP:NOT. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:14, 5 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 14:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lesní stadion

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSTADIUM. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Czech Republic. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article claims it was home to the football team from 1957 for a long time, but their current stadium has been in use since 1966. Even the club's own website doesn't mention that it used Na Lesní as a permanent home. C 679 10:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and no sources Yoblyblob (talk) 14:27, 18 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Numajiri

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

I'm admittedly not an expert in the history of Japan, but I can't find anything that mentions this battle in Gbooks or a general Google search except for this article and the one about Yoshishige. If the subject is notable then the writer would have, presumably, used a better source than a random website that isn't even using modern HTTPS security. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 13:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic passes WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT; there is significant coverage and around 100,000 troops were involved. WP:BEFORE requests that searches be performed in the native language. There are actually a large number of discussions of this battle in Google Books when searching for the Japanese, e.g. this from Chūō Kōron and this from a book it published, this from Shūkan Tōyō Keizai, other coverage here and here. I stopped after those five but there are clearly more as well. Dekimasuよ! 22:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we integrate information from those sources into that article, please, so this isn't single-sourced any more? If this can be done, then this would be a keep from me. — The Anome (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Update: Given the existence of ja:沼尻の合戦, with its multiple sources, I've now changed my opinion to a strong keep. — The Anome (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for performing a more thorough WP:BEFORE, as I'm limited by my inability to understand Japanese. I'm happy to strike my vote if you'd be willing to add these sources, with page numbers for the books, to the article. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 22:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and support adding the Japanese sources. - Boneyard90 (talk) 03:10, 7 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 14:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Dey

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

Not notable. Claims of notability are based on his acting career, but the article also says he has yet to appear in a film. Sources given are unreliable or don't actually cover the subject. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 13:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NO coverage found in Gnews. What's used in the article doesn't help, ImDB isn't a valid source. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails in WP:NACTOR Worldiswide (talk) 03:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is contingent on actually having done something of note. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yet to appear in a film? Delete as certainly WP:TOOSOON, if notable at any point in time. GraziePrego (talk) 05:27, 9 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 Crime in India (ATD). While I agree with Tollens that there isn't much of anything to merge (hence why I closed as redirect rather than m+r), the history is still available behind the redirect if anybody desperately wants to merge content. Daniel (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drug abuse in India

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

ESSAY. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 13:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Copy of the 2012 Version of Crime in India. Nobody (talk) 08:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is tagged as a stub, and that is what it contains: basic info that begs for expansion based on lots and lots of readily-available WP:RS. I see no question that the subject has ample notability, and there are valid, verifiable sources already in the article. I am not prepared to to offer a specific WP:THREE for future expansion (will add to my to-do list), but gScholar provides a massive set of India-specific drug use/abuse scholarship. Data and research from Goa alone could make a good article. Was WP:BEFORE done on this nomination? I agree the article is in terrible shape, but this feels very much like a WP:DINC discussion. Once AfD is complete, I'll also recommend on the TALK that we rename to Drug use in India as a wider and more accurate term. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEFORE isn't relevant to the nomination. It's an ESSAY and WP:SYNTH as it stands, not an encyclopedic article. And as mentioned above, it seems to be a copy of a very old version of Crime in India, which begs the question, why is someone re-creating old versions of articles? Additionally, as it's a copy paste, then it's also a copyvio as there's no correct attibution in copy-paste moves. Maybe it should be speedied instead. The best that could happen here is it's blanked and moved to draft space. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 23:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware that there were AfDs that were not subject to the minimum requirements of WP:BEFORE. Can you point me to that policy/guideline, please? It would help me if you could explain how you see WP:SYNTH applying here, as the cited sources seem to support the text pretty clearly. What am I missing? Please also explain your reference to WP:COPYVIO (if copied from an old Wikipedia page, was that entire page copied from a source verbatim?) and WP:SPEEDY (I don't see any of the 39 criteria applying here). Right now, there does not appear to be a single policy-based reason for deletion, and it looks more and more like the only rationale for the AfD is entirely rebutted by WP:DINC (or perhaps WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're offering a red herring. The rationale isn't based on lack of sources, but on the lack of an ARTICLE. It's not my job to teach you how to read and understand policies here, and I explained the COPYVIO and lack of attribution via copy-paste move above. Your willful ignorance, casting of aspersions and sealioning won't help your "keep" argument. If you think an article is warranted, then rewrite it as an article WITHOUT an unattributed cut-paste move copyvio of an 11 year old version of another article. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 15:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if you misunderstood my questions. I was not asking you to explain policies; I am very familiar with them, and I quoted the ones that I feel are applicable. I will take your statements in order.
It is not a good article, but saying there is a lack of an ARTICLE is not helpful. The article exists, contains info on the subject, and contains three relevant, reliable sources cited in appropriate places. It needs a LOT more sourcing and plenty of work, but AfD is not for cleanup.

You have not actually explained your rationale for applying WP:COPYVIO, you've just kept using the term. COPYVIO is entirely and exclusively about copyright violations, which can only exist if this article (or the original) replicated text verbatim from sources. Can you explain which part(s) of the article misuse copyrighted information?

Phrases like willful ignorance, casting of aspersions and sealioning are unhelpful an incivil, but I'll address them (though I would request that you strike them to show that you are willing to assume good faith). 3a: The nomination doesn't say why the article should be deleted except the word, 'ESSAY'. If you meant WP:NOTESSAY, my question is not willful ignorance as the article doesn't seem to contain an editor's particular feelings about a topic. If you meant something else, please explain it. 3b: Can you please be specific on aspersions? I cast none that I can see, and I've reread my posts repeatedly search for such. 3c: Sealioning is asking questions that have already been answered, and I've asked my questions because they haven't been. You have not explained what copyright was violated, what was synthesised from sources, or which speedy-deletion reason applies.

At this point, and especially considering the tone of you preceding response, it seems like you're saying that you don't like the article and it should thus be deleted. That is opinion, not policy. Please explain which policies and/or guidelines require this article's deletion (preferably without personal attacks). Thanking You in Advance, Last1in (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problems with Last1in's comments above. I'm surprised Balph Eubank (a.k.a. The literary leader of the age) has taken offense.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Crime in India. I think there is no need of a separate article unless someone can expand this. Draftication is also a better option. 111.92.123.60 (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the page deserves a different page. The Crime in India page cannot contain hundreds of crimes, and it will be confusing.Rkyadavdhruv (talk) 07:22, 9 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!} 17:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - In its current state, it's only a single paragraph and can be easily merged into Crime in India. It does need polish, but there is reasonably coverage on the topic. If it were to be merged and someone later took initiative into improving and expanding the section, then it could be extracted into its own article. -- Primium (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Last1in- clearly a large, notable issue for India. Expand and clean-up, don't delete. I see no policy-based justification for deletion.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This is a clear No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the tone is not suitable for an encyclopedia so it needs rewriting. It's only a stub so there's nothing useful to save, so WP:TNT. I'm sure it is a notable topic outwith of the general topic of crime in India, but it requires an experienced editor on en.wiki to turn it into a useful thing. JMWt (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect/draftify. Obviously notable issue but the article has nothing to salvage upon like what JMWt said. I don’t really want to make the cleanup argument, but the article needs a heck ton of work to reach a satisfactory quality, so I suppose we can WP:BLOWITUP. S5A-0043^Talk 14:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Crime in India#Illegal drug trade. Not sure how this slipped past everybody, but the content is already there. That section is a nearly perfect replica of the article, just written better. Tollens (talk) 10:00, 1 November 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 James Dewar (musician). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stumbledown Romancer

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

Tagged for notability since 2010 and unsourced. Fails the general and album-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. UtherSRG (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to James Dewar (musician): Found a couple brief mentions but nothing substantial enough for notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:45, 4 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) 13:11, 11 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Stickney

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and author-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Journalism, United States of America, and New York. UtherSRG (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment leaning Keep. The book on McVeigh seems likely to be notable; at least one review of this book on Proquest search, plus the Time article and multiple other news/magazine articles which I can't access. There also seems to be some fuss over another author allegedly plagiarising the book (Letters. Columbia Journalism Review. Vol. 38, Iss. 1, (May/Jun 1999): 8.) referencing an article in Columbia Journalism Review that compared the two books. Also possibly local newspaper reviews of The Amazing Seven Sutherland Sisters (LOCKPORT AUTHOR FINDS STORY OF VICTORIAN SISTERS COMPELLING. Fischer, Nancy A. Buffalo News; Buffalo, N.Y.. 28 Mar 2004: NC8. & Recounting a hair-raising story: Sutherland Sisters subject of new book. Fischer, Nancy A. Buffalo News; Buffalo, N.Y.. 11 Mar 2012: NC.5.) and an interview (Biographer of McVeigh has moved on from dark era. Continelli, Louise. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. 19 Apr 2009.). There's also a review of his recent memoir which contains some biographical material (including noting the above plagiarism) (Kirkus Reviews. 8/1/2020, Vol. 88 Issue 15, pN). Espresso Addict (talk) 23:10, 4 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) 13:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One possibility that could be considered would be repurposing the article to discuss the notable book on McVeigh, and having a brief author section that name checks Stickney's later less-notable works. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:40, 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!} 23:29, 18 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Manno

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

Fails WP:GNG: no significant coverage other than as the husband of Ali Fedotowsky. The only edits by creator User:Tvmediamanager are on this article, so WP:COI seems highly likely. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Illinois, New York, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:18, 6 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) 13:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep Found a followup in Chicago Tribune & a feature in Illinois Entertainer which might be enough for WP:GNG. Flurrious (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:17, 18 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 Spatula. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frosting spatula

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

I agree with Mrs Beeton Chidgk1 (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Spatula: No need for standalone article Reywas92^Talk 14:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:49, 4 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Company man

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

Hard to tell whether this is true or not Chidgk1 (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I was going to suggest draftify as it has zero citations, but it's had a no citations hatnote since 2008. Delete per WP:NOCITE ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 23:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick Google Books search suggests that the oil industry definition here is accurate, and that sources exist that could support it. Will Pettijohn's Oil & Gas Handbook (2012) defines the role as the top supervisor [...] responsible for the operator's interest in the well. Rappini and Neto's Company Man: The Well Constructor in the Offshore World (2022) says the Company Man is [...] the onsite professional directly responsible for coordinating and managing well construction and maintenance in a safe and efficient way. Ron Baker's A Primer of Oil-well Drilling (1979) says the company man is in direct charge of all the company activities on the drilling location. Adam Sampson (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in response to Chidgk1: this absolutely "true". I even suspect that "company man" appears on some business cards. On an offshore oil rig, all the work is done for the big oil company under contract by other "oilfield service companies": the drilling company/rig owner plus specialists such as wireline testing companies and mud companies. There's normally just one employee of the actual oil company that's paying for all this and will own the well -- that's the "company man" who's there to supervise these contractors.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable per Adam Sampson's refs.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:15, 11 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arab–Israeli relations

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

This page theoretically has a broader scope, but it currently just duplicates content from Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement, while pointing to the broader "normalization agreements" that have been signed, and which are collectively referred to as "normalization agreements", e.g.: Bahrain–Israel normalization agreement, Israel–Morocco normalization agreement, Israel–Sudan normalization agreement ... also known as the Abraham Accords, which is where this material is already covered in full. Arab–Israeli relations more generally are already covered at Arab–Israeli conflict, which holds the context for why normalization is necessary in the first place, and Arab–Israeli alliance. Outside of these contexts, it's unclear if "ethnicity–nationality" is an appropriate framing for foreign/international relations, as this would seemingly just veer in the direction of a repeat of content from articles on the relations of Israel with a collection of 20 other countries. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Israel, and United Arab Emirates. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Middle East. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ WP:COMMONNAME, Arab refers to the Arab world. There is a vast literature on the subject which relates to the collective positions of the states and is more than just about conflict; some examples.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]

References

^ Ma'oz, Moshe; Rubin, Barry; Ginat, Joseph, eds. (1994). From war to peace: Arab-Israeli relations, 1973 - 1993 (1. publ ed.). Brighton: Sussex Acad. Press. ISBN 9781898723103.
^ Klein, Menachem (March 2000). "The 'tranquil decade' re‐examined: Arab‐Israeli relations during the years 1957–67". Israel Affairs. 6 (3–4): 68–82. doi:10.1080/13537120008719572.
^ Eisenberg, Laura Zittrain; Caplan, Neil (14 July 2010). Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace, Second Edition: Patterns, Problems, Possibilities. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-00457-4.
^ Kurtzer, Daniel C.; Lasensky, Scott B.; Quandt, William B.; Spiegel, Steven L.; Telhami, Shibley (15 November 2012). "The Peace Puzzle: America's Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace, 1989–2011". The Peace Puzzle: America's Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace, 1989–2011. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-6586-4.
^ Kostiner, Joseph (December 2009). "Saudi Arabia and the Arab–Israeli Peace Process: The Fluctuation of Regional Coordination". British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies. 36 (3): 417–429. doi:10.1080/13530190903338946.
^ Kaye, Dalia Dassa (29 March 2001). "Beyond the Handshake: Multilateral Cooperation in the Arab-Israeli Peace Process, 1991-1996". Beyond the Handshake. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-50532-1.

The only possible argument here might be a TNT, but I do not see it, the article can be easily stubified. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's already a stub that simply duplicates other articles. That's sort of the problem. I left it an open question as to whether this article should/could be supported or not. But this page has content that is such a fragmented aspect of any potential whole topic that it's not a useful start - so yes, I would say WP:TNT would be applicable until an editor has the will to create something that is not than just some scattered notes on one part of the Abraham Accords. As it stands, the page is just a navigational obstruction on the encyclopedia that can only serve to potentially crop up in searches and direct readers here to an essentially functionally useless page rather than to an actually useful page on the subject such as the main Arab–Israeli conflict page or Abraham Accords page. I arrived here by just such a journey, looking for the 'Abraham Accords' page. All of the sources above refer to the conflict and peace process. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every source from a Zionist, mostly in occupied Palestine itself. This presumption that "Israel" can have "relations" with a single ethnic group -- membership in said group totally defined by the Zionists -- obviously serves to flatten Palestinians into "Arabs", "just like all the others", "and why can't they just go elsewhere in their people's lands?", etc. Additionally, it reinforces the idea that the Ziostate is the Universal Jew which represents and embodies every Hebrew on Earth, despite its very existence being considered an abomination by devout Hasids and secular American kids alike. So...do you have anything -- literally ANYTHING -- from a Palestinian scholar? Or even just one who isn't explicitly Zionist??? Thanks. 142.126.146.27 (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not see a reason why this can't be a broad-concept article covering both the conflict and the alliance. As Goldsztajn points out, this topic is clearly notable. Deletion is not cleanup. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicative of Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement. Also covered by Abraham Accords, Arab–Israeli conflict, and Arab–Israeli alliance. Just because the title could be a broad-concept article doesn't mean this article should be kept, so no prejudice to reorganization of those articles that may include this name, but someone would actually have to do it rather than having another redundant stub. Just because the high-level topic has coverage for notability doesn't mean we have to have this page when the topic is still covered in other articles (WP:NOPAGE), and that's not merely cleanup. Reywas92^Talk 14:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All those are subsets of this topic; this is the top-level subject. This is akin to arguing for the deletion of the Africa–United States relations article because it is made up of component parts. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, all the sources you provided were about the "Arab–Israeli Peace Process", which is absolutely a child article of the "Arab–Israeli conflict" - you can't have peace without war. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, the Menachem Klein piece is not about the peace process, second, the texts themselves discuss relations in toto, third, even if it was only a list of texts with titles related to the peace process, those texts *contain* (as does much of the literature) material that is beyond the conflict per se, for example, discussion of differences within the Arab states towards Israel. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page is notable as previously stated. All it needs is a clean up and rewriting. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What an understatement! Are you going to rewrite it? Reywas92^Talk 13:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arab-Israeli conflict. Someone can expand the article into a broader concept if they want, but right now it is actively confusing to have an article covering one small fragment of the general topic, with a very search-likely title that implies coverage of the whole general topic, when we actually do have a page on the general topic.

JoelleJay (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this was essentially one premise of the nomination - one that I could have perhaps elaborated on. As long as the article does not contain broad concept material, it is simply a navigational hazard for readers. It would be better redirected to a page where the material is better covered, and, if and when someone expands the material it could of course be re-split out to this page as and when required. But this is a definite if. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in others' thoughts, not ideal, not outright opposed, but much better than delete. My concern is I don't like the equivalence implied by this particular redirect. My only other thought is could this be a disambiguation page? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Striking !vote for the moment, pending others' inputs. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 03:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

European colonization is an inherent conflict, one which doesn't end until genocide is complete. Your feelings are immaterial. 142.126.146.27 (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think it's a notable topic on its own, but WP:TNT of the existing article and rewrite starting with the Oslo Accords and Camp David Accords. Andre🚐 21:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:34, 4 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Abarca Cidón

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

Spanish doctor, lawyer, and businessman. Fails WP:GNG, coverage is incidental, owned media such as ey.com, press releases. No inherent notability. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Law, Medicine, and Spain. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:ROTM businessman doing his job. Nothing to suggest a pass at WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Juan Abarca Cidón is a physician and doctor with several scientific publications, he is the head of the third largest hospital group in Spain. There is a lot of media coverage because he has raised the controversy about public health and private health, and he is an advisor to the government. In the Talk section of the article, you can see links to numerous independent publications about him in which he is featured.--DamAzul (talk) 08:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Abarca C. is a notable person in the health sector and should not be considered for removal, as he is referenced in many reliable sources independent of Wikipedia, such as El Pais, Cinco Días, El Mundo, El diario.es, ABC, El Confidencial--Fittipaldi92 (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well known and important in the health and political sector. Appropriate references according to Wikipedia standards.--Miskito89 (talk) 08:34, 16 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. This article was sent to AFD just a few hours after it was created and a lot of editing has occurred since the nomination which was the second edit to the article. I see a mix of Keeps and Deletes after 3 relistings which leaves me at No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Knysna fine art

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

Lack of notability. My confidence in the sources is not enhanced by the fact that all of them are blocked by the library where I edit. TheLongTone (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Visual arts, Museums and libraries, and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are accessible for me. Some are not independent, but I believe this contributes to N:ORG while this is not likely independent content. Weak keep as I imagine there's some offline sourcing. I'll look for it while this is at AfD. Star Mississippi 13:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the online sources where these are available DoubleTripleYou (talk) 09:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I submit that the subject of the article should be eligible for publication as the gallery in question is the largest of its kind in South Africa. I have added additional sources since first publication DoubleTripleYou (talk) 09:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is promotional, stating It is considered one of the top contemporary galleries in South Africa with a citation to a travel guide and no further information about why it might be considered important. Also states Read, who is considered one of the foremost authorities on contemporary South African art with citation to the gallery's site and a tour guide. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:42, 17 October 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!} 23:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: looking at the sources as a whole, what doesn't fail WP:V fails WP:N. Not part of my consideration but notable to the discussion is the concerns about WP:PROMOTION.

microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 16:00, 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 Neighbours characters. RL0919 (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Neighbours characters

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

My primary concern is identical to that expressed in the recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Hollyoaks characters. "This does not meet WP:NLIST. It should be either deleted.. or mergerd... . Consider that eventually, each show will finish and then this division into current and former characters will be even more pointless." I'll also note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Neighbours characters, which seems to be relevant to this (under the old name of List of regular Neighbours characters), and which concluded with Merge into single article that was clearly not done. I'll also note that recent Talk:List_of_Neighbours_characters#Merge_from_List_of_former_Neighbours_characters, dominated by participants of WikiProject Soap Operas ended with "no merge". Given the contradictory consensus on merge expressed in those past discussions, discussion in a wider venue not dominated by a single WikiProject seems needed. I'd be fine with a merge, but IMHO we don't need more than one list of characters for this or any other show (if the length is an issue, we can always entertain a split into 2+ parts such as A-M, N-Z or so on). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
merge into one list P.S. List of regular Neighbours characters was the formr name of List of former Neighbours characters ("R from move") Move summary says "Revert name changes in light of series returning to production" - which is an extra argument in favor of a single list: no one can possibly know who is former and who is current in the long run. - Altenmann >talk 18:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Altenmann And there is more: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of recurring Neighbours characters... and see Category:Lists of Neighbours characters. Sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – First of all, the merge was done, but this was because the show had ended, so *every* character was former. Secondly, it is not difficult to know who is former and who is present: when a character leaves and is no longer appearing, they go to the former list. If they return, they go to the present list. It's really not that hard. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – I was just about to go to bed so this will probably be quite short, but here goes: Firstly, both fully sourced pages do meet LISTN as there are many sources clearly indicating present and former characters differently. Neighbours itself is also quite famous for its use for bringing back former characters for guest stints, particularly for the anniversaries and the intended finale, the latter of which was highly reported on due to former characters from various decades all returning, especially ones played by high profile actors such as Kylie Minogue and Margot Robbie. There are also many sources which specifically focus on the present characters and former ones separately, which I am happy to list in the next few days (and hopefully other editors of the project will too), which illustrate how both are notable as a group individually.

Also, separating the lists is not pointless. It is important as it ensures that readers are aware between the difference between current and former characters. This soap is known for it's high changeover and aired continously for 37 years. I disagree that it means that there is a lot of work for editors – it is not, as editors are constantly updating character pages etc and we also move characters when they debut, leave, return, are upgraded to regular or recast. Usually when a character leaves an experienced editor or IP moves the character to the former list the minute the episode airs. Merging the pages could cause the page to be too long and possibly tagged with a *too long* template, let alone it making it even harder to navigate. WP:Wikipedia is not paper – two pages (one of former and one for present) is not an issue at all and makes it easier to navigate. Also, that policy, along with Wikipedia:Article size, explains how it is important to not make pages too long and too big as it affects download times and creates other issues and suggests that long tables are split off into stand alone pages. The former and present character lists have been used for decades by the soap community through excessive consensus (as I have seen through looking at a lot of the revision history etc from years ago) and this has worked well for years and never caused an issue. Additionally, if the show does end again (which bear in mind could not be for another 50 or so years – Coronation Street is still airing 63 years later!) then we will cross that bridge when we get to it. Also, a split of it between 2 parts would not make sense and it also would not show who is currently appearing in the show and who isn't. The lists are notable for non fans of the show, but for readers who are fans who do watch the show currently, a list not clearly indicating who is currently appearing and instead showing characters from 30+ years ago would not be helpful. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they are returning, they are not former, just recurring. List of recurring Neighbours characters exists, in fact, and needs to be merged too, as clearly there is unnecessary overlap. As a reader, I want one comprehensive list of characters, not n list divided with unclear criteria (by date or status). Status (recurring, former, whatever) or date of introduction trivia can be covered in the main list, which can even be made sortable by such parameters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a character returns after an absense they are not recurring, recurring characters are different. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 08:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is functional and useful. I'm not convinced merging with List of Neighbours characters would be in the project's best interest, but even if that were to happen it would be a merge, not a delete. As I have mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of recurring Neighbours characters, the merge consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Neighbours characters was in entirely different circumstances (i.e. when there were no present characters), and was enacted at that time. U-Mos (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@U-Mos For the record, I prefer merge to deletion for all referenced content here, too. But I don't get it why readers are supposedly better served by having multiple similar lists? An average reader wants to see one list of characters, without trying to figure out why someone is not here and looking for them on a former/recurring/by date/something else sublist. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets NLIST. The list is functional and provides a split for readers. The show hasn't ended so running away with a theoretical situation and using it as a reason for deletion is bad faith. – Meena • 14:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would AGF if the nomination reason wasn't total grot. The show hasn't ended, next. – Meena • 19:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Neighbours characters - I normally hate this word, but this is so much WP:CRUFT. We do not need a meticulous listing of "former" characters from this show. No show, not even something as big as The Simpsons, should have a "former" character list. Especially since almost any of these characters can be brought back at any time. I also believe this after this discussion, which I believe should definitely be taken into account for the closer. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Neighbours characters One list seems sufficient. Otherwise, it becomes WP:CRUFT. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep: This article is massive and it, along with another huge article, will make List of Neighbours characters absolutely massive and very hard to navigate. Not to mention that by having this article, it is consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. Deleting this article will just go against all other soap opera and even some other TV series articles, which makes zero sense. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still a bit unclear if this article should be merged or kept…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I see the comments that this would create an article that is too large, but the answer is to clean up the unsourced material. As is, there is still a case for deletion. But merge is a valid compromise and WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every single character on both pages are sourced? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps @Shooterwalker was referring to the List of recurring Neighbours characters, which is almost totally unsourced? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. And the List of Neighbours characters is short enough that WP:SIZE shouldn't be an issue. The extent of the merge and clean-up can be handled through editing, but we don't need multiple lists about the same thing. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:24, 5 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 Halsted station (CTA Orange Line). While there is a great deal of support for Keeping this article, none of those advocating Keep have countered the two source analysis that state that the sources don't support GNG so I'm selecting a Merge closure to the most often mentioned target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Halsted Street station (Heritage Corridor)

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

Currently zero in-depth coverage on this station, and searches did not turn up enough to meet WP:GNG. Was draftified in hopes of improvement, but returned to mainspace without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 08:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage, and the sources cited are either not RS or passing mentions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references are adequate, and the Chicago Tribune reference is more than a passing mention. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (article's creator here) for the reasons Eastmain gave. Additionally, Pi.1415926535 recently expanded the article with improved and additional references. Lost on Belmont ^3200N_1000W (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Trib article consists of 3 sentences about the new station, hardly an in-depth piece. The other 4 are simple mentions. Not sure when one brief blurb amounted to significant enough coverage to pass GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I find some books at the library in an attempt to meet WP:GNG's criteria, would they count towards mainspace eligibility or not really? Because I would be happy to use them as sources, although it may be difficult to find any that are both independent and reliable. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – now appears sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Useddenim (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per reasons stated above. Many closed train stations similarly have limited information both on and off Wikipedia, but keeping them helps to improve them now and later on. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For the closer, in light of all the !voters above actually ignoring the sourcing, and mostly the WP:OSE arguments, here's an assessment table.

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.newspapers.com/article/chicago-tribune/132466247/	The source is major newspaper	The source is reputable published source	Brief 3 sentence blurb which discusses the station. Definitely not in-depth	✘ No
https://www.loc.gov/resource/g4104cm.g01790191103/?sp=59			Map showing it exists, but zero in-depth coverage	✘ No
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:April_1923_Illinois_Central_Suburban_Trains_West_timetable.pdf	Published by the rail line	Yes	No coverage, simply a listing	✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=KSA1HTTU-eMC	Yes	Yes, a major newspaper	Just a brief mention	✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=KSA1HTTU-eMC	Published by the rail system	Yes, a major newspaper	Just a brief mention in a table	✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Southwest_Transit_Corridor_Project_Chica/Ddo3AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Halsted+Street+station%22+chicago&pg=RA8-PT59&printsec=frontcover	Published by city	no editorial oversight	In-depth	✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Southwest_Transit_Corridor_Project_Chica/Ddo3AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Halsted+Street+station%22+chicago&pg=RA8-PT59&printsec=frontcover	Published by city	no editorial oversight, no peer review	Brief one-line mention	✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Southwest_Transit_Corridor_Project_Chica/Ddo3AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Halsted+Street+station%22+chicago&pg=RA8-PT59&printsec=frontcover	Independently published	Lulu is a self-publishing site	Brief mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Redirect to Heritage Corridor#Stations. May or may not be notable (I'm a bit confused) but has anyone considered a WP:ATD so far? S5A-0043^Talk 12:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input on the sources presented above…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still voting keep for reasons above and currently researching the topic in order to preserve the page. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~::●Keep- I Found This, this, & this PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~I found this. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete: Based on the source table given, is not adequately covered to meet notability requirements. I can find scattered mentions of the station, but nothing I'd use to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
most3 of the sources should be partial and not red (1,2,4) PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no such thing as partial. The table automatically calculates based on input. I've added the 3 more non-notable references to the table.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Chicago Tribune(newspapers.com)	Major Newspaper	Major Newspaper	3 Scentences	✘ No
Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.			Just a Map	✘ No
April 1923 Illinois Central Station...	Published by the Rail Line		Just a Listing	✘ No
Frank Lloyd Wright: His Life and His Architecture		Published: John Wiley & Sons, Jan 16, 1991	Breif Mention	✘ No
Southwest Transit Corridor Project, Chicago Environmental Impact Statement 1985		?	In Depth	✘ No
Report on the Engineering and Operating Features of the Chicago Transportation Problem Volume 1	Published by: McGraw Publishing	Published by: McGraw Publishing	One Line	✘ No
Outside the Rails: A Rail Route Guide from Chicago to La Plata, MO	?	Self Publishing Website	2 Full paragraphs	✘ No
Ridership Trends - Anual Report 2017	Published By Rail Line		~ Mentioned a Few Times	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

- PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out in my revert, none of the three sources you added refer to this station. Outside the Rails discusses Halsted Street station, Southwest Transit Corridor Project discusses Halsted station (CTA Orange Line), and Report on the Engineering refers to the Halsted cable car barn. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been searching for books relating to the Alton Railroad and the GM&O, as they would probably be our best bets. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

either way id does not pass GNG PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 21:36, 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!} 23:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet GNG requirements to my eyes. Secondary source coverage just isn't there. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Halsted station (CTA Orange Line). The vast majority of stations that survived into the public ownership era easily pass GNG, but there's a handful like this one that probably don't. Merging or redirecting is best for almost any train station, since they're always likely search terms. The Orange Line station is directly across the street from where this station was, so it's an obvious target for the merge. (There's plenty of history to be written about the Orange Line station itself, so it wouldn't be UNDUE.) See Medford/Tufts station and Suffolk Downs station for similar situations where I've incorporated the history of predecessor stations into articles on rapid transit stations. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose delete and the redirect suggested earlier. Torn between keep or merge to Halsted station (CTA Orange Line). If sourcing doesn't pass GNG then merge as an AtD as this station appears to be a predecessor to the current station. Slight problem is there's as much if not more material on this station as things stand than the merge target. Nevertheless, as User:Pi.1415926535 says there's expansion possibilities for that article. Rupples (talk) 21:02, 18 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. Numerically, there are more editors arguing to Keep this article but those advocating Deletion have, I believe, done their due diligence reviewing sources that were available to view and I don't want to discount their opinions. And those arguing Keep are relying on off-line sources that not all editors took the time to assess or that weren't always available for review.

For those editors who don't believe the subject warrants a standalone article and bring this article back to AFD in the future, I'd follow this nominator's recommendation and suggest a Merge or Redirect rather than a straight Deletion as this character clearly has editors willing to go to great lengths to ensure their continued presence on the project on some level. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Cunningham

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

"a fictional character from the British Channel 4 soap opera Hollyoaks". Very poorly referenced plot summary that fails WP:GNG. No reception, just said plot summary in 'storylines' seciton, then a few remarks by actors from the show about that character in 'development' section that mostly deal not with the character but with relationships between actors in the show. Current sources are two media articles that mention the character in passing (failing WP:SIGCOV) and my BEFORE yielded nothing better. Per WP:SOFTDELETE, we can consider redirecting to the List of Hollyoaks characters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fictional elements, Television, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:BEFORE shows only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, and this article doesn't pass the threshold for WP:SIGCOV. Would also support a redirect per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has SIGCOV in sources such as here and here. – Meena • 12:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are low quality plot summaries. Where's the analysis? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the development and reception section shows notability and the sources show SIGCOV. The development is not plot, it talks about the development of the character and the actor's views of the storylines and characters, which is significant. Additionally, the storyline section does not need to source per the storyline guidelines at WP:SOAPS. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject does not get to overrule community consensus such as WP:V. Unreferenced plot summaries can be removed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:PLOTSOURCE, plots and storyline sections do not need to be sourced. We can help source it but this is currently not an issue. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to Strong keep due to the amount of sources added that demonstrate clear notability and SIGCOV through sources covering the character in depth. The development section is now really detailed and extensive (and fully sourced of course) and show the real life information relating to the character. The reception has also been improved and further illustrates the notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Helen and all the recent AFDs concerning Hollyoaks characters, were regular characters on television around five times a week. The show was broadcast in multiple countries when Helen was featured. The show had more than 3M viewers when Helen was featured. This is likely to generate sources, but linkrot and the character not being on-screen for nearly 20 years makes it difficult because you have to go back and find the sources. Helen and the other articles just need a little work, researching and sources adding. I feel obliged to keep adding sources rather than enjoy working on the project.Rain the 1 20:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Hollyoaks characters (1997)#Helen Cunningham. It's hard to decide the notability of fictional elements, especially for a character who appeared in a soap opera. Through a normal Google search I only found articles about the show itself or some WP:CRUFTy trivia or plot summary, and Google Scholar gives limited results. Perhaps someone with access to reliable British newspapers can help find sources that talk about the character in a way that SIGCOV is met, but for now, I'm towards redirecting the article until sources are found to restore it. If sources are found, please let us know here. Spinixster (chat!) 14:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Those advocating Keep need to demonstrate SIGCOV, not mere passing mentions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – the sources Added by Meena, Raintheone and JuneGloom07 show clear SIGCOV. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC) Pinging @Spinixster: as you asked to be pinged if sources were added. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot access the offline sources, however, the sources that are on the article right now does not prove notability to the character.
- The first Free Library source is an interview and only briefly mentions Helen.
- Same with the second Free Library source.
- Digital Spy source only briefly mentions about how the show pays tribute to the character in an episode.
- Fourth Free Library source only briefly mentions that Mr. C and Helen died in a car crash.
- Book source would technically be primary because it is co-written by the show's creator and it's a companion book. I cannot access this source, however, but I just want to make it clear.
Do note that SIGCOV means addresses the topic directly and in detail, and no sources listed here so far address the character directly and in detail. WP:FICT also says Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about "real-world" aspects of the element, such as its development and reception, than "in-universe" details. Spinixster (chat!) 01:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to the offline one (as in that's why I said the ones that have been added...), as they discuss the character in depth. I know you cannot access them, but showing good faith for them would be appreciated as this character was popular and on air back when the internet was not used as much, so the sources relating to her are mainly offline. Also, those sources do discuss the character in detail regarding the real life context, which I specifically wrote about in my comments above. I would like to ping @Raintheone: as they can tell you more about the sources that show SIGCOV. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Offline materials can be scared and shared, on file sharing platforms for example. This may fall under fair use if it is just for the purpose of this discussion, and sharing is set to private (just for folks with the link). If I see SIGCOV myself I would even withdraw the nomination myself. Please ping me if any materials are shared with me. I could also accept them by email. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Raintheone:, are you able to do this? No worries if not, but I wanted to ping you DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Hollyoaks characters (1997) per User:Spinixster. I think if there is not enough material for the article to pass SIGCOV guidelines and standalone, then merging the sourced content to the list is the best course of action. And this is probably not the best place, but I wish these articles weren't taken straight to AfD. It's like all the other steps to resolve the state of the article is skipped over. There never seems to be a real attempt to search for sources, or hold a discussion about it with either the original creator (if possible) or WP:SOAPS editors. The PROD process also seems to get forgotten about, but might encourage editors to work on the article more than an AfD. I don't know... - JuneGloom07 Talk 21:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda leaning towards keep because of the work put in by User:Raintheone. I think it passes WP:GNG. - JuneGloom07 Talk 21:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Can everyone who has taken part in the discussion so far please revisit this. Compare the article to the day it was nominated ([17]) to now ([18])? I have tried to improve the article since it was my responsibility wanting it to be kept. I understand there are primary sources such as the show's official website, used to include information about Helen's characterisation. There are offline/AGF sources that meet SIGCOV discussing her storylines, including interviews with cast members. I have added reception which mention opinion about Helen. Sorry I delayed any significant improvement until today - I had hoped someone else would have taken this one on.Rain the 1 19:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed a request above for an upload of the offline sources. I have uploaded photographs here. They are on a 24 expiry link since the articles are copyrighted. Pinging as requested, @Piotrus:. Pinging others involved who have mentioned the issue during this AFD: @Spinixster:@Meena:@Liz:@Shooterwalker:@JuneGloom07:@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: - Thank you.Rain the 1 20:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I revieweed the first four. There are just plot summaries, and I am not even sure they all mention her. The most substantial number 3 also contains some thoughts on another actor on the actress playing Helen. I am not seeing how this is relevant or meets SIGCOV. PS. I've reviwed the Reception section added ot the article, and I fear this is the usual case of "cobbled from passing mentions" that for example is routinly not enough to save game or animation characters. That said, I fully support merging that section to a relevant list. Plot summary loss is inconsequential (that what fandom is for), but even a cobbled reception like this has encyclopedic value and fandom does not care for this stuff. However, a stand-alone article IMHO is still not warranted. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are 7 interviews with Hollyoaks cast members about Helen's stories. They form sections of the development section I have added to explain Helen's development within the show. The remainder were used in reception besides one. This was used to cite the claim that Hollyoaks did not publicise Helen's death storyline in advance. Each source mentions the fictional character Helen/Mrs C which is why they are used as a source. Helen is a fictional character and the interviewed cast discuss Helen in addition to the actress. The discussion about the actress is not what has been sourced in the article. Facts about Kathryn George's portrayal of Helen have been included. This subject may not be high brow. It was boring to edit. This is a Wikipedia article not a fandom article and I improved it for Wikipedia. AFG was not given in response and a request to upload offline sources was made. A decision has been returned but not all the sources I provided were checked over. Do we know make decisions without checking all the facts.. What good faith exists here..Rain the 1 06:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:Raintheone for uploading the offline sources. But what ever happened to AGF? - JuneGloom07 Talk 21:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Raintheone:. I am saddened by the lack of AGF. I completely understand that editors are busy, but I wish that others could have looked at the other sources and not just the first 4. I saw the sources and I remember that the first 4 were about Helen's death and her death being revisited in 2017. First of all, they did all mention her. Second of all, the ones about the 2017 mentioned her death a lot, thus illustrating the impact of the character – if she was not notable, the magazines would not be reporting about the fictional person behind her death 13 year later. Same with her affair with Tony (I think that source was the last one) – it was fully in detail about Tony and Helen's affair and the impact the storyline was having on the actors and viewers, and if it was not notable the soap opera magazines would not be doing features and interviews on it. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A lot of work has been done on this article since its nomination. A source analysis of old and new sources would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the source upload page has expired, this is not very likely. In either case, it would be good to hear from someone who is not a member of the SOAPS as well. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I have created a new link with those offline sources once again - here Rain the 1 18:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep the article has vastly improved since the nomination 5 albert square (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There has been plenty of work done with this article. It contains reliable sources and interviews that are all relevant to the subject matter. Soaper1234 - talk 20:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am very puzzled by the comments above stating that the article is well sourced. I spent an hour looking at all the online sources and as far as I can tell not a single one of them contributes to notability:

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://web.archive.org/web/20031003020329/http://www.hollyoaks.com/backstage.asp?bs=3&aID=7	The source is the show's web site	Maybe?	Very brief blurb about the actress; does not discuss Helen.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20031002154533/http://www.hollyoaks.com/backstage.asp?bs=2&cID=7	The source is the show's web site	Maybe?	Brief database entry.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20021227140411/http://www.hollyoaks.com:80/microsites/default.asp?site=mrc/steamteam	The source seems to be usurped? It's an ad for a dry cleaner.	If there is a connection to the show or character I'm not seeing it.	Unrelated to subject.	✘ No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Cunningham#refEvans	Source is Wikipedia	A circular link to the same Wikipedia article	No content.	✘ No
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/SOAP+MUMS%3b+How+screen+mothers+and+daughters+really+get+on+after...-a083638715	Source is Sunday Mail (Glasgow)	? I cannot find discussion of the reliability of the Sunday Mail.	Article is mainly about the actors, one passing mention of Helen.	✘ No
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/1%2c000+and+as+saucy+as+ever%3b+Nick+Foley+on+Hollyoaks'+landmark...-a0100432202	Source is Daily Post (Liverpool).	? I cannot find discussion of the reliability of the Daily Post.	Short article about an unrelated actor; one passing mention of Helen.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20030415215840/http://www.hollyoaks.com/article.asp?a=02/04/03	Source is the show's web site.	Maybe?	Article is about a different character; does not mention Helen by name but there's a single passing allusion to her.	✘ No
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/the+Insider%3A+Killed+off+in+fine+style-a0114764046	Source is the Liverpool Echo.	? I cannot find discussion of the reliability of the Liverpool Echo.	Very short article; does not mention Helen.	✘ No
https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/milo-entwistle-reveals-killed-hollyoaks-11261033	Source is the Daily Mirror.	~ WP:RSP says no consensus on reliablitly of the Daily Mirror.	Article is about a person who wrote a plot line of the show; passing mentions of Helen.	✘ No
https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/soaps/hollyoaks/hollyoaks-twist-milos-big-secret-revealed-he-killed-the-cunninghams-nathan-morris-reacts/	Source is the Radio Times	? I cannot find discussion of the reliability of the Radio Times	Article is about the same writer and plot line as the Daily Mirror source; passing mentions of Helen.	✘ No
https://www.digitalspy.com/soaps/hollyoaks/a839391/hollyoaks-spoilers-nathan-morris-milo-entwistle-road-crash/	Source is Digital Spy.	WP:RSP says Digital Spy is reliable for entertainment.	Article is again about the same writer and plot line as the Daily Mirror source; passing mentions of Helen.	✘ No
https://www.digitalspy.com/soaps/hollyoaks/a30984580/hollyoaks-pays-tribute-gordon-helen-cunningham/	Source is Digital Spy.	WP:RSP says Digital Spy is reliable for entertainment.	~ Short article about a tribute to Helen.	~ Partial
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Get+to+C+soap's+only+ghost.-a0113685013	Source is Western Mail (Cardiff)	? I cannot find discussion of the reliability of the Western Mail	Article is about a different character; one passing mention of Helen.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Not entirely accurate. This one is a book source, not Wikipedia itself. Seems like the so called usurped source has an issue. If you click "About us" on the link it reveals the content about Helen. It was the main content when I cited the source. The sources about the actress are relevant to the character. The character is not a real person, facts about Kathryn George's portrayal are relevant. The source about George in which Helen is not mentioned is just used to state she joined the show in 1997. It was never used for anything else, but to aid the general readers understanding. The sources are being analysed without the context they are used in the article. There are also offline sources which I have been good enough to upload. All I have done is try to improve the article by adding real world information and explaining the fiction better than the plot summary fancruft that was originally served up. There are 31 citations used but only the lowest value are singled out. What about the full page interviews with cast I uploaded? They add some value here. I guess the issue is this subject is boring and low brow no matter how much you try and improve it.Rain the 1 02:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No acknowledgement of the offline sources where Helen is mentioned numerous times. This fictional character is from 1997 and remained on-screen until 2004. Helen seems to fair better with offline sources. Perhaps that is because of linkrot and the loss of online content over the past 20-26 years. I will single out some of the offline sources. They give Helen the significant coverage asked for in this AFD:

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mahathir Mohamad's defamation lawsuit against Far Eastern Economic Review

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

A lawsuit filed by Malaysia's prime minister & settled out of court - this is not notable and would be a redirect if the title page were possibly a search term that anyone would use, which I submit they would not. It's not really a merge, more a single line mention in the Mahathir Mohamad article. So delete. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, News media, Politics, and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think I'm not understanding the proposal. The single line mention is merely a link to this article. No? So deleting this article would immediately lead to removing the single line mention. But you seem to be supporting a single line mention. Thincat (talk) 09:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb Which "India's prime minister"? Are you trying to say 'Malaysia''s prime minister? 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 15:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right, my bad. Type in haste, regret at leisure... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:46, 4 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) 12:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Clearly not remotely notable as a standalone article. Merits a single sentence in the article for Mahathir Mohamad at best. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom merits a a single sentence in the article for Mahathir Mohamad at best as noted above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:04, 12 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jan-Frederick Göhsl

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

Fails WP:SPORTBASIC as their is no evidence for this player. HawkAussie (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. HawkAussie (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:19, 10 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Simon (footballer)

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

Fails WP:SPORTBASIC as their is no evidence for this player. HawkAussie (talk) 08:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. HawkAussie (talk) 08:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:19, 10 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Schmidt (footballer, born 1993)

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

Fails WP:SPORTBASIC HawkAussie (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. HawkAussie (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:19, 10 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nermin Ibrahimović

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

Have looked at sources for this player and it does fails WP:SPORTCRIT. HawkAussie (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Serbia. HawkAussie (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - also failed to find WP:SIGCOV under "Нермин Ибрахимовић". Found some weak coverage in German like this. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 11 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WBEM (AM)

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

No refs on the page for many years - it appears that the claims on the page are unverified and may never be. Unlikely that a tiny AM station ever got the kind of coverage needed to meet the WP:GNG but I await with interest others showing me how I'm wrong. JMWt (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Pennsylvania. JMWt (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete; fails WP:GNG. - Altenmann >talk 18:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Toughie because the location does not have full-scan newspaper, but I have scraped about five sources. There is stuff that is quite mushy and SYNTHy. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Sammi Brie's sources seem to provide SIGCOV of the topic when considering the alternate call signs and ownership. —siro χ o 18:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the newly-added source material would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Of the sources added to the article there appears to be enough WP:SIGCOV from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette articles to meet the GNG. Let'srun (talk) 20:42, 16 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Ung-u

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

I'm gonna take the step forward and try to tackle with this. I don't think there is any significant coverage about this person besides With the Century, the autobiography of Kim Il Sung, which I would consider not RS. One passing coverage from RS I found is here. TheLonelyPather (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To add to my point, notability is not inherited. Being the grandfather of Kim Il Sung does not make one inherently notable. TheLonelyPather (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Depends what kind of sources you want I guess, North Korea's various gov't websites have coverages about this person using the typical flowery language... Some coverage in US sources, when the Navy found an old flag with a connection to this person [19], [20] Oaktree b (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peer reviewed journals mention him in context [21], [22]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, @Oaktree b. The flowery language of NK government is what I'm most concerned at. I will look into the US sources and the peer reviewed journals. TheLonelyPather (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access the North Korean sites on work's VPN, and even on my personal internet, it's a bit of a crap shoot to get them to load. KCNA is usually the best one. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The basic information in Kim can be rolled into the article on the Kim family or perhaps his son. The information on the General Sherman incident can go into the General Sherman incident article.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Korea. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 8 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danny "Danno" Williams

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

Many sources in the article are primary/unreliable, 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 Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) characters#Danny "Danno" Williams. Spinixster (chat!) 08:04, 19 September 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!) 08:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No opinion on whether to keep or delete, but the proposed merge target would be inappropriate as Hawaii Five-O (and thus this character) has had two different iterations. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is the best merge/redirect target as the original Hawaii Five-O series does not have a list of characters page, and either way, the two iterations of the character are pretty much the same. Spinixster (chat!) 08:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this, there is also a similar Steve McGarrett created in 2007. If you look at the Hawaii Five-O navbox, they appear to be the only who characters like this. Chin Ho Kelly is a redirect. — Maile (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but divide the information between the original series characters and the reboot. That would be the best solution, IMO. TH1980 (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep, as a redirect can not point to multiple targets, and disambiguation is inappropriate for multiple iterations of a single character, which leaves this as the equivalent of a WP:BROADCONCEPT article on the topic. BD2412 T 17:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because we can't redirect for reasons cited above. Now for the improved sourcing that the article needs. Mystery Scene magazine feels editorialy. It's About TV is a direct discussion of the character but the author says they've published just one nonfiction book and we'd have to establish that they're generally considered an expert in the field for this source to be considered reliable. Heading to Google Scholar: Aha! [23] [24] Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Mystery Scene source is a brief mention. Also, it's written by a writer for the show and is more about his experiences working for the show.
- It's About TV is a self-published source (check bottom of website)
- First book source mentions the character in plot summaries, there doesn't seem to be much discussion about the character himself.
- Second book source is mostly just plot summaries and comparing him to Steve McGarrett. There's little to no commentary about the character.
Spinixster (chat!) 02:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Mystery Scene isn't suitable, and we'd have to establish that the writer of the self-published source is publicly considered an expert, WP:SPS, for it to be suitable for anything other than that writer's opinion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of the multiple iterations of the character. A standalone page seems better in my opinion for showing these two. GraziePrego (talk) 06:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm seeing many picking Keep due to the character having multiple iterations, but I want to bring out another option to disambiguate the page at Danny Williams instead. Something like the Barry Allen page, with both the original, Arrowverse and DC Extended Universe versions of the Flash listed as well as other people named Barry Allen. Spinixster (chat!) 06:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 11 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Rivière

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. According to IMDb, the subject died on 25 April 2011, in Cannes, Alpes-Maritimes, France. Is this true with other references? Tagged for living people on the English Wikipedia, who are dead on other Wikipedias, since February 2022. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 23:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, France, Oceania, and Argentina. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 23:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
French wikipedia doesn't say he's passed away. I guess that's why we don't consider ImdB a reliable source. Oaktree b (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is the Spanish Wp that considers him dead. See my comment below (includes 2 sources that mention it, one in English, one in French but this might all be based on a confusion (another GR who did die in Cannes that day, but not same middle names ). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He was in the Longest Day and the Musketeers movie, I'm amazed there isn't more written about him. All I can find is a cast list for the Longest Day in a period newspaper that lists him. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's lots of film reviews on Trove which mention him, but nothing substantial. Would he be in old French cinema magazines 9and if so, can anyone access and read them?) IdiotSavant (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless we can pull up sources, I can't find any. Looked at BNF Gallica, the NYT link above and in the Wikipedia library ProQuest. No sources for this actor found. Oaktree b (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b One of the things that needs to be investigated further is coverage in books, because I'm seeing a fair bit on this actor. Some perhaps meeting SIGCOV. Silver seren^C 01:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are just name drops, I can't find anything extensive about him. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG And NACTOR per nom. UtherSRG (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR based on the filmography alone. I'd also not that both images at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Georges_Rivi%C3%A8re_(actor) are of the front covers of French language magazines and have the actor on the front cover which indicates that these publications have significant coverage of the subject. That would seem to indicate that the subject also passes WP:SIGCOV. It's likely that the actor is also covered in other French language media of the period (ie newspaper articles, film criticism, etc.)4meter4 (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those magazines are Spanish-language from Argentina. I suppose they might have coverage in Argentine sources, but I have no idea where to look for archived magazines from that country. Oaktree b (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my error. I assumed incorrectly that they were French. The point remains the same though. An actor making the front cover of a magazine is going to have SIGCOV in that magazine.4meter4 (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant roles (including lead roles) in multiple notable films make him meet WP:NACTOR fairly.

Noted as "the beau of Argentine cinema" -as Jorge Rivier [25].

Filmo:[26][;[27]

As for Rivière being alive or not: even though Sens Critique and various websites and the following book mention him dead 2011 in Cannes [28], I think it is safer and fairer to consider him alive. The absence of any obituary is a rather strong indication, I find.

Not that this is necessary to meet the criterion, but his roles have received coverage. More sources exist, in Spanish for example:

etc.

.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 11 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 Commuting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Journey to work

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

Journeys to work are already described in the Commuting article Chidgk1 (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Commuting, obviously not a distinct concept, but fair to cover the study of commutes in that article. Reywas92^Talk 14:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Commuting would indeed be the best idea for this page. TH1980 (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Commuting with redirect is fine. 23:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC) dml (talk)
Merge and Redirect: Commuting is the best target. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 17:20, 10 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 07:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbekistan (disambiguation)

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

Fails wp:DAB. Article is basically a random selection of articles with names beginning with Uzbekistan. // Timothy :: talk 07:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article is mostly carrying the article related to Uzbekistan stuff. Good Faith Fancy vißes (call) 07:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Uzbekistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not a proper disambiguation page, as none of these things (with the possible exception of the airline) would really be called "Uzbekistan". All the sports topics can be moved to Sport in Uzbekistan. BD2412 T 17:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nommed; not a viable dab page. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:04, 10 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 07:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

樂天

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

Wiktionary entry for non-encyclopedic content. Fails dab // Timothy :: talk 07:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Meets neither WP:DAB nor WP:NONENGLISHTITLE requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primium (talk • contribs) 17:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This does appear to be disambiguating honorific and company names used in the subjects of several articles. However I am dubious about whether such an en:樂天 page fulfills a useful function, clearly not meeting WP:NONENGLISHTITLE, and if it didn't exist and someone did seek "樂天" on en.wiki, wouldn't the search results be informative enough? AllyD (talk) 20:59, 10 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

(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., [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 06:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

USHR

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

Since United States Heraldic Registry's deletion in 2017, this has only linked to two things: United States House of Representatives and Islamic taxes § Ushr. The first fails MOS:DABABBR, and I don't think the sources support "USHR" being nearly a common enough abbreviation for the House for that term to be added to the target article. And the second doesn't need disambiguation because WP:DIFFCAPS applies; no one had made Ushr till today, but I've gone and done that. Since this does not help readers arrive at any page explaining the usage of "USHR" in all-caps, it should be deleted. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ushr is by far the primary topic, but it isn't commonly rendered in all-caps so a redirect there wouldn't be useful. As for other uses, the most common by far is the US Hockey Report, a website covering amateur ice hockey that is commonly used as a reference but about which we seem to have no encyclopaedic content (I have not evaluated whether it is notable). In article space I can find one use of the acronym to what I think is the US House of Representatives and that should be rewritten to use the full term (see Direct representation#Disadvantages), and a single use (as usHR) for "Union of Students for Human Resource" at Indian Institute of Management Shillong#Clubs (a wholly unreferenced section), something not mentioned anywhere else on the encyclopaedia and which I don't think merits a DABMENTION (I don't know what the current consensus is regarding mentioning societies like this in articles so offer no opinion on that). Thryduulf (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with the above. I've never seen ushr, the Islamic tax, spelled all in caps and there is no reason it ever would be. (NOTE: Editor is a volunteer for the WP:Feedback Request Service which randomly selects volunteers to give feedback to WP:RfC) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that USHR is not significantly used, and WP:DIFFCAPS applies. Even if USHR were significant and the same, WP:TWODABS would apply, and Ushr is primary. --Bejnar (talk) 23:01, 10 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 03:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sholom Lipskar

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

Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV, just routine reporting in his position as head of the Aleph Institute. Longhornsg (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Judaism, Uzbekistan, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:45, 27 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!} 06:34, 4 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 Law & Order characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nora Lewin

(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, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of Law & Order characters. Spinixster (chat!) 11:42, 27 September 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!) 11:42, 27 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!} 06:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article needs non-primary sources, to be sure, but I'm not sure none exist. This character was a major part of one of the most influential programs on television. Here are some hits on Google Scholar: Main search with summaries. I'm getting better quality on Google Books: Prospects of Legal Semiotics Women, Violence, and the Media: Readings in Feminist Criminology Lawyers in Your Living Room!: Law on Television Because of the way Google Books' preview function works, I'm not getting a good enough look to say these sources do cover the subject well enough to show notability, but it looks like they might. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the sources only briefly mention the character, so they aren't really usable. Based on the few hits on Google Scholar, I'd say those sources are the same. Spinixster (chat!) 12:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why I put "comment" instead of "keep" or "redirect." If a character is mentioned a lot and becomes a by-word, like Gomer Pyle, or if a character is so well known that he's used as a measuring stick in professional journalists' editorials about real politicians, like Jethro Gibbs, then that character might be notable enough for an article. Nora Lewin feels more borderline to me, so I'll provide the sources without drawing the conclusions. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A WP:BEFORE search isn't showing enough WP:SIGCOV. These are trivial mentions at best, and not enough for a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:38, 7 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!} 04:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Ragab Gomaa

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

Coverage is all of youth initiative short films, (non)notably under the Start Your Dream initiative by the Egyptian Ministry of Culture. Student films is not the stuff of WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR both of which the subject signally fails. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Egypt. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mildly tiresomely, User:Danilo9750 insists on repeatedly removing the AfD template from the article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:49, 4 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!} 06:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sourcing found for this individual, even what's given in the article barely confirms the roles. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 4 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 Gilgit-Baltistan#Economy and resources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of Gilgit-Baltistan

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

Unneeded CFORK of Gilgit-Baltistan#Economy and resources. No objection to a consensus merge. // Timothy :: talk 06:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gilgit-Baltistan#Economy and resources per nom. - Indefensible (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I support Indefensible's idea.--Nimorinka (talk) 12:47, 12 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!} 05:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

X Neural Switcher

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

No RS on the page, I can't find anything which would meet the GNG. Seems unlikely to be encyclopedic WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 07:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 07:00, 27 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!} 06:32, 4 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!} 03:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; no independent sourcing. I could support a merge, but do not see any plausible merge targets; X Window System is far too broad. Perhaps a new article merging it with the other two at Category:Keyboard layout software could be possible. Walt Yoder (talk) 14:33, 11 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. Just an aside, just because an individual editor can not access a source used in an article doesn't mean that it is not a reliable, independent, worthwhile source. If other, experienced editors can access a source and they attest that it benefits an article and you can't access it, exercise good faith and take their word for it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise English Medium School

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

No significant coverage beyond passing mentions and a few articles about routine events at the school. Tube·of·Light 05:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, India, and West Bengal. Tube·of·Light 05:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline case, there might be enough coverage such as 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. to allow on notability. There are more but I stopped looking. - Indefensible (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG per Indefensible's sources plus several articles from 10-15 years ago in The Statesman and other short but non-trivial mentions, eg [39][40], etc. —siro χ o 07:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. - Indefensible (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 26 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!} 05:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•DELETE- Only reference listed on the article is a non-RS. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PaulGamerBoy360: Did you read the sources that Indefensible and Siroxo provided before !voting? JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I specificaly said "listed on the article". PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and 3 out out of the 4 links he provided say access denied. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 14:06, 4 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!} 06:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided by Indefensible and Siroxo. Combined, there's definitely enough to pass WP:GNG. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3 out of those sources provided say access denied PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PaulGamerBoy360: The two Proquest articles are accessible through the Wikipedia Library, and having a paywall alone does not disqualify a source, per WP:PAYWALL (though I wouldn't count the TOI article towards notability). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now the pages are loading, when i previously clicked the proquest ariticle links provided, an "Access Denied" message popped up. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:30, 11 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. This is partially because, after three weeks of this AFD being open, there is no support, other than the nominator, for deleting this article. This closure doesn't mean that there isn't room for improvement and I hope editors will tackle some of the problems pointed out by the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Students for Sensible Drug Policy

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

Deletion policies 4, and 14. per WP:DEL-REASON Article created with primarily publicity and advertisement purpose thus not suitable. Also, questionable/marginable WP:NCORP. Aside from rev-deleted copy and paste spamming, there has been a lot of SPA/IP promo adverts. Graywalls (talk) 10:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Advertising, and Education. Graywalls (talk) 10:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Related discussions: 2009-03 Chris Maj (closed as ✗ delete)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Scrapes by WP:GNG. Seems like a very active organization with a ton of university chapters, so there are a lot of sources about them in university and local papers (here are some), a lot of stories that briefly mention them for events/activism, etc. Putting those aside, though, there's a journal article about one of its cases (Skarin EA. SSDP v. Spellings: Judiciary Acquiescence of a Law with Racially Discriminatory Effects? Journal of Gender, Race & Justice. 2010;14(1):301-326. Accessed September 26, 2023. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=qth&AN=62169915&site=eds-live&scope=site ), some coverage from Filter Magazine, Filter again, High Times, Seattle Times, bits here and there in the Washington Post, Reason covered one of their events, and though it doesn't count for much as far as SIGCOV goes, there is a huge quantity of sources which interview/quote SSDP members (e.g. Washington Post, WaPo again, CBC). It's not a slam dunk, but given the amount of press coverage they're getting on the basis of proliferating student clubs, I'm content to err on the side of keeping for now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We really shouldn't use Filter Mag to establish notability. Look at the info on the publication. It's like using paper industry publication to claim notability to someone that makes cardboard or fan club website to establish the notability of a fictional character. "The Influence Foundation Inc. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, founded in New York in 2017. Our mission is to advocate through journalism for rational and compassionate approaches to drug use, drug policy and human rights." What you say is Washington Post is actually The Times UK, so perhaps you mistakenly labeled it wrong, but "Jones is a former board member of Students for Sensible Drug Policy UK (SSDP) which has guided the transformation in universities’ approach to drugs." is not sigcov. The actual WaPo one is not SIGCOV. "Gonzo Nieto, a drug educator and a board member of Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy, said...." in CBC not sigcov. Fails NCORP hands down, which requires significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources and one source counts as one, one journalist counts as one. At least one of the significant coverage must be of great WP:AUD. Also, are comments posted AFTER the 7 day period admissible??? Graywalls (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AW Elttaruuu (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep per sources cited by, and comments of, Rhododendrites. A bare-minimum WP:GNG pass. Sal2100 (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the argument is "per xx", my rebuttal argument is the same. The sourcing fails to satisfy WP:NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 06:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input, and since both keep !votes are "weak".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Responsible drug use#Organizations where the organization is referenced, and merge any relevant content there. Revising from my previous !vote of "weak keep" based on the subsequent arguments made by Graywalls. Sal2100 (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there seem to be plenty of sources for this organization, just not currently in this article. The article can be improved. As noted above there are recent articles mentioning it too, such as Seattle Times from early Sept. --AW (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a significant coverage. It's kind of a routine coverage about groups on the University of Washington campus and there's a few sentences around the SSDP. Graywalls (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just one example, there are multiple above, and if you google it and choose news, various other articles talk about the group --AW (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  For example https://qcnerve.com/students-for-sensible-drug-policy-launches-statewide-fellowship/ and https://seattlemedium.com/uw-students-hope-to-popularize-harm-reduction-on-their-campus/ - took me about 2 minutes to find AW (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  One's an alternative local paper, another is a local paper. This article is about an organization, so it needs to meet WP:NORG, and one of the required criteria to be met is WP:AUD. None of the sources you referenced meet AUD. At least one must, but preferably multiple sources meet WP:AUD and WP:SIGCOV together. The Seattle Times one, although a regional paper is not a significant coverage. Graywalls (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC) Perhaps re-direct is the happy middle. Graywalls (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I have a feeling no matter what newspaper source I cite for this org, which has many, you will find some reason why it doesn't matter. This isn't a local organization, but local sources are writing about it, that's not a bad thing. Just above in the discussion we have Seattle Times, you say no, we have Filter, you say no, High Times which is probably the preeminent marijuana magazine you didn't comment on, the two I took 2 minutes to find, you say no. Here's some more I found in about 2 more minutes of searching the web. MLive which is a major one in Michigan https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/2022/03/university-of-michigan-student-group-wants-ann-arbor-to-fully-decriminalize-drug-possession.html, Reason mag https://reason.com/2022/10/25/outside-the-white-house-protestors-urge-biden-to-release-nonviolent-marijuana-offenders/ Rolling Stone (not directly about SSDP but talks about them) https://www.rollingstone.com/culture-council/articles/cannabis-exceptionalism-drug-reform-movement-1289647/ etc etc etc. Again, these took me seconds to find. And as someone else noted above, a bunch of articles quote SSDP staff in broader articles about the topic. --AW (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Here's some more: the Independent https://www.independent.co.uk/student/student-life/health/newcastle-university-students-offered-ps3-drugtesting-kit-students-for-sensible-drug-policy-a7020726.html, Detroit News which talks about SSDP organizing the event the article is about https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2022/03/22/michigan-attorney-general-dana-nessel-speak-ann-arbor-hash-bash/7127379001/, Tampa Bay Times https://www.tampabay.com/news/education/college/usf-launches-student-amnesty-policy-for-overdose-situations/2154376/ AW (talk) 20:19, 4 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!} 05:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me the full 7 days so I can do a source analysis table. I understand AfDs are not !vote but consensus. Graywalls (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

still working on it Graywalls (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Revising (again) from my previous !vote to redirect. Based on the sources listed by AW, I am now convinced the subject passes WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
Filter 1, and 2	Y	N	?	N	N	Significant dependence on people associated with the organization. The magazine is also a POV, limited circulation niche pro harm reduction industry magazine, so not passing AUD. Also, articles by same publications count as one, articles by same journalist/authors also count as one according to NCORP.
Seattle Times	N	Y	Y	?	N	trivial coverage even though it passes AUD.
Washington Post	N	Y	?	Y	N	limited depth of coverage.
Reason	N	N	N	Y	?	That they led a protest and its members were discussed.
Independent UK	N	N	Y	Y	N	article about drug test kits but discussion on SSDP is limited and mostly quoting little snippets of their chapter members.
Tampa Bay Times	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Not much contents in a way that instills significance to the SSDP, but about school policy. It's chapter member is interviewed, but very little contents about SSDP.
Detroit News	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Trivial coverage/announcement of partnership.
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

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 Neighbours characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of recurring Neighbours characters

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

A long list with single reference, unnecessary duplicating parts of List of Neighbours characters and failing WP:NLIST. It should be merged or redirected there, which would also be consistent with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Neighbours characters where it was mentioned and where the close verdict was Merge into single article. This time the closer should (assuming similar consensus) redirect the article instead of waiting for someone to do the merge; clearly, someone is not coming and the effectively unreferenced status of this is not very helpful. PS. See also related and currently ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Neighbours characters. Moving characters from list to list (former, recurring, present...) is pointless make work. Editors interested in this should rather try to improve a single list with content and references. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong oppose: Nope, nope, nope for the same reason that List of former Neighbours characters wasn't deleted. You say that List of recurring Neighbours characters duplicates List of Neighbours characters. What parts are duplicated in that article? Literally none. That article is for characters that are currently recurring. The article for proposed deletion is for recurring characters who formerly appeared (please don't say that they therefore belong in List of former Neighbours characters – that article is for former regular characters only). This trend of proposing the deletions of all these soap character lists is getting a bit repetitive now. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"What parts are duplicated in that article?" Curtis Perkins is mentioned in both. Reece Sinclair and Trevor (dog) are metioned in the main list under recurring section, but not in the recurring list. Cleaning up this mess into a single list will help the readers too (as a reader, I find the current system very opaque, probably because it is developed by few Wikiproject members for themselves, not for an average encyclopedia reader - or even soap opera fan). There's a reason we have MoS and other policies (like GNG). Wikipedia is not fandom, where a group of fans can create their own walled garden that looks they way the like it, or fork it into variations (separate wikis on fandom, which for our soap opera coverage takes the form of ton of duplicative and confusing lists). It's high time to clean this up. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, Trevor and Reece aren't in List of recurring Neighbours characters because that article is only for FORMER recurring characters. They are STILL recurring. As for Curtis, that's simply an oversight. He was only announced to be returning a few days ago and whoever added him obviously just accidentally forgot to update the other article, so that's just a very nit-picky mistake. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, do you mean that the article titled List of recurring Neighbours characters shold be renamed to List of former recurring Neighbours characters? IMHO this is pointless distinction that Curtis' example illustrates. If someone appears in the show more than once but is not part of the main cast, they are a recurring character. Why would you ever think that readers do not want to see information about them in the main list? I could understand having a section at the top dedicated to the current main cast, but after that, I see no reason not to include others. And I'd suggest doing it in one sortable table. It could be sorteds so that parameter for "current main characters" would be first, and then you could have other categories (former main, recurring, guest, etc.). People could also sort characters by date of first apperance (which I gather some folks care), and there cold be other info (like date of last appearance). There is no need to throw anything away, merging into one list will create a better tool then we have. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Piotrus: Hang on, hang on, hang on. So what are you actually proposing here? If the articles were to be merged, then what happens? Every single recurring character gets listed in List of Neighbours characters? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Therealscorp1an In short, yes. To elaborate, they can be listed in a subsection, sortable table, or not listed at all if they are not important enough to get coverage in sources per WP:V. If one list is good for Star Wars (List of Star Wars characters), or Middle-Earth (List of Middle-earth characters), it will do for a soap opera. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Alright, that's what I assumed. My only concerns (the rationale behind my opposition essentially) is that the article will be completely flooded by recurring characters. In the article that is being proposed to be deleted, characters who had 2+ appearances are listed, so some guests with 2 appearances are included. For this merge, I think it should actually only be recurring characters, not just guests. My second thing was that it will go against other soap opera articles in that for other soaps, "List of [soap] characters" is only for characters currently appearing. So it won't be consistent with the rest of these Wikipedia articles and the current state of "List of Neighbours characters" will have to be drastically altered into an unprecedented and thus most likely incoherent manner. Those are basically my main concerns. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Therealscorp1an While I am not a fan or expert on soap operas, I looked at one I think is relatively famous and the structure of the article at List of Dynasty (1981 TV series) characters seems very good. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see, that article is very different and wouldn't really suit Neighbours with how many characters there are, etc.. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dynasty is completely different. It aired for less than a decade and had only 222 episodes whilst Neighbours has almost 9000. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The table would be longer, but so what? I don't think it would be too long. The recurring list is ~100kb. The former list is ~70kb. The main list is very short at just ~15kb. As much of this is wiki markup (table and reference code), the amount of readable prose is low. I don't see a problem with a merge, size wise. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a very WP:POINTy nomination, the nominator is comparing list articles for soap operas which have aired for multiple decades with those which only have a decade or two worth of characters. They have also created previous nominations/discussions at List of Hollyoaks characers (1997), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Neighbours characters, Talk:List of Neighbours characters, Talk:List of Home and Away characters, List of EastEnders characters, Talk:List of Doctors characters, Talk:List of Coronation Street characters, Talk:List of Emmerdale characters. The current list format is consistent with similar lists, it has been split because of WP:ARTICLESIZE requirements and deleting such a large number of lists will be detrimental to the purpose and functionality of a Wikipedia list. Whilst further referencing is needed, there is no tangible benefit in merging and creating an unnecessarily long list. Happily888 (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ per the comments I made at Talk:List of Neighbours characters#Merge from List of former Neighbours characters. I don't think this article is serving a useful purpose, and it is kept up to date so erratically that its function isn't even clear. However, I do feel moved to point out the misrepresentation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Neighbours characters above, which was a consensus at the time the production had ceased and did not consider this article at all. If you'd check the edit histories, you would see that that decision was enacted, and later reversed when circumstances changed. U-Mos (talk) 07:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment: functionally, I think this should be Redirected to List of former Neighbours characters, with the characters who have their own article (and are not currently appearing) added to that article. U-Mos (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@U-Mos So you think the List of former characters should be kept instead of merging with the List of characters? Why, if you don't mind me asking? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said previously, I think the two offshoot lists should be combined first rather than trying to do everything all at once. An informed decision on whether merging fully into List of Neighbours characters would then be possible, and it prevents the current discussions from being an all or nothing scenario. U-Mos (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Neighbours characters - I normally hate this word, but this is so much WP:CRUFT. This list is also essentially unsourced and pretty much unneeded. I also believe this after this discussion, which I believe should definitely be taken into account for the closer. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Neighbours characters as redundant. - Altenmann >talk 15:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Neighbours characters One list seems sufficient. Otherwise, it becomes WP:CRUFT. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: we have already said this, and you can see in the revision, but someone did merge the former and present character lists after the talk. It was reverted when the show returned. You do not have to agree with it but spreading lies is not appreciated. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Therealscorp1an. There isn't actually much duplication between this list and List of former Neighbours characters or List of Neighbours characters. Whilst this list does need more references, there are many minor and supporting characters listed which are better to have here than in a different list; also strongly oppose merging all lists to a single list, which would present an WP:AS/navigation problem. Happily888 (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Neighbours characters per rest supporters of merge. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of former Neighbours characters The big picture is that there are three articles about Neighbours characters. (1) List of Neighbours characters, which appears to be about current characters. (2) List of former Neighbours characters, which appears to be about former characters. (3) List of recurring Neighbours characters, which also appears to be about former characters.

Three articles about the one topic seems excessive. I can understand having two articles (one for current and one for former), but I don't see the need for a separate article about "recurring" characters. Furthermore, the concept of what a "recurring" character, and its difference from a "former" character does not seem to have been clearly defined. Chrisclear (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there isn't a solid consensus but several different suggestions. I am reluctant to Merge or Redirect to List of former Neighbours characters as that article is also being discussed at AFD right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Neighbours characters. This does not meet LISTN and is not big enough as a SIZESPLIT. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or selectively merge per above. Does not meet WP:LISTN and much of it isn't supported by reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:48, 4 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. Of note is that WP:SINGER states that subjects may be notable per the criteria there, but this subject-specific notability guideline (WP:SNG) does not provide presumed notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emmalyn (singer)

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

Article about a singer, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claims are that she had a single peak #59 on the charts, which would be fine if the article were well-sourced but is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to have better sourcing than this, and that she was nominated for a minor industry award that doesn't satisfy NMUSIC #8 at all.
For sourcing, we've got things like a link that now lands at this week's Billboard chart (#1 song by Doja Cat, so clearly not a chart from 2009) instead of whatever anybody thought they were linking to at the time, short unsubstantive human interest blurbs of the "local singer does stuff" variety in community hyperlocals in suburban Vancouver, and primary sourcing to Apple Music and IMDb that isn't support for notability at all -- while there is a second valid source for the chart position and an acceptable source for the non-notable award nomination, they're the only things here that are sourced properly. As I already noted, neither of those things are "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass WP:GNG -- but even on a WP:BEFORE search, I can't find anything else besides the Richmond/Surrey/Burnaby pennysavers again. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. HueMan1 (talk) 23:59, 27 September 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 (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to G.R.L.: Seems to be more remembered as part of the GRL group, although coverage is about a member that died recently. She was nominated for the Canadian Music Award, but the CBC article already used for sourcing is all there is that I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the references are adequate for a stand-alone article. After all, she charted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Canadian Hot 100 is the standard national chart for that country, the subject's song at #59 is verifiable via inline citation in the article, as such WP:NSINGER#C2 is met, notability is presumed. There is sufficient additional verifiable information that we are not at risk of being unable to construct an article of start class or better. —siro χ o 05:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charting is fine if the article is sourced properly. #59 is not a high enough chart position that just technically verifying it via the chart itself would constitute an "inherent" notability freebie that would exempt a person from having to have any valid GNG-worthy sourcing about her at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NSINGER per Siroxo's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion but consensus right now is leaning towards Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 11 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Rivera

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

This is a tough one. A short but strong article for this tyro chef, but when you try and peel back the layers, you quickly find a worrying lack of substance. Source 1 and 3 are interviews. Source 2, the writer asked Rivera a question and he directed the writer to another cook. Source 4, Seattle Mag, is a review-cum-interview that posits the question, "Is Rivera really as great at cooking as he is at marketing himself on social media?" - and we start to get to the heart of the issue right there, IMHO. Source 5 is a podcast interview as is source 6, source 7 (American University Radio), source 9, source 10 and source 11 (the best of 'em, the San Francisco Chronicle podcast features the classic line, in response to the question, what's your deal, "I think, like, I've been asked that for years. Forever now. I'm Eric. I am kind of a chef thing. I don't really know. I mean, honestly, like, I'm kind of in a weird spot right now or I'm evolving kind of into a whole new place for chef restaurant industry thing."

What we have, in summary, is boss-level self-promotion, a lot of podcasts and interviews and oddly enough a failure of WP:GNG. There's no independent SIGCOV at all here. WP:BEFORE gets us some routine 'opening' announcements, but basically we're - if anything - WP:TOOSOON. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I seem to find at least three chefs with this name (and hits for a murderer as well), [41], [42] and [43], each with different hairstyles. One ala Bob Ross, one bald and one in between. I'm going to have to examine each one a bit closer. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I found the murderer, too. A horrible conflation of roles, mind: "I could murder a bacon buttie"... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable individual with no significant coverage. Also, this is a paid work from Upwork and the creator of this article was also hired to remove the paid tag from another page which can be seen in their contributions. 113.193.45.126 (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As it happens, I'm very uncomfortable with paid editing per se. And I cannot help but recognize the awful aroma of promotion in the menu. But, after all is said and done, notability trumps everything. And the plethora of sources supporting our subject's notability decide the issue. Seattle magazine, San Francisco Chronicle, Food & Wine: these are not trifles. -The Gnome (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take a closer look at the nomination? Seattle Mag is an interview, San Francisco Chronicle is a podcast, not an independent RS. I saw what you did with the trifles reference, but the sourcing here is definitely fishy. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd rather not close this discussion as No consensus which means we need a little more participation here. If any editors who frequent AFD discussions cruise by this one, please look over the article, sources and weigh in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I concur with the nominator, this is either TOOSOON, or will never be enough. Fails SIGCOV on all of the sources. UtherSRG (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Tried to find decent sourcing, there just isn't enough to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 11:49, 11 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 Lead-cooled fast reactor#United Kingdom. Given HighKing's thorough assessment of sources, I don't feel like I can close this discussion as Keep but there are a number of editors who value the content so I'm choosing the option of a Redirect as an ATD which preserves the content in case future sources can establish organizational notability. Since discussion in this AFD continued up until just a few hours ago, ordinarily I'd relist this discussion but after 3 relistings, that's not an acceptable option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newcleo

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

No WP:INDEPENDENT coverage of Newcleo, only routine financial information, as well as quoted claims from their CEOs with WP:PREDICTION claims. In future company may be notable, but right now it's just well written WP:CRUFT ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The relevant notability guideline is WP:NCORP, and Newcleo meets the criteria of "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The article itself cites several news media sources with significant coverage of Newcleo published in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Here is a small selection of these independent reliable secondary sources (with quotes to illustrate depth of coverage):
- The Times (UK), British mini nuclear reactor firm plans €1bn fundraise": "Stefano Buono, chief executive, said Newcleo, which raised €300 million last year, did not need the money just yet... Newcleo's reactors will output about 200MW — many times smaller than regular nuclear power stations such as Sizewell. The reactors at the new Hinkley Point C can output 1.6GW. But Newcleo's reactors would be much cheaper to make, at about €1 billion each, and manufactured in a factory to enable rapid deployment."
- The Times (UK), "Stefano Buono's Newcleo wins backing for AMR nuclear reactor": "He has invested $10 million in Newcleo and retains a 10 per cent stake after the founding capital raise, which has attracted external investors including Exor, the holding company controlled by the Agnelli family, and Ian Lundin, chairman of Lundin Energy... While Hinkley’s reactor will be cooled by pressurised water, Newcleo will use lead."
- Il Foglio (Italy), "Il ceo di Newcleo ci spiega perché il nucleare del futuro è made in Italy": "c’era anche Newcleo, la pepita made in Italy del settore nucleare, che ha annunciato un investimento da 3 miliardi di euro nel periodo 2023-2030 per lo sviluppo del primo reattore modulare di quarta generazione da 30MWe e di un impianto per la produzione di combustibili nucleari innovativi. Con sede a Londra, la start-up è stata fondata nel 2021 dal fisico Stefano Buono, dall’ingegnere nucleare Luciano Cinotti, e da Élisabeth Rizzotti, fisica con un passato nella finanza. A Lione, nel giugno 2022, Newcleo ha aperto la sua filiale francese, dove impiega già 70 ingegneri e altro personale qualificato."
- Bloomberg (United States), "Nuclear Power Startup Newcleo Raises $315 Million for UK, France Expansion: "Newcleo uses what’s known as a lead-cooled fast reactor, a next-generation technology that operates at atmospheric pressure, making it safer than commonly used high-pressure water reactors... In the UK and France, Newcleo is seeking government approval of building sites and operating permts."

OP's statement is not true even if we consider only English-language sources. However, notability is not only dependent on English-language sources and this company has received significant coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, in multiple countries (at least 3 countries shown above). VantBellypo (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Newcleo has been subject to reliable sources (The Times, Bloomberg, Il Foglio) that show significant coverage (and not just passing mentions), as already described by User:VantBellypo. The Times even discusses the price/performance ratio of Newcleo's reactor and compares it with that of a competitor (i.e., Hinkley's). The above-mentioned sources are generally accepted sources on Wikipedia, they don't contain fan-based content and I thus doubt that the article is WP:CRUFT. The sources put a certain emphasis on, for example, the money that Newcleo has raised, which is not a prediction but a simple fact. This is also portrayed in FAZ, also a source generally accepted on Wikipedia. In addition to that, FAZ highlights Newcleo's technology, i.e., the use of nuclear waste as reactor fuel.^[1] --81.110.177.209 (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I appreciate the effort you've taken to provide quotes VantBellypo, it's not really clear from the quotes you provided that those sources meet there requirements of WP:CORPDEPTH, which excludes routine coverage such as funding announcements. Additionally, it is not completely clear that those sources meet WP:ORGIND, Il Foglio, for example , appears to be an interview. I'll try and do a search myself of course, but NCORP is supposed to be fairly strict. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lead-cooled fast reactor#United Kingdom where it is currently mentioned. At this point, I haven't found any coverage that addresses the company directly to the level of detail required by WP:CORPDEPTH. Most of the coverage falls under examples of routine coverage, though there are enough mentions in coverage of broader topics that this would be a redirect with possibilities of spinning back out in the future, or perhaps at least covering in a bit more detail in an article about the history of development, or other such broader article. Of course, the existence of any future coverage would be speculation on my part. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I spent the weekend looking up good supporting material and I suppose there's sufficient coverage in secondary reliable sources to warrant an independent Newcleo article on Wikipedia. Please do me a favour and give some time to improve the article using this source material:

Le Monde: The article describes that Newcleo is becoming Europe's best-funded startup, which is somewhat remarkable, and it also describes that a protoype is already being built. In addition to that, it puts significant emphasis on the backgrounds and it describes Newcleo in reasonably good detail. I reckon that this Le Monde article alone is already indicative of why Wikipedia could have an article on Newcleo despite them not having produced any functional products yet.^[2]

Börsen-Zeitung: A German-language source that is similar in content to the Le Monde source. It also describes the funding as unusually fast and remarkable, and it also describes Newcleo's technology. In addition to Le Monde, Börsen-Zeitung mentions that Newcleo plans to build an MOX fuel facility. Due to the nature of that source (Börsen-Zeitung translates into English as "stock exchange newspaper"), Börsen-Zeitung also explains where Newcleo has obtained its capital from.^[3]

Ship Technology: The source announces that Newcleo has signed an agreement with Fincantieri and RINA to fund a feasibility study for nuclear use in the shipping industry.^[4]

There's also been recent coverage in The Telegraph^[5] and fDi Intelligence,^[6] but those are at least to a certain degree interview-based articles, and I'm not sure whether they can be used to demonstrate Newcleo's notability. They should work as sources though as they're both reliable and secondary.

--81.110.177.209 (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of recently found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Le Monde seems like a good source, the German one I'm unsure of. I find this discussion [44] in the Telegraph helps put the company in context. I think we're ok for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Funding announcements are not SIGCOV? Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Plickert, Philip (2022-06-23). "Start-up Newcleo sammelt 300 Millionen für neue Atom-Entwicklungen". FAZ.NET (in German). Retrieved 2023-10-02.
^ Escande, Philippe (2023-03-21). "Nucléaire : « Newcleo est en passe de devenir la start-up la mieux dotée d'Europe »". Le Monde.fr (in French). Retrieved 2023-10-09.
^ Rothbart, Karolin (2023-03-21): Atomenergie-Start-up hofft auf Milliardenfinanzierung – Newcleo wirbt mit sauberer und günstiger Kernkraft, Börsen-Zeitung, No. 56, p. 11
^ Vitale, Cat (2023-07-26). "Newcleo signs major agreement for nuclear naval propulsion study". Ship Technology. Retrieved 2023-10-09.
^ Mustoe, Howard (2023-09-17). "France is more supportive of us than Britain, says UK nuclear startup". The Telegraph. Retrieved 2023-10-09.
^ "Newcleo's atomic push: safer, cleaner, cheaper". fDiIntelligence.com. 2023-09-25. Retrieved 2023-10-09.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist but right now, this is looking like a Keep or No consensus closure. I don't see support for Deleting this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject has plenty of coverage to meet requirements: https://www.proquest.com/docview/2862814766/DA60BD8716CA4128PQ/4, https://www.proquest.com/docview/2841415603/DA60BD8716CA4128PQ/8, etc. - Indefensible (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above as per WP:ATD although Deletion is also a valid option. This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Let's look at the sources and invite the editors above who feel these sources meet the criteria to comment:

VantBellypo has looked at four sources through the lens of NCORP and says they meet the criteria. Unfortunately I cannot fathom how VantBellypo can say they meet NCOEP since none of those articles contain "Independent Content" - that is "original and independent opinion", etc, and they all clearly fail WP:ORGIND.

The first Times article is PR, relying entirely on quotes from the CEO and information provided by the company. There is no "Independent Content" and we can see the text is peppered throughout with quotes, fails ORGIND.
The next Times article is older, from 2021, and is also PR and talks about the company's future plans and a profile on the CEO. It contains no "Independent Content" and relies entirely on information provided by the CEO and the company. It also has no in-depth information on the company, fails both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. The anon source says this article is also good because it even discusses the price/performance ratio of Newcleo's reactor and compares it with that of a competitor - no it doesn't, it repeats information from the CEO about his aims.
The Il Foglio article is also PR - the headline even starts with "The CEO of Newcleo explains..." and it is a verbatim interview. It contains no "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND. The anon IP also likes this article saying it is "significant coverage" but doesn't appear to be aware of the "Independent Content" requirement. The Anon IP also makes an argument about those being "acceptable sources" - which they are for supporting information within the article, but they aren't for meeting the criteria for establishing notability, those are two different standards.
The Bloomberg article dated June 20 2022 is based entirely from this company announcement of the same date. Much of what Bloomberg publishes is related to announcements and PR. Lots of publications do this - here's another from moneycontrol.com. Here's another again from tech.eu. All dated June 20. None of these contain "Independent Content" and they all fail ORGIND.

The Anon IP also provided 6 other sources.

Faz.net is dated 3 days after the PR flurry for the funding announcement but it doesn't add anything new to what we learned from the announcement, also relies on quotations from the CEO, has no discernible "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
Le Monde article is based on yet another company announcement and is what is known as a "puff profile", essentially regurgitating positive information about the company and their execs. Even the headline puts the claim in "quotes". It is (not coincidentally) dated one day after this announcement by the company which has all the same info. Same sort of article as this from Bloomberg or this from News in France. Fails ORGIND, just more regurgitated PR and a puff profile.
The Ship Technology article is dated the very next day after the same company PR with no "Independent Content". Fails ORGIND
The Telegraph article is an interview with the CEO with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
The fdi intelligence article is another puff profile based entirely on information provided by the company/execs with no sign of any "Independent Content" whatsoever, fails ORGIND.

Indefensible provides links to two articles available in ProQuest.

The first from MarineLog beings by examining the question on whether a "nuclear option" would solve emissions issues for ships and the first number of paragraphs are devoted to a different set of companies and their investigations. The last half or so of the article mentions the feasibility study involving the topic company's technology (as mentioned in the Ship Technology article above) and then provides a (very) simple overview of the company and how the topic company's reactors work all of which is available on the website and in most announcements. Fails ORGIND.
The final source is from Contify Energy News and it says very clearly that it is an "Original Press Release". I've no idea why someone thinks Press Release meet NCORP criteria - they don't. Fails ORGIND.

From what I can see, this company has a very active PR department - which based on the amount of money it raises, it really should. Some editors appear to consider any old "significant coverage" is sufficient to meet NCORP criteria. That isn't the case. The *content* must be examined and must contain "Independent Content" as per the guidelines. None of these do. This company hasn't build anything yet and is drumming up business - WP:TOOSOON applies and while I wouldn't have suggested a redirect myself, the suggestion is good seeing as the company is mentioned already. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources online to support NCORP for this subject. The MarineLog ref should count. Here are some more https://www.proquest.com/docview/2788723615/12150691EEE1421FPQ/36, https://www.proquest.com/docview/2788674346/12150691EEE1421FPQ/37, https://www.proquest.com/docview/2759212561/12150691EEE1421FPQ/19. All of these are independent as far as I can tell, but I do not have more time right now to look at other sources. - Indefensible (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the MarineLog ref count? Can you do a little better explaining things rather than just throwing more refs in here, as if somehow that explains things? What material is in the Marineref article that isn't simply regurgitated from their announcement, and if you do find "new" "Independent Content", how much of it is "in-depth"? Cos that's the test - in-depth "Independent Content", not just published "independently" which is what you appear to be relying on, but also that the *content* is independent.

Looking at your three new refs, the first is a copy of the "Le Monde" article from 21 March 2023. Total regurgitation of company bumpf with no "Independent Content" at all. Compare its content with, for example, this article in BNN which is almost identical and both based on the same company-provided material.

The second link appears to omit the headline which you can see here which reads "Newcleo announces plans for €1bn fundraiser as it targets UK nuclear industry". The entire article is based on a company announcement, fails ORGIND. Here's an even better and more detailed article published in Nuclear Engineerin International the next day but which is also based on the announcement and also fails ORGIND. Or this one in The Times published on the same day, contains the same information based on the Announcement, also fails ORGIND and which was a follow-on article from this one in January where the topic company pre-announced their intention. That also fails ORGIND because it is also based entirely on company PR.

The last reference is this one from the Financial Times. The part about the topic company is three sentences and the last sentence is based on a quote from the CEO, leaving two sentences, both of which are a mere standard description of the company and a lack of "Independent Content", thereby failing ORGIND.

Can you perhaps check before you produce any more refs that the material isn't just regurgitated PR or based entirely on an interview? Try to at least identify a paragraph or something which contains "Independent Content"? HighKing⁺⁺ 10:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot access the article by Le Monde for comparison, but I disagree with your characterization of articles as lacking ORGIND based on just "puff pieces" from the company. These are secondary coverage in reliable sources. Based on the machine translation of this article, it discusses risks and challenges rather than just positive aspects of the fundraising. - Indefensible (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment concerns the publisher being unconnected with the topic company. The guidelines also require an analysis of the *content* - specifically, what paragraphs can you identify that contains original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. So not regurgitated or unattributed content. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand independence, although others have said the same thing about me. Obviously there is a disagreement. Let us stick with the reference from Le Monde at least for now, since it proves the point and Le Monde is generally considered a reliable source.

(Per Le Monde's Wiki article, "Le Monde is considered one of the French newspapers of record, along with Libération and Le Figaro. A Reuters Institute poll in 2021 found that Le Monde is the most trusted French newspaper." So there should not be much controversy over using a reference from Le Monde in general. You previously wrote that "From what I can see, this company has a very active PR department," but claiming Le Monde is simply writing "puff pieces" that are repackaged PR from the subject is degradatory to Le Monde's editorial process--I do not see any disclaimer they are publishing a paid article for the subject here.)

In general, well-known businesses (of varying notability) have journalists and business analysts covering them, especially for startups or public companies, such as for investing purposes. (Put WP:ROUTINE aside for now, that is a separate argument.) Reviewing a press release shortly after publication is a completely normal and respectable activity for them to be doing. So your concern about the article closely following the press release is fundamentally not really a major issue. Of course if their article had zero bearing on the company's activities, it would be completely independent but would also probably be completely useless if not made-up fiction. What Le Monde is doing is providing secondary coverage which is based on but independent of the subject.

In particular, the press release https://www.newcleo.com/press-releases/newcleo-launches-equity-raise-of-up-to-e1bn-for-its-unique-circular-next-generation-nuclear-energy-solution/ you pointed at is in English, and there is no French version that I can see from the company. Le Monde had to translate it before covering in French, which is already a sort of analysis. Then if you read the article without just writing it off completely, you can see there are notable differences between it and the press release.

For example, the press release from Newcleo mentions "risk" but only in terms of nuclear proliferation. In the article by Le Monde, they mention risk in terms of technical reactor operation. And then in the Newcleo press release, they mention "challenges" not to the company but rather in terms of global sustainability goals and how the company will help meet them, whereas critically Le Monde (based on translation) uses challenges and problems (which is not mentioned in the press release) in terms of business operations due to "a technology...[that was] abandoned in 1997 by the French government, after countless technical problems, an exorbitant cost and the considerable mobilization of environmentalists." That is clearly a different meaning and independent analysis.

Therefore I think your analysis is wrong. - Indefensible (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot access the article by Le Monde for comparison... It's literally the first source you linked in your second comment, ProQuest document 2788723615, I'm not sure what you could mean by this Indefensible? Are you saying that you haven't read it? I was wondering why you linked it again. But look, if you insist they meet ORGCRIT we can list it at RSN, OK? Just give me a day or two to write something up. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that I can see the article on ProQuest but not on Le Monde's website because of the paywall. On Le Monde, the article title appears to be "Nucléaire : « Newcleo est en passe de devenir la start-up la mieux dotée d'Europe" but on ProQuest the article is titled "Le nucléaire se régénère par les start-up". There is obviously a difference there, right? I cannot look at the other version to compare. In any case, Le Monde is providing secondary coverage on the subject, there is no direct input from the primary source that I can see based on translation. - Indefensible (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Here based on this posting. I have a seen a lot of misunderstanding about WP:NCORP in AfD discussions lately, especially when it comes to WP:SIRS. It is not just about having sources, it is the evaluation of these sources which determines notability for companies. In order to not rehash what HighKing says above, they are correct with their assessment in this instance. The company can be verified and sources exists (although not to meet NCORP), so a redirect would be a suitable alternative to deletion. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to where? You need a proposed target when voting to redirect. - Indefensible (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Indefensible:, the only thing "need[ed]" when voting in AfD discussions is competency. That would include reviewing the context of other people's votes prior to asking such questions. I stated "in order to not rehash what HighKing says above, they are correct with their assessment in this instance." The assessment by HighKing includes agreeing that the redirect target proposed by Alpha3031 as an alternative to deletion (pinging both users in case I misunderstood their contention).--CNMall41 (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand, I was just asking for clarification instead of making a mistaken assumption as to your position. There are foreseeable cases where you agree in part or with the general argument but not with the specific conclusion. We should try having unambiguous communications to avoid misunderstandings.

In any case, I disagree with HighKigh's assessment per my reply above. What you should also understand is that your understanding of policy is not objectively "correct" but rather subjective. At least, that is my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then make your case on why this meets WP:NCORP using WP:SIRS instead of making accusations about people being subjective. Simply stating "subject has plenty of coverage to meet requirements" while providing two sources that fail WP:ORGCRIT is not going to do it. I have both been opining in deletion discussions for a long time based on current consensus on those guidelines. If you don't like the guidelines, then propose changing them. In the meantime, WP:AGF as just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them "wrong."--CNMall41 (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, did you even read my rebuttal to HighKing? Being subjective is not an accusation, it is a simple fact. I noted my opinion for consistency with that fact.

All I asked for was clarification on your redirect target, nothing more. But if you want to imply my lack of WP:COMPETENCE, I think you should better review your own misunderstandings first. - Indefensible (talk) 21:48, 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 redirect‎ to Pärnu Concert Hall. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pärnu City Orchestra

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

Nothing I can find that suggests this is notable. The only link from our friends on the page on et.wiki here that seems relevant is this one which would not appear to be enough to meet the WP:GNG on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music and Estonia. JMWt (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
merge into Pärnu Concert Hall because it, as well as et:Pärnu Linnaorkester, do have refs (but probably not enough for WP:GNG now). - Altenmann >talk 18:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO ("has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary"). —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a policy about individuals. JMWt (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is an organization of individuals and, according to my interpretation, would still qualify to remain. I agree that this article's reliance on a single source is a problem. I don't know Estonian, but searches in English and Russian turn up nothing useful. If that one source had come from elsewhere (e.g. personal website, blog, artists agency, minor Estonian publication, etc.), I would've been strongly in favor of deletion. However, it is cited in a national directory and with a sizable entry at that. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's all your opinion, which you are entitled to. However you can't point to a notability policy about *individuals* and use it to claim that an *organisation* is notable. That's not how it works. JMWt (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for telling me how it works. Article still gets a "keep" from me based on criteria 1 and 10 of WP:MUSICBIO. According to the entry in the EMIC database, they re-recorded Eino Tamberg's score for Pimedad aknad [et] (Dark Windows), a late 1960s television series that was restored in 2007. In addition, I have found coverage from Sirp, an arts magazine published by the Estonian Ministry of Culture, and MuusikaPlaneet, a website that covers Estonian music. These will be included in the article shortly. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:09, 4 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!} 03:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge orchestras are usually notable, but here no sources are available at all. BoraVoro (talk) 13:17, 11 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 Star Wars characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bossk (Star Wars)

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

Very minor Star Wars character. No reception/analysis, although there is a bit on creation/development - but it seems to be cobbled from mentions in passing (although we can quibble on whether this is not SIGCOV - but arguably it is not about him but his costume :P). What is rare, next to no plot summary. I think this fails WP:GNG (the character really is not discussed much outside the trivia about him being based on parts recycled from earlier shows, including Doctor Who) and should be redirected (merged?) to the List of Star Wars characters . _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 4 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 Film. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Star Wars characters seems correct here. There's actually a surprising number of mentions in academic literature, but I don't see enough to construct an article. Eventually it might do to have a Star Wars bounty hunters article that covers the wider topic outside of the big list, but that's not a reasonable outcome of this AfD. —siro χ o 04:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Star Wars Characters per nom. There's some good conceptual information that justifies a merge, but being honest I don't see a reason for such a minor character to exist separately unless someone manages to dig up a substantial amount of SIGCOV on him, which doesn't seem to exist out there (At least, not enough for an article, in any case.) Pokelego999 (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Star Wars characters - He does have an unexpected amount of mentions and appearances for a character that initially appeared as a minor character in a single scene of Empire, but like Siroxo said, it is not enough to support an article on his own. The sourced bits on the costume can stand to be moved over to his entry on the character list, so a merge seems appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others and also redirect. Conyo14 (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge nothing substantial for WP:SIGCOV. A selective merge is a valid WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:55, 4 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 Criminal Minds characters#Aaron Hotchner. Star Mississippi 00:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Hotchner

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

The article has a lot of WP:CRUFT with no proof of notability. Sources are either episodes (primary) or secondary sources that are interviews or more about the actor, and a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of Criminal Minds characters#Aaron Hotchner. Spinixster (chat!) 09:32, 26 September 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!) 09:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Unreferenced WP:PLOTCRUFT, pure plot summary, nothing encyclopedic to see here. GNG fail. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Like many other TV character articles recently evaluated for deletion, this has a somewhat bloated fictional history section. Unlike those other articles, it also has a decent list of non-primary sources. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the 4 non-primary sources, all of them talk more about the actor more than the character or are interviews. I don't think it proves notability. Spinixster (chat!) 09:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Criminal Minds characters#Aaron Hotchner - The sources in the article and found upon searches are, outside of plot summaries of episodes the character appeared in, largely about the actor rather than on the fictional character he portrayed. Rorshacma (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. A lot of the coverage isn't really about the character, and the actor is a fine place to add the trivial mentions. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. I love the series but this is cruft. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 23:06, 4 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!} 04:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Batey

AfDs for this article:

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

Mayor of a small city with less than 25,000 people. Mayors are not inherently just because they exist and pass WP:NPOL. The only in-depth sources are her official website, and her about on the city of Milwaukie website. FatCat96 (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Oregon. FatCat96 (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the first and second nominations were about an unrelated person: this is the first deletion discussion about the Oregon politician. Wikishovel (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Milwaukie OR (not Milwaukee WI) is not a prominent enough city that its mayors would get a presumption of notability just for existing — but this is based too heavily on primary source verification of her election results rather than the substantive coverage and analysis in reliable sources that it would take to pass NPOL #2. The notability test for municipal-level politicians is not passed just by minimally verifying that the person exists — it's passed by writing and sourcing a substantial article about her political impact: specific things she did, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects her mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this is the former, not the latter, and thus doesn't meet the necessary standard. Bearcat (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already brought to AFD twice before so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have been unable to locate any specific biographical details in reliable secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:06, 4 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 Kentucky Equality Federation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Palmer (social activist)

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

Not passing BLP or GNG guidelines. No sourcing found about this person; most of what's used for sourcing in the article is about the Equality Foundation he's involved with. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only mention found for this name is [45] about a labor lawyer in Los Angeles, nothing about this person in Kentucky. Oaktree b (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then you are absolutely horrible with research. You need to focus on Kentucky media and newspapers such as the Lexington Herald Leader and the Louisville Courier Journal. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 04:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've pledged to abide by the classic wikipedia values on your userpage, points one and two in particular.

-Be unfailingly polite, even to vandals, let alone regulars with whom I disagree.

-Take the mantra of assuming good faith to within a whisker of absurdity.

We're just here to build a better wiki, nothing else. Please remember that. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Discrimination, and Sexuality and gender. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Kentucky Equality Federation, the organization he heads. I found this article which contains some information about him but nothing else. Certainly not enough to meet GNG. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then you are absolutely horrible with research. You need to focus on Kentucky media and newspapers such as the Lexington Herald Leader and the Louisville Courier Journal. But you’re going to have to pay to view them these days. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 04:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you have sources with significant coverage, please share or add to the article. WP:SOURCESEXIST is not a valid reason to keep an article. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search on my C-J account online and found one article mentioning the subject person, and it was as him representing the organization others are recommending merging his article into. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 01:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably because you do not have an account.com. with them, or the Lexington Herald-Leader (kentucky.com) or you definitely have NOT checked wymt.com, wykt.com, lex18.com or the local ABC affiliate. Multiple articles are already listed and noted, but apparently, no one has bothered to check. I stopped by $50.00 monthly donations to Wikipedia and notified them why. This policy of deleting articles because of one person's opinion is just not acceptable, especially when organizations like Marriage Equality USA are permitted to complete delete their information. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can only filter Google results by country, they haven't gotten that granular to limit searches by state or province yet. Oaktree b (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably because you do not have an account.com. with them, or the Lexington Herald-Leader (kentucky.com) or you definitely have NOT checked wymt.com, wykt.com, lex18.com or the local ABC affiliate. Multiple articles are already listed and noted, but apparently, no one has bothered to check. I stopped by $50.00 monthly donations to Wikipedia and notified them why. This policy of deleting articles because of one person's opinion is just not acceptable, especially when organizations like Marriage Equality USA are permitted to complete delete their information. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you haven't understood the discussion here then. We're looking at sources that discuss the "thing" the article is about. We have articles on everything from concentration camps to cat memes. So long as it's well sourced, we really don't care what people's "opinions" are on the subject. Please tone it back with the negativity and keep the discussion about the sources used in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, no wonder no one trusts it anymore. It has gone to trash in the last five years with people such as yourself trying to delete good pages that have stood unedited for more than a decade. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 04:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like this aren't helping. Either provide a policy-based !vote or provide a policy-based counterpoint. Idle complaining and griping like this isn't persuading anyone or going to be factored into the closing Admin's decision, so stop wasting your time. You're an experienced editor; you should know better. Sergecross73 msg me 01:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is Kentucky HISTORY. I have added additional newspaper clippings because you could not group up and be LGBTI in Kentucky for nearly 20 years without Jordan Palmer being an inspiration. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I have not taken a stance in the matter, and don't disagree with your constructive comments on the subject. I'm just warning you to stop with all the "This is why no one likes Wikipedia anymore unconstructive comments. Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are likely many articles in the Wikipedia today that are both quite aged and also don't pass WP:N and WP:RS. The point here with this AfD is the contention there aren't enough reliable secondary sources that cover the subject person as himself rather than as a representative of an organization. Of course, if you know of such sources, please bring them here (or add them to the article) - I'm sure they will be faithfully considered. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 01:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so go fix it then. Complaining won't fix it. I couldn't find anything. Oaktree b (talk) 03:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect. People are not "inherently" notable, or entitled to have standalone articles as separate topics from their employer, just for having jobs — but the sources here are fundamentally about the organization he worked for, not about him, and thus aren't establishing that he would surpass the bar needed to qualify for his own separate article. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per above arguments. My horrible research skills are turning up practically nothing about the founder of the organization separate from the organization. People found organizations all the time that become notable, even if they ultimately do not. Of course, if someone with research skills superior to mine can show me up with links to reliable, secondary coverage of the subject, please proceed. And note, I do very much appreciate the subject person's work! But doing great, constructive things in this world doesn't automatically get you an encyclopedia article. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 02:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably because you do not have an account.com. with them, or the Lexington Herald-Leader (kentucky.com) or you definitely have NOT checked wymt.com, wykt.com, lex18.com or the local ABC affiliate. Multiple articles are already listed and noted, but apparently, no one has bothered to check. I stopped by $50.00 monthly donations to Wikipedia and notified them why. This policy of deleting articles because of one person's opinion is just not acceptable, especially when organizations like Marriage Equality USA are permitted to complete delete their information. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please consider/evaluate new sources added to the article. This action is helpful, complaining about the state of Wikipedia, isn't.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but they got deleted. I stopped by $50.00 monthly donations to Wikipedia and notified them why. This policy of deleting articles because of one person's opinion is just not acceptable, especially when organizations like Marriage Equality USA are permitted to complete delete their information. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 10:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we know how you feel, please stick to policy-based comments here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional newspaper links added. Finding others. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the new sources added aren't about this individual, only quoting them on other subjects. Still not seeing GNG as having been met. Hyper-local coverage also, would help if we had more national news items. Oaktree b (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding these sources, but I agree with Oaktree b. I still see only passing mentions and not significant coverage about this individual. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Herald-Leader (formerly the Lexington Herald-Leader is housed at www.kentucky.com to reflect its sole coverage of the entire commonwealth as noted in their website address) is the only newspaper in Kentucky that covers the entire Commonwealth. I also found a front page article from The Atlantic magazine. I also located photos https://www.flickr.com/photos/184027243@N06/48665491353/in/photostream/ and here is a Washington, D.C. article https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article24747229.html and another national article https://www.thepinknews.com/2013/03/28/us-kentucky-overrules-veto-on-bill-protecting-actions-motivated-by-religious-belief/ (one of many). Commonwealth1333 (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PinkNews is about the lawsuit, not this person. Flickr photos don't help notability. I'm sorry, but none of these help the notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Adding source assessment table based on those in the article. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:Presidentman**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/04/growing-up-gay-and-transgendered-in-appalachia/238047/				✔ Yes
https://www.jordanpalmer.us/p/about-col-jordan-palmer.html	Self-published source about Palmer	~ Self-published source about Palmer		✘ No
https://news.kyequality.org/2006/10/kentucky-equality-federation-protests.html	Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation	~ Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation		✘ No
https://news.kyequality.org/2006/12/anti-gay-christians-miss-message.html	Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation	~ Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation		✘ No
https://www.kentucky.com/latest-news/article43990728.html			~ Interviewed as leader of KEF but also discusses his own relationship	~ Partial
https://news.kyequality.org/2009/11/same-sex-couples-march-for-marriage.html	Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation	~ Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation	~ Interviewed as leader of KEF but also discusses his own relationship	✘ No
https://news.kyequality.org/2009/02/kentucky-equalitys-response-to-family.html	Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation	~ Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation	Not mentioned at all	✘ No
https://www.kentucky.com/living/religion/article44101584.html			Quoted as leader of KEF	✘ No
https://www.kentucky.com/2013/09/12/2817807/group-files-lawsuit-challenging.html			? Dead link	? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20131225005654/http://lezgetreal.com/2013/09/kentucky-equality-federation-sues-void-states-equal-marriage-ban/img001/	Lawsuit filed by KEF			✘ No
https://community.kyequality.org/2013/09/kentucky-equality-federation-sues.html	Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation	~ Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation	Quoted as leader of KEF	✘ No
https://www.slideshare.net/kjoshuakoch/governor-beshear	~ Filing from opposing party in lawsuit filed originally by KEF		Quoted as leader of KEF	✘ No
https://www.facebook.com/KYEquality/photos/p.10153373501693563/10153373501693563/	Facebook post from Kentucky Equality Federation	~ Facebook post from Kentucky Equality Federation		✘ No
https://news.kyequality.org/2009/01/five-questions-with-jordan-palmer.html	Published on Kentucky Equality Federation website	~ Interview with Palmer		✘ No
https://community.kyequality.org/2015/06/marriageequality-special-statement-on.html	Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation	~ Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation	Quoted as leader of KEF	✘ No
https://community.kyequality.org/2012/04/two-plead-guilty-in-kevin-pennington.html	Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation	~ Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation	Quoted as leader of KEF	✘ No
https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/crime/article44160900.html			Quoted as leader of KEF	✘ No
https://community.kyequality.org/2012/10/kevin-pennington-hate-crime-trial.html	Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation	~ Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation	Quoted as leader of KEF	✘ No
https://news.kyequality.org/2012/04/first-federal-hate-crime-indictment.html	Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation	~ Press release from Kentucky Equality Federation	Quoted as leader of KEF	✘ No
https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/crime/article44156931.html			Quoted as leader of KEF	✘ No
https://www.kentucky.com/news/state/kentucky/article44171952.html				✔ Yes
https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/biography/148912/jordan-palmer#.U-8-5PldWFk	? Possibly user-generated content	?		✘ No
https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article44115600.html			Quoted as friend of subject	✘ No
https://www.jordanpalmer.us/	Self-published source about Palmer	~ Self-published source about Palmer		✘ No
https://www.wtvq.com/ky-equality-federation-threatens-lawsuit-for-alleged-discrimination-of-lgbtq-student/			Quoted as leader of KEF	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Merge/redirect to Kentucky Equality Federation per Presidentman's reference assessment. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:47, 10 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 Same-sex marriage in Kentucky. Those arguing to keep provide some evidence of SIGCOV, but this coverage isn't so voluminous that it obviously necessitates a standalone article, and no explicit argument has been provided as to why the material cannot be covered at the parent article. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky Equality Federation v. Beshear

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

This is one of a WP:Walled garden of articles related to Jordan Palmer (social activist). He has claimed credit for bringing same-sex marriage to Kentucky based on his involvement with this case. As I understand it, though, Bourke v. Beshear was the key Kentucky marriage case. gnu 57 00:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Sexuality and gender, and Kentucky. gnu 57 00:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated the Palmer article for deletion also; it relies on primary sources or a few press releases. That doesn't help notability here either, but doesn't affect the !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not accurate. It CLEARLY lists newspaper articles. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two newspaper articles and four or more press releases and primary sources. It does not have a larger number of newspaper articles. I'm sorry, but 4 is the larger number and I stand by my statement. Oaktree b (talk) 03:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The C-J is part of USA Today now, and most of the staff has changed, or downsized because it is sadly dying industry, the same with the Herald-Leader. The Herald-Leader has also had lots of data loss from changes serves to AWS, etc. and a lot of information has been lost forever. The same is true with the Courier-Journal. I have an account with both, and articles are completely gone because of management and server changes. I honestly didn't know I still had an account with both newspapers because it is digital only, but even I do not recall the last time I read anything they published.

The Kentucky Post (the domain is now owned by a TV station) and the Kentucky Enquirer are gone (Northern KY) and even EthicsDaily.com which this news article originally referenced (https://news.kyequality.org/2006/12/anti-gay-christians-miss-message.html) are also gone and forwards to another site.

I was at a protest with Jordan Palmer in the early 2000's before that organization was founded; with Fletcher was governor. To make things worse, the Herald Leader used blogs for their top journalists (now gone except for Bill Estep), but the blogs did not survive the transfers (https://bsky.app/profile/BGPolitics this is what is goes to now). Even LEO Weekly does not have articles older than 2014. So, I am done with it. I think this is why the backed-up news on their own, so that it is preserved.

They can do whatever they want to do with the articles in question. My nieces and nephews, in their early 20's have no idea what Wikipedia is nor have they ever read a newspaper, sadly they get their news on TikTok and YouTube's "shorts". This is the end for me and Wikipedia, because it really is getting harder to find sources because of the loss of reporters, and that makes meeting current standards nearly impossible, but does that also mean the history should be deleted? That is for you all to decide. Thank you and all the best to you. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Kentucky Equality Federation and Jordan Palmer was a state level case and a critical one because all state judges dismissed challenges to the 2004 Constitutional Amendment. This is the only case that made it through trail. On a federal level, Obergefell v. Hodges recognized same-sex unions, which Jordan Palmer also filed a friend of the court brief on. However, Judge Wingate in Franklin Circuit Court had already ruled that "the rights and freedoms of individuals cannot be usurped, even in the largest majority as granted under the constitution of this Commonwealth." This case is the principal reason Republicans no longer wanted to use the state's seat of government for constitutional cases, and they no longer do. Please KNOW Kentucky LGBT history before nominating anything for deletion. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing WP:RS and WP:N are important for whether or how a subject is covered in the Wikipedia. As someone who does know a lot about Kentucky LGBT history (and many other subjects covered in the Wikipedia), I can clearly state that that knowledge isn't the controlling factor whether an article stays or not. At any rate, this AfD is a process, not a pre-ordained decision. As long as the process was started in good faith, and I believe it has been, Wikipedians are expected to make their case based on policy and guidelines whether the article stays. Having been a Wikipedian for nearly 20 years, I can assure you that casting aspersions on fellow participants does exactly nothing for any case. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 01:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And it actually lowers the chances that the person making the statements will be taken as a valid AfD participant. Continuing to do so can lead to disciplinary sanctions if we aren't here to build an encyclopedia. Let's keep it friendly please, we all understand how important the subject of the article is. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Same-sex marriage in Kentucky, where it is already mentioned. I can't find any sources beyond what is already in the article. Not enough to meet GNG. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers are going under at a record pace. This article has been unedited for over a decade and just because the cited newspapers are now out of business, the article is still valid. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A newspaper's article from the time of this event should be findable (like via the Wayback Machine), whether or not the newspaper remains in business. There is really no reason this AfD can't be responded to with WP:RS (to demonstrate WP:N) if they ever existed. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 01:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The Northern Kentucky newspaper(s), Northern Kentucky Journal, and the Boone County Journal cannot be found anyplace. However, some coverage from the Louisville Courier Journal and the Lexington Herald Leader have been added. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost certain that multiple libraries will have microfiche. —siro χ o 08:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's very likely true if these newspapers were online at the time. However, if not, newspapers.com or libraries can be consulted. Overall, though, if you believe particular coverage happened in particular newspapers at particular times, please feel free in providing pointers to where editors can look. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 02:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of comments but please stay focus on what should happen with this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This subject meets WP:GNG.

From the article, SIGCOV of the filing of this lawsuit [46]
Not yet in article, SIGCOV of the start of the trial [47] (ProQuest metadata confirms this is the trial in question [48])
From the article, SIGCOV of the opinion and outcome of this trial. [49]

—siro χ o 08:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first and last ones look good. #2 is a different case. I'm still not convinced there is enough here to warrant a separate article. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://kentuckyequality.org/news/kentucky-equality-federation-sues-the-commonwealth-of-kentucky-for-marriage-equality/, https://www.slideshare.net/kjoshuakoch/governor-beshear, https://www.facebook.com/KYEquality/photos/p.10153373501693563/10153373501693563/?type=1, and the Courier-Journal also referenced the case. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the "same sex marriage in Kentucky" article, there are some mentions of this legal case, but nothing substantial that I see. Should be adequately covered in the article about same sex marriages in the state. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Also, User:Commonwealth1333 is arguing Keep even though they didn't cast a vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have never voted and did not receive the notice to vote. But, my final comments on this are as I told another user:

The C-J is part of USA Today now, and most of the staff has changed, or downsized because it is sadly dying industry, the same with the Herald-Leader. The Herald-Leader has also had lots of data loss from changes serves to AWS, etc. and a lot of information has been lost forever. The same is true with the Courier-Journal. I have an account with both, and articles are completely gone because of management and server changes. I honestly didn't know I still had an account with both newspapers because it is digital only, but even I do not recall the last time I read anything they published.

The Kentucky Post (the domain is now owned by a TV station) and the Kentucky Enquirer are gone (Northern KY) and even EthicsDaily.com which this news article originally referenced (https://news.kyequality.org/2006/12/anti-gay-christians-miss-message.html) are also gone and forwards to another site.

I was at a protest with Jordan Palmer in the early 2000's before that organization was founded; with Fletcher was governor. To make things worse, the Herald Leader used blogs for their top journalists (now gone except for Bill Estep), but the blogs did not survive the transfers (https://bsky.app/profile/BGPolitics this is what is goes to now). Even LEO Weekly does not have articles older than 2014. So, I am done with it. I think this is why the backed-up news on their own, so that it is preserved.

They can do whatever they want to do with the articles in question. My nieces and nephews, in their early 20's have no idea what Wikipedia is nor have they ever read a newspaper, sadly they get their news on TikTok and YouTube's "shorts". This is the end for me and Wikipedia, because it really is getting harder to find sources because of the loss of reporters, and that makes meeting current standards nearly impossible, but does that also mean the history should be deleted? Commonwealth1333 (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Same-sex marriage in Kentucky per WP:RS and WP:BALANCE. There's just enough coverage for the treatment it gets in the redirected-to article, but far from enough to merit its own article. I am unable to find any useful source beyond what Siroxo has listed. Also, I was aware and around these parts when all this was happening, and the coverage I most recall was from the organization itself, typically via social media. Bourke v. Beshear this is not. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 05:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there absolutely is. https://kentuckyequality.org/news/kentucky-equality-federation-sues-the-commonwealth-of-kentucky-for-marriage-equality/, https://www.slideshare.net/kjoshuakoch/governor-beshear, https://www.facebook.com/KYEquality/photos/p.10153373501693563/10153373501693563/?type=1, and the Courier-Journal also referenced the case. Commonwealth1333 (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're already aware of the C-J coverage. The other sources provided there don't count toward inclusion. Also, having a couple secondary sources (one for filing, one for opinion) isn't enough for a standalone article, but as I said, it is enough for coverage in a broader article. And that's why it's best this becomes a redirect. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 20:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Just a note, if this article is not Kept, it looks like it will be turned into a Redirect which means the content would be preserved, just in the page history.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Same-sex marriage in Kentucky per StefenTower's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:16, 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!} 04:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan Nasirabadi

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

Not seeing Wikipedia:POET here. Obvious failure of GNG. Tetrainn (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 01:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Three best sources fail WP:GNG.

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://irfannasirabadi.blogspot.com/?m=1	personal biography			✘ No
https://allfamousbirthday.com/irfan-nasirabadi/		no editorial oversight, circular referencing		✘ No
https://www.celebsagewiki.com/irfan-nasirabadi		per above	~	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

NotAGenious (talk) 18:31, 4 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!} 00:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sindh Baloch Society

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

Fails GNG and NORG. It is a housing society but there is no indication of importance and I cannot locate any sources which would establish notability. There are lots of links for real estate in the neighborhood, but that is insufficient. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pakistan. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete; fails WP:GNG & WP:NORG. No references on this article. No article for it on Urdu Wikipedia or other local languages as far as I can find. 223.123.109.65 (talk) 04:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no references and the article has failed to establish any notability. ❤History Theorist❤ 01:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 01:23, 4 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 Rascal Does Not Dream. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Sakurajima

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems like the same general issues as last AFD. There's been a bit of work, but seems to be an obscure and non-notable character page. References are largely blog lists of anime characters, rather than actual notability. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC) Redirect or merge to Rascal Does Not Dream per siroxo. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Anime and manga. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Rascal Does Not Dream as WP:ATD —siro χ o 15:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge per Siroxo. Article based on few passing mentions fails WP:SIGCOV, but best parts can be preserved in the article about the show or its list of characters if one is split off. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 5 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ric Heitzman

AfDs for this article:

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

Same concerns as the previous AFD, with the only sources providing barely even a passing mention. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The previous discussion was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ric Heitzman, which closed as a soft delete due to a lack of participation. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, and United States of America. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Delete- Non-notable artist with no significant coverage on the subject being discussed. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hasn't changed since the last discussion. Definitely doesn't pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO as the winner of both the 1987 and 1988 Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Achievement in Art Direction/Set Direction/Scenic Design (see https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0374779/awards/?ref_=nm_awd ; I will work on finding a better source to confirm and update the article) Was a WP:BEFORE search done by anyone in this discussion or the other one? Winning two Emmy Awards would certainly have produced some SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to verify one of the two Emmys to an offline ref and added that source to the article. That should be enough to satisfy ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update I added sources for exhibits of the artist's work at the National Gallery of Art and the Museum of Modern Art; two of the most prestigious art museums in the United States. As such, the subject also passes criteria 4B of WP:CREATIVE.4meter4 (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: One Emmy win is fine. two is gravy. Rest is extra gravy in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The cited book "Inside Pee-Wee's Playhouse: The Untold, Unauthorized, and Unpredictable Story of a Pop Phenomenon" seems to give significant coverage over several pages. Emmy winner, included in exhibitions at the National Gallery of Art, the Museum Of Modern Art, and more. Elspea756 (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Emmy Awards. Meets WP:ANYBIO. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:10, 11 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Beaton

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No in-depth coverage, only passing mentions and stats. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:SPORTSPERSON. FatCat96 (talk) 03:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in RS.4meter4 (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG as stated above. Passing mentions made in four sources, no significant coverage of the subject. Delete per above. Tails Wx 01:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:20, 8 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.

[1] Ma'oz, Moshe; Rubin, Barry; Ginat, Joseph, eds. (1994). From war to peace: Arab-Israeli relations, 1973 - 1993 (1. publ ed.). Brighton: Sussex Acad. Press. ISBN 9781898723103.

[2] Klein, Menachem (March 2000). "The 'tranquil decade' re‐examined: Arab‐Israeli relations during the years 1957–67". Israel Affairs. 6 (3–4): 68–82. doi:10.1080/13537120008719572.

[3] Eisenberg, Laura Zittrain; Caplan, Neil (14 July 2010). Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace, Second Edition: Patterns, Problems, Possibilities. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-00457-4.

[4] Kurtzer, Daniel C.; Lasensky, Scott B.; Quandt, William B.; Spiegel, Steven L.; Telhami, Shibley (15 November 2012). "The Peace Puzzle: America's Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace, 1989–2011". The Peace Puzzle: America's Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace, 1989–2011. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-6586-4.

[5] Kostiner, Joseph (December 2009). "Saudi Arabia and the Arab–Israeli Peace Process: The Fluctuation of Regional Coordination". British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies. 36 (3): 417–429. doi:10.1080/13530190903338946.

[6] Kaye, Dalia Dassa (29 March 2001). "Beyond the Handshake: Multilateral Cooperation in the Arab-Israeli Peace Process, 1991-1996". Beyond the Handshake. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-50532-1.

[FAZ_2022-06-23-7] Plickert, Philip (2022-06-23). "Start-up Newcleo sammelt 300 Millionen für neue Atom-Entwicklungen". FAZ.NET (in German). Retrieved 2023-10-02.

[Escande_Le_Monde_2023-8] Escande, Philippe (2023-03-21). "Nucléaire : « Newcleo est en passe de devenir la start-up la mieux dotée d'Europe »". Le Monde.fr (in French). Retrieved 2023-10-09.

[9] Rothbart, Karolin (2023-03-21): Atomenergie-Start-up hofft auf Milliardenfinanzierung – Newcleo wirbt mit sauberer und günstiger Kernkraft, Börsen-Zeitung, No. 56, p. 11

[Vitale_2023_q218-10] Vitale, Cat (2023-07-26). "Newcleo signs major agreement for nuclear naval propulsion study". Ship Technology. Retrieved 2023-10-09.

[Mustoe_2023_o154-11] Mustoe, Howard (2023-09-17). "France is more supportive of us than Britain, says UK nuclear startup". The Telegraph. Retrieved 2023-10-09.

[Intelligence_07_08_2023-12] "Newcleo's atomic push: safer, cleaner, cheaper". fDiIntelligence.com. 2023-09-25. Retrieved 2023-10-09.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]