Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 29	October 31 >

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 keep‎. Star Mississippi 13:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Blue

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

Seemingly non-notable book with only a singular review, no metric of impact or popularity, and written by an author pair who themselves do not appear to lend much (if any) notability. I was unable to find any further mentions of this book by independent, non-automatically generated sources online.

In summary, a small book that did not seem to either sell or garner any amount of critical reception. A MINOTAUR (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia:Notability (books) has the following notability criterion: "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." If it passes this criteria (there are two, independent, non-trivial published works about this book!), then it's notable. Any work only needs to meet one criterion on NBOOKS to be notable. Indeed a Houston Chronicle article by Jennifer Pearson is independent of the book, and so is the article in the The Journal of Southern History. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the two reviews already present in the article, Proquest finds two short reviews (Houston blue; the story of the Houston Police Department. Reference and Research Book News. Portland Vol. 28, Iss. 1, (Feb 2013). & Romance, psycho keep mystery alive Standard Times San Angelo. 11 Jan 2013: O.2.) and a long prepublication piece (NEW BOOK SHARES TALES OF HOUSTON ' BLUES' US Fed News Service, Including US State News; Washington, D.C.. 24 Aug 2012.). From Ebscosearch, it is also described as among "several seminal works deal with the issue of police misconduct" ( Esparza, Jesús Jesse. Brown, Black, and Brutalized: A Brief History of Police Brutality Against Chicanos and African Americans in Houston. Southern Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the South. Spring/Summer2023, Vol. 30 Issue 1, p45-78). Espresso Addict (talk) 23:08, 31 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take the Train

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

I initially PRODed this with the following rationale - "A seemingly non-notable game that fails the WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT. The current article has no secondary sources, and searches did not turn up any kind of coverage on the game in reliable sources." However, I neglected to notice that it had already been PRODed and contested in the past, making it ineligible for a PROD now. To elaborate further, while the game certainly existed, I have found no actual sources that would count as actual significant coverage of the game. The only source in the article, which was the rationale for contesting the original PROD in 2016, is just the instruction manual for the game, and obviously not valid for establishing notability. I had considered proposing a Merge to either United States Playing Card Company or Bicycle Playing Cards, but the lack of sources on the game and apparent complete non-notability of it made me decide that was not an appropriate course of action, as it would give undue coverage of an extremely non-notable product in those articles. Rorshacma (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As it is, this article is just a set of instructions, and WP:NOTHOWTO needs to be kept in mind. If someone could find an independent source about the game then maybe we could completely rewrite the article, but that looks unlikely to me. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm struggling to find much of anything. [1] might be a reliable review. But that's all I can find. Please ping me if you find better. Hobit (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I'm good with Userfying per Piotrus as probably the better choice. Hobit (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or preferred Userfy. Pretty obscure (BGG link: RANK: OVERALL 24,102FAMILY 2,903). Even if the review Hobit found is reliable (doesn't look great, but I did not check the site for editorial contriols), we would still be short of another good source (GNG requires multiple in-depth coverage, my rule of thumb is that two reliable reviews are bare minimum). Note that usefication/drafticiation might be better than deletion, creator is still occasionally active (made few edits last year). Maybe they'll try to fix it in a year or two if we leave it in their userspace?

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 2 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Escovedo

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

No obvious notability independent of the Zeroes, refs are junk like Facebook Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He is a founder of two (somewhat) notable bands, which might -- I repeat MIGHT -- help him qualify for #6 at WP:NMUSICBIO, if he had any notability on his own, which he doesn't. Let's avoid an argument over which band to redirect to, which is likely to end in a pointless "no consensus" as has happened a lot lately. There is no harm in simply deleting Javier Escovedo's article because his presence in both bands is adequately described at their articles. I will also point out that many of Javier's media mentions are in articles about his more famous relatives. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:22, 6 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

S Sacchidananda

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

Non-Notable politician who fails to meet the WP:NPOL and WP:GNG Just a candidate representing a National-level political party. -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Karnataka. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Editors and Contributors,

I wanted to inform you that we have made significant updates to the article about S Sacchidananda in an effort to address concerns regarding notability. We have carefully reviewed the notability guidelines (WP:NPOL and WP:GNG) and have made revisions to ensure the article better aligns with these standards.

We encourage you to revisit the article and provide your feedback. Your input is highly valuable in helping us improve the quality and verifiability of the content. We are committed to making this article a valuable resource for Wikipedia readers. Blackanu20 (talk) 07:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you are referring to yourself as "we"? Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability for politicians is for office holders, not candidates. No other notability requirements are met. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 17:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the content. Instead of removing the article, please try to improve it. Blackanu20 (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still doesn't meet notability standards. If a subject doesn't meet the standard, there is no "improvement" or "update in content" that will change the result to a keep. GPL93 (talk) 12:54, 6 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rhiana Griffith

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

Cant find suficent information on her that isnt just various databases Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No, don't delete Jack. Riddick will come after you. I've improved the article. It's now sourced. Mostly to one newspaper but there is more out there about her and her role in Pitch Black and her non casting in the sequel. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From what I'm seeing most of that has to do with either the film or the character.Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that were true, so what? duffbeerforme (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good save by duffbeerforme. Jenks24 (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New citations by duffbeerforme show notability. Llajwa (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY per duffbeerforme (nice work). Cabrils (talk) 04:47, 10 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 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 23:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's Your Rupture?

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

Google only brings up various social medias for the lable. The notable recordings do not establish notability (WP:Wikipedia:INHERIT). Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the best sources I can find are this 2005 article in the Columbia Spectator, and this 2016 overview of some of their acts. I don't think this is enough for WP:GNG, and pretty well all other reliable coverage is of the releases, not of the label. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Folderly

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

PROD declined. My original reason was "No reliable sources found in my search, none used in the article discuss the software at length. Forbes Contributor pieces can't be used, press-releases are not reliable sources, user-generated ratings sites are not reliable sources.". Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Delaware. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The PROD was removed by an IP with the comment "looks reliable with enough good sources in Cyrillic sources I guess, some ratings have to be excluded from the page". The references are routine start-up coverage about Belkins launch of this product for avoiding spam-filtering of mailout campaigns, along with founder interviews, lists of available jobs, etc. Neither these nor anything found on my searches demonstrate attained notability for this product or Belkins, whether under WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 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. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:25, 11 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 Draftify‎. Star Mississippi 13:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OPPO F23 5G

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

WP:NOT a collection of technical details. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 15:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Draftify. Appears to meet WP:GNG. [2][3][4]. The article's state is not ideal, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. S5A-0043^Talk 11:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In its current form it reads like an advertising piece. The last sentence of every paragraph is an unsupported statement about how great some feature is. There is no substance to support any of these claims. (Repeated from article talk page). TundraGreen (talk) 00:21, 6 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 2023 G20 New Delhi summit. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Delhi Leaders Declaration

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

It fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:LASTING. Declarations/communique/joint statements are a usual occurrence at the end of any bilateral or multilateral summit. This declaration had nothing significant to merit a standalone article. It's basically also a WP:CFORK of 2023 G20 New Delhi summit. | Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New Delhi Leaders Declaration is just like any other international declaration just like Cape Town Open Education Declaration, UNESCO 2012 Paris OER Declaration. Any developments related to this declaration can be updated in this article and the declaration is significant enough to be an article. Also it should be noted that this is a summit involving 20 countries and gained joint consensus during an international summit. It is not a "statement", it is a joint consensus which was officially adopted. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV how? WP:GNG and WP:LASTING out of question as the article speaks for itself.

https://www.undrr.org/news/g20-new-delhi-leaders-declaration-emphasizes-crucial-role-disaster-risk-reduction

https://www.unescap.org/blog/g20-new-delhi-leaders-declaration-commits-resilience-riskier-planet

https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/g20-new-delhi-leaders-declaration-reaffirms-culture-transformative-powerhouse-sustainable Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Environment, Medicine, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

New Delhi Leaders Declaration is just like any other international declaration just like

Cape Town Open Education Declaration

,

UNESCO 2012 Paris OER Declaration

. Any developments related to this declaration can be updated in this article and the declaration is significant enough to be an article. Also it should be noted that this is a summit involving 20 countries and gained joint consensus during an international summit. It is not a "statement", it is a joint consensus which was officially adopted. You can't simply remove an article by citing just because it has few lines I will remove. The article is NOTABLE.

WP:SIGCOV how? WP:GNG and WP:LASTING out of question as the article speaks for itself.

https://www.undrr.org/news/g20-new-delhi-leaders-declaration-emphasizes-crucial-role-disaster-risk-reduction

https://www.unescap.org/blog/g20-new-delhi-leaders-declaration-commits-resilience-riskier-planet

https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/g20-new-delhi-leaders-declaration-reaffirms-culture-transformative-powerhouse-sustainable

Thewikizoomer (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Delhi. Star Mississippi 13:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main article about the summit and be done with it; what we have is barely a few lines. This could be covered in a final paragraph in the article about the summit. Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 7 November 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, Daniel (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

New Delhi Leaders Declaration is just like any other international declaration just like

Cape Town Open Education Declaration

,

UNESCO 2012 Paris OER Declaration

. Any developments related to this declaration can be updated in this article and the declaration is significant enough to be an article. Also it should be noted that this is a summit involving 20 countries and gained joint consensus during an international summit. It is not a "statement", it is a joint consensus which was officially adopted. You can't simply remove an article by citing just because it has few lines I will remove. The article is NOTABLE.

WP:SIGCOV how? WP:GNG and WP:LASTING out of question as the article speaks for itself.

https://www.undrr.org/news/g20-new-delhi-leaders-declaration-emphasizes-crucial-role-disaster-risk-reduction

https://www.unescap.org/blog/g20-new-delhi-leaders-declaration-commits-resilience-riskier-planet

https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/g20-new-delhi-leaders-declaration-reaffirms-culture-transformative-powerhouse-sustainable

Thewikizoomer (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the Summary section into the main 2023 G20 New Delhi summit, where the content naturally belongs. No need for this pointless fork. Owen× ☎ 15:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2023 G20 New Delhi summit. This does not have enough significant secondary commentaries in reliable sources that could justify a standalone article. The Poetic Frame ^{(talk with me)} 12:54, 22 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 keep‎. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Mark Smith

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

Article fails WP:NACTOR; none of his roles are significant enough. The Film Creator (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page needs improvement (with sources like this or this. No lead roles and various minor roles but some significant roles in notable films, which makes him meet WP:NACTOR ("The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions") in my view. His performances have received some coverage (in the LAT) (or this in the NYT) (that is not in-depth, but the guidelines does not require them for WP:NACTOR) The fact that he had his obituary in The Chicago Tribune, in Variety , in the LAT, and in the Hollywood Reporter seals the deal, I think.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC) (NB-Those sources have now been added to the page)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep due to Lionel Mark Smith's extensive filmography, including roles in films like "Galaxina" and "Homicide" and TV appearances on shows such as "Seinfeld" and "NYPD Blue," I see notability. However, some sources should have been added, as one IMDB source doesn't help much. Also, great "keep" comment above I agree with! --BoraVoro (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BoraVoro; meets WP:NACTOR. Owen× ☎ 00:38, 22 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 List of Star Wars characters#Ruescott Melshi. Viable AtD Star Mississippi 14:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melshi

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

Unfortunately, this character does not have real-world notability beyond brief appearances in two Star Wars projects. His apparent impact is inflated by the listing of book and comic adaptations of Rogue One. This character does not warrant its own article, and I think it would be wise to delete this article; any relevant in-universe information can be added back to List of Star Wars characters, where it broke off from as a WP:BADFORK. TNstingray (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Minor character of a spinoff film with what seems to be no actual cultural impact. Should be added back to the List of Star Wars Characters (which itself is a bit of a mess), with most of the information present being left to something like the Star Wars "Wookiepedia" to handle. A MINOTAUR (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Star Wars characters#Ruescott Melshi and restore the entry there. Notable character, but not ready for a standalone article.— TAnthony^Talk 22:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not have enough WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 58/292

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

Non-notable UN resolution that is unlikely to be WP:ENDURING. Twenty years after the fact, limited to no secondary or tertiary coverage, per WP:BEFORE. There are a number of UN resolutions concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict that are lasting and impactful, such as 67, 194, 242, etc.

A more appropriate place for this is a bullet or two on List of United Nations resolutions concerning Palestine. Longhornsg (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As @User:Mzajac said elsewhere: "UNGA Resolutions become part of the permanent record, affect UN policy, are an indicator of international consensus, and influence international law, so [they have] lasting significance". --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: UN resolutions are of the public record. Stop wasting community time. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. Chill and WP:AGF. And stop hounding me with disrespectful comments, it's getting tiresome. Longhornsg (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe go easy on the AfDs and I will. You are starting a whole load. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There have been 2,700+ UN resolutions. Not every routine, non-enduring resolution is inherently notable or meets WP:GNG. This is a wholly appropriate AfD, now we see whether or not the community agrees with me on this. Please lower the temperature and stop attacking my perceived motives. Longhornsg (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - whilst I have some sympathy for the nom, I don't think we could really come up with a coherent !delete consensus. For one thing the history of these resolutions has been picked over in multiple books and it seems highly unlikely that there were no newspaper reports in the region. The only !delete argument might be that these are passing mentions - but I think it is going to be really difficult to sort through the whole of List of United Nations resolutions concerning Palestine and establish which are and which are not notable enough to have a page. JMWt (talk) 16:49, 7 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 speedy keep‎. It's snowing. (non-admin closure) Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 05:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/21

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

Non-notable UN resolution that is unlikely to be WP:ENDURING. There are a number of UN resolutions concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict that are lasting and impactful, such as 67, 194, 242, etc.

A more appropriate place for this is a bullet or two on List of United Nations resolutions concerning Palestine. Longhornsg (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is literally the only UNGA resolution regarding this issue, it is important to keep so that people can see how the conflict has affected the UN. Scarlet Strange (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it was important enough for a Czech minister to consider leaving the UN, it is important enough to keep. Zagothal (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How can you say it is non-notable? There are various reliable sources showing it is notable. A bullet or two for this resolution would NOT do this subject justice. This nomination is wrongheaded in more ways than one. Historyday01 (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: @User:PatrickJWelsh, @User:Toadboy123, @User:Rwendland, @User:Omnipaedista, @User:Barzamin, and @User:Tony24644 this discussion may be of interest.Historyday01 (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 1. As stated above, there are various reliable sources showing it is notable; and that is my main argument. 2. We have a List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel and it features many articles about relevant resolutions that are far less notable than this one. Note: we also have articles about United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/19 and United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/20 that are fairly related to this one. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point as well. There more than "routine news coverage" and considering the resolution is relatively new, how can "enduring notability" even be assessed? Historyday01 (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The cited sources appear to constitute WP:SIGCOV, and UNGA Resolutions become part of the permanent record, affect UN policy, are an indicator of international consensus, and influence international law, so this has lasting significance. The sum of the article already seems to transcend news reporting in my opinion, and can’t be compared to anything else listed in ENDURING. The argument that this is fundamentally different than articles about some other UNGA and UNSC resolutions should explain how, in relation to our guidelines. —Michael Z. 18:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I actually have a long-term plan to go through ALL the UN resolutions and add context to them. And having a page for such resolutions will undoubtedly help anyone who is doing research on this in the future as well, especially since the UN site is a bit confusing to navigate (and use). Historyday01 (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This will literally be mentioned in history books. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The resolution has received widespread media coverage and academic interest. It should be seen as equivalent in its power, effect, and gravity as the UN Special Emergency Session resolutions on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which have their own dedicated pages. Cscescu (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has more noteworthy content than 2 bullet points. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Related to a major ongoing international conflict and we have articles about UN GA Resolutions related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and other standalone articles on GA and SC Resolutions related Israel and Palestine (such as Resolution ES-10/19) and this is more detailed than most articles on GA Resolutions and features citations from a variety of news sources.--AXEdits (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (endorse speedy close), good faith nom, but clearly a pass on GNG. // Timothy :: talk 01:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'''Keep'''. Don't be absurd bro, This is the first time I see someone claimed UN Assembly Resolution is not notable. I highly doubt your motive @ Someone97816 (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, me too. I don't get how a UN resolution is NOT notable. I have some sinking suspicions about the OP as well, to be perfectly honest. Historyday01 (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is blindingly obvious. Zero^talk 10:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deleting this resolution on the list of resolutions concerning (the state of) Israel would make Wikipedia as partisan as it would be, if we deleted the same/similar from the list of resolutions concerning (the (proposed) state of) Palestine. Jaap-073 (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since widely reported on by RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for now, reliable sources have covered it and the nom’s rationale lists 67, 194 and 242 as examples but looking at them they have developed enduring notability. Somewhat sympathetic to the idea of a merge but it’d just be the case that it’d get spun out again as the parent article would get too lengthy. Agree nomination is in good faith but speedy closure may be inadvisable as others may wish to disagree. SITH (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but not speedily. The discussion of the AfD nominator's good faith is immaterial; this AfD does not really fulfill the requirements of WP:KEEP. However, I heavily disagree with the nominator; I do think that this article has enduring notability. As a rough proxy measure of current notability, the stub article originally only cited a single UN press release. Within a few days, the article has 30 citations, the majority of them secondary WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources, and is linked to by quite a few other pages. The current Israel–Hamas conflict is inarguably of enduring notability; transitively, given that pages related to it are frequently linking to this resolution, I don't think a bullet or two on a general page about UN Israel–Palestine-related resolutions is sufficient. Barzamin (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely notable and relevant. 67.252.8.78 (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is the first UNGA resolution regarding the ongoing conflict. Bit strange even to delete it by claiming UNGA resolutions are not notable. Toadboy123 (talk) 12:35, 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 keep‎. Star Mississippi 14:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer Wars

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

Cant find any information on this but likely due to its age and that its mostly missing Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Science, and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A full review in the BMJ (external links), so ~~weak~~ keep ~~but at the very least redirect either~~ to the page about the author of the book or to the list of C4 programmes (where it is not mentioned yet).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC) (edited:[reply]

---->changed to Keep, in the light of sources presented by Cunard below (thanks!).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Goodman, Walter (1998-05-25). "Television Review; Advances, If Not a Cure, In a Long, Hard Battle". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2023-10-31. Retrieved 2023-10-31.
  The review notes: "Cancer Wars begins with the little-publicized news that Nazi Germany's scientists were pioneers in research that linked cancer to smoking and diet. ... Tonight's first hour of a four-hour PBS chronicle concentrates on more familiar matters. ... Except for that opening passage about Nazi research, there are no revelations here, but key events in a many-sided and continuing story are well reported. The sometimes malignant connection between health, politics and big money is noted."
2. Monmaney, Terence (1998-05-25). "A Double Dose of Caution About Cigarettes and Cancer". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2023-10-31. Retrieved 2023-10-31.
  The review notes: "And airing tonight is the first episode of “Cancer Wars,” a four-part PBS historical review of how considerations of money and politics have shaped cancer research and prevention since World War II. It emphasizes tobacco’s prime role in the world’s cancer burden, thus serving as a sort of stately intellectual companion to the afternoon’s revved-up offering for teens and their families. ... Although “Cancer Wars” casts a wide net, covering everything from cancer quackery to recent discoveries in genetics, the main thread concerns the tobacco industry, purveyor of the leading cause of preventable death in the developed world."
3. Elber, Lynn (1998-05-23). "'Cancer Wars' charts tumultous 50-year fight against disease". The Times and Democrat. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2023-10-31. Retrieved 2023-10-31 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "With impeccable timing, the PBS documentary "Cancer Wars" arrives on the heels of the latest scientific discovery raising hopes that the disease might be vanquished."Cancer Wars" traces the political, social and medical response to the illness over five decades. It offers perspective and a reminder that caution should temper both optimism and fear. ... "Cancer Wars" approaches its subject efficiently but not coldly. The documentary doesn't ignore the soldiers or the generals, as we hear from researchers, activists, politicians and patients.One heartbreaking shot: A tiny boy, decked out in cowboy outfit and boots, walks down a hospital hall tethered to an IV unit."
4. Combs, Walter H. (1998-05-24). "PBS' 'Cancer Wars' explores the politics of cancer". The Buffalo News. Archived from the original on 2023-10-31. Retrieved 2023-10-31 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "If politicians and their own leaked internal documents haven't made the tobacco companies pariahs, the first 10 minutes or so of the PBS documentary "Cancer Wars" should help drive the final nails in the coffin. ... While "Cancer Wars" focuses on cancer generally, the most sensational material clearly has to do with lung cancer. The premiere hour, "Blind to Danger," which airs at 10 p.m. Monday on Channel 17, focuses extensively on lung cancer and the efforts made to increase the public's awareness of its dangers and causes."
5. McVicar, Nancy (1995-05-24). "PBS to document The Cancer Wars". South Florida Sun Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2023-10-31. Retrieved 2023-10-31 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "The Cancer Wars, produced by WETA, a public station in Washington, D.C., will run on four consecutive Sundays beginning tonight at 6 p.m. on WPBT-Ch. 2, and on Mondays on WXEL-Ch. 42 beginning Monday at 10 p.m. ... Others profiled in the series include former Secretary of the Interior Stuart Udall, who came to the aid of Native Americans who were being poisoned by radiation in uranium mines; of Betty Ford and Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf, whose personal battles with cancer raised awareness of the need for early detection, and of Dr. Emil Friereich, who helped find a cure for childhood leukemia."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cancer Wars to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vaisravanath Raman Namboothiri

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

Little indication of notability. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Hinduism, and Kerala. PepperBeast (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 13 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 delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ray B. Oladapo-Johnson

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. PepperBeast (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the only "new" sourcing I can find, that's been published since the last AfD. [5], [6]. Same photo, similar prose, but with different by-lines; appears to have been written from a press-release. I don't consider it much more extensive that what was found last time in the 2020 AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, Nigeria, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of sufficient sources to show notability. Mevoelo 12:50, 02 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 no consensus‎. Yep, no consensus. I hope that those hard-working editors who did so much legwork to find out information about this building can add their discoveries to the article. That step often doesn't happen after an AFD closes and I hope this will be the exception. Thanks to all participants for taking consideration of this artice seriously and doing their due diligence even if they disagree on the result. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old Town Manor

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

Basically WP:PROMO. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A Forbes contributor piece [7], a small mention in Nat Geographic [8], a gay-friendly hotel listing [9] and a train derailment nearby [10], none of which help notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd be ok with a redirect to "Key West Historic District", of which it seems to be a component. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a hard one. There's WP:COI around the article's creation and the website points back here [11]. There are references to Miami Herald and Key West Citizen that might help, but we have to verify the articles and see if they are beyond a passing glance. The article can be fixed up to remove the promotional tone and anything not NPOV that can be dealt outside of this AfD. I did find out there's a historical marker at the place [12], so it seems searching should include the name The Samuel O. Johnson House. The building is located within the Key West Historic District ~~but it appears no historic nomination has been made for the manor.~~[13] [14] and was added when the boundary was increased in 1983. [15] [16] (page 121). I'm going with a weak keep. – The Grid (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROMO. COI authorship of article. Not used in National Register application to expand district. Florida historic marker sponsored/placed by the property. No historic events or notable historic people (at least none with Wikipedia articles) cited. Citations don't show general notability. In fact, newspaper citations are worthless since they link to the Wikipedia articles about the two newspapers, not to articles about the property. They could be anything, including advertising. Redirect won't work. Brief description of historic district as a whole and list of properties with links to articles; no content about individual properties. Donner60 (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is rather perplexing.
- I provided a citation that shows the property is at the very least listed and included in the boundary expansion. The classification provided was conforming. See page 27 of the pdf. Of course there's not much content provided but this provides some basic information from NRHP.
- Florida historic markers are going to show as sponsored/placed by the property. It's a public-private partnership that will also be sponsored by the area's tourism agency. That does not negate the information that is provided on them. It looks like the historical markers of the Key West Historic Walking Tours are sponsored by the Key West Art & Historical Society. [17] top bar Historical Markers, Inc. maintains them. For this item, it looks like both entities provide the historical information on their website [18] [19]. I don't know how more "official" I can make this.
- For the news articles, that's where we have to verify them. I give benefit of the doubt for them to be pure advertising because it's from the 1950s and 1960s. I'll see if I can find the articles in question. – The Grid (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additional comment and information on Florida historic markers. I will check back in a few days at most to see what else you may be able to add. Donner60 (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At this time, I am staying with my original comment of Delete. The citation to the NRHP document failed verification by me. The property on that page (27) is not the Old Town Manor. Simply being an old building within a historic district is not enough to show that it is notable. The house, as the Samuel O. Johnson house is on the cited Key West Historical marker tour. However, I don't see the information as making the house notable for Wikipedia. No occurrences or activities of historic note are shown. The previous owners are not shown to be notable simply by being referenced on a historical marker as previous owners who conducted businesses at the house or had a nice garden. This type of activity by owners is not uncommon for old houses and does not make it notable.

I don't see this house listed on the Key West Art & Historical Society historical markers page or any of the walking tours either. The page lists 125 historical markers and I think it is significant that this house is not listed. (If I am missing it under another name, let me know in reply.) In summary, I don't see any historic notability for this house outside of it being in the district.
We also know that this was one of several B&Bs which followed instructions on a YouTube page on how to evade Wikipedia requirements and to publish a promo article. The promotional/advertising nature of the article is apparent. Others may differ based on the historical marker, I suppose. As time passes it is beginning to seem unlikely there will be many additional. (I am not sure whether old listings may actually attract a few more comments.) If I have computed it correctly, this will be passing into the older Afds category tomorrow. I will check back again in a few days and will re-read the marker information to see if I should give it more weight if this AfD is still open. Donner60 (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking through its address: 511 Eaton Avenue. Its first existence was the home of Samuel O. Johnson in 1886. I was looking beyond the name of Old Town Manor for my research above and used Eaton Lodge as well. I knew looking through Old Town Mayor would get into circular sourcing. I couldn't find anything through the newspapers which sucks. It just seems there is information here with The Samuel O. Johnson, Eaton Lodge, and Old Town Lodge but then the Old Town Manor renaming and owners add promotional language to the information that could perhaps be salvaged. – The Grid (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I imagine this will end up as no consensus (and I have no prejudice if it's brought through AfD again). I can comb through the article and copyedit a lot of the promotional language. The focus of the article on the "Old Town Manor" is a blip on the structure's history. – The Grid (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I too failed to find this in the NRHP link, but I'm not used to searching there. The first occupant, Samuel Otis Johnson, does not appear notable per lack of non-paid obituaries in newspaper search. I did find 51 hits in newspaper search for "511 Eaton Street" +Florida. The first few hits show that by the 1920s it was owned by the Warren family (particularly Dr William R. Warren), who appear to have been locally notable in 1920s to at least the mid-1950s; eg The Key West Citizen 23 Sep 1947, Page 6 gives a long account of George Allen Warren's marriage, which includes a little info on the family. There's a brief note that John Allen Long designed the interior (The Key West Citizen 18 Feb 1938, Page 2) and something about an orchid (unfortunately didn't note the ref). Searching on "William Richard Warren" finds an authored piece on Mrs William Richard Warren (Myrtle Cosgrove (10 Jan 1940). Key West Women: Their Homes and Gardens. The Key West Citizen, Page 4) which calls her garden "one of the beauty spots of the island" and says "her home is a center of both social and cultural things." It definitely was a private house c. 1956, so earlier newspaper articles are probably acceptable sources. By 1987 it is an inn under the name Eaton Lodge, owned by Samuel Maxell; there's a promo piece that might be partly editorial, in Fort Lauderdale News (30 Aug 1987, page 410), which implies it is included in Humm's Guide to Key West. Proquest searches under various keywords gave "one of the more attractive inns, a dignified Victorian house in the middle of a tropical garden" in the NYT (Walter Logan. WHAT'S DOING IN KEY WEST. New York Times 31 Jan 1982: A.10.) I think a diligent search of local newspapers and books (eg trying to find obits for Dr William R. Warren and his wife) might well unearth enough coverage. If it is kept, it should be retitled probably to "511, Eaton Street". Espresso Addict (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Google Books finds lots of hits; including [20] which has a 2-page spread on Eaton Lodge (pp53–54), which looks to be where a lot of the article comes from. Also several separate accounts of ghosts eg [21]. Also, can't access, but Makers of America has several pages on William Richard Warren (pp. 349–353). Espresso Addict (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Assuming no consensus due to few, if any, additional comments, I can support a "no consensus, keep" result. I do this on the basis of accepting that The Grid and Espresso Addict will make the revisions and improvements that they mention in their comments. I must add that I still think the subject of the article as it stands is not notable and is promotional. However, I trust that these editors will make satisfactory additions and revisions to make it worth keeping. Donner60 (talk) 06:14, 16 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 delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Optimisation of cutting cycles in conventional underground coal sections to improve productivity

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

Minimally referenced. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability, and seems more like an essay than an encyclopedic article. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Essay, written like it should be in a thesis paper or peer-reviewed journal. Not sure why it zones in on coal mining; it appears to be too specific for an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Far too niche a topic for Wikipedia, and reads like a primary source; likely either plagiarized or OR. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Coal mining बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - useful material for another venue -- it's not suited for Wikipedia. बिनोद थारू, this is so specific and technical there's nothing to merge to a general topic article such as Coal mining.

Oaktree b (pedantry alert): to answer your question, coal is "softer" than most other materials mined under ground such as iron or diamonds so equipment such as continuous miners, roof bolters and longwall equipment are specific to underground coal mining (there are a few minor exceptions such as salt and potash). Mining methods for hard rock mining of materials such as ores are totally different.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the pedantic. Oaktree b (talk) 02:20, 3 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 merge‎ to Williams Communications#Telecommunications. This looks like the most suitable compromise between those who have been in this discussion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IBEAM Broadcasting Corporation

AfDs for this article:

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

This is pretty clearly an advertisement piece. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 14:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Promotional tone is not valid grounds on its own for deletion: that's an issue can be cleaned up, unless an article is blatant advertising and needs a complete rewrite, in which case speedy deletion G11 is used. Although the article doesn't currently make it clear, the company was closed in 2002 [22], so advertising seems unlikely. As the article clearly asserts notability per WP:CORP, can nominator please clarify their rationale for deletion? Wikishovel (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to point out a few things regarding the significance of iBEAM Broadcasting Corporation:
- The page has been in existence for nearly two decades, and while some references might be disappearing due to the age of the company, it doesn't diminish the historical importance of the content.
- iBEAM Broadcasting Corporation was foundational to the streaming industry. It's widely recognized within the industry that this company was a precursor to the streaming giants we see today, such as Netflix, Apple, Hulu, and others. Its influence was global.
- The mention of 60 million streams, which is cited, underscores its significance. To put it in perspective, during its prime, this was more traffic than major platforms like Yahoo.
- Rather than just suggesting it be deleted, please suggest how to make it better or be more specific.

Given these points, it's evident that the company played a pivotal role in the evolution of online streaming, and its page serves as a historical reference, not an advertisement. nilslahr (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's this magazine article about the iBeam multimedia portal: [23] --Mika1h (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current tone of the article is entirely inappropriate (see also: WP:NPOV, section: Impartial tone, subsection WP:SUBJECTIVE), which is not too surprising given its lifted straight from the press releases used as references. Contra Wikishovel, I believe this is a clear WP:DEL-REASON #4 even if it doesn't meet #1. It may be theoretically possible to write an article that does not have such inappropriate tone even sourced mostly from press releases . I don't think this is a G11, which would be subject to deletion in draftspace also, so if someone wants to make the attempt, no objections. But this is not suitable for mainspace. Delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge select content to Williams Communications#Telecommunications, which is was merged into; and a mention that if a company is dead, WP:PROMO can't be obviously invoked unless you have a modified DeLorean in your driveway. Nate • (chatter) 16:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that promotional or otherwise non-neutral tone belongs on the encyclopedia, even if the entity being promoted could not possibly stand to be affected. The legal reason why we would not allow advertising is because it's a deceptive way of gaining financial advantage (WP:COVERT), and we extend that to well beyond what is required by law because a) we don't like it, b) an abundance of caution, and c) it being a good general principle. Same as copyright here. But even were it perfectly fine and dandy otherwise, PROMO is fundamentally unencyclopedic and a clear violation of NPOV. For example, if someone created an article with the following text, it should be deleted under G11 because it is an ad even though FooBar Corporation does not exist and could not possibly benefit from advertising:

About FooBar

FooBar Corporation is the next-generation leader in widget innovation. Our cutting-edge widgets are used by millions of people around the globe, and we are committed to providing our customers with the best possible products and services.

FooBar widgets are known for their state-of-the-art technology, sleek design, and intuitive user interface. We use only the highest quality materials and components in our widgets, and we back our products with a satisfaction guarantee.

If you are looking for the most innovative and user-friendly widgets on the market, look no further than FooBar Corporation. Our widgets are sure to revolutionise your workflow and exceed your expectations.

Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The concerns regarding the promotional tone of the article are valid and should be addressed through editing, not deletion. The historical significance of IBEAM Broadcasting Corporation in the development of streaming media technology is well-documented and notable for several reasons:
- The company's closure in 2002 indicates that the article is not serving a promotional purpose but is a historical record.
- IBEAM's technological contributions, such as global load balancing and edge networking, are substantiated by patents and their adoption in the industry, which is a testament to their significance.
- The partnerships and roles in major streaming events that IBEAM held are a matter of public record and contribute to the notability of the company.
- While the article may source from press releases, the information presented is factual and relevant to the company's technological advancements and industry impact. Credible sources like Streaming Media Magazine provide an objective perspective on these contributions.
- Preserving information about defunct companies is crucial for historical accuracy and understanding industry evolution. The loss of sources over time should encourage us to maintain and enhance the article rather than remove it.

Given these points, the IBEAM Broadcasting Corporation article warrants retention and improvement. It provides valuable historical insight into the early days of streaming media, a pivotal aspect of today's internet. Deletion would result in a significant gap in the historical context for readers interested in the evolution of streaming technology. Nilslahr (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat a moot point, but you should probably properly disclose your COI, by the way. You can find how to do so at WP:DISCLOSE. Are you committing to fixing things up yourself or are you expecting other people to do it for you? Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP: no in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. Corporations have higher requirements for sources to combat just the kind of promotional content we see in this article. --Mika1h (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge select content to Williams Communications#Telecommunications as per WP:ATD and suggestion above and then Delete. 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. The tone of the article is entirely inappropriate and is PEACOCK and PROMO. Just the first couple of sentences alone raise the following issues:

iBEAM Broadcasting Corporation was a Media Streaming Company. Established in 1998, iBEAM was instrumental^{[according to whom?]} in the invention^{[according to whom?]} of the Content Delivery Network for Streaming Media. The company played a pivotal role^{[according to whom?]} in aiding giants^{[peacock prose]} like Real Networks and Microsoft in scaling their services.^{[according to whom?]} iBEAM was responsible^{[according to whom?]} for introducing groundbreaking^{[peacock prose]} technologies such as global load balancing, edge networking, distributed streaming, and digital data satellite delivery^{[according to whom?]}.

None of the references meet the criteria and perhaps due to the age of the company I'm unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:31, 7 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chi Machine

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable exercise product. While the product definitely exists, it does not appear to be the subject of sufficient independent sigcov to pass WP:GNG. Previous deletion discussion was 18 years ago, and did not contain much reference to WP policies. Jdcooper (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Products, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's sourced to three journals, they seem ok. What's our issue with them? Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be about the science behind this commercial product, rather than the product itself (except one). Jdcooper (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:23, 6 November 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, Daniel (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think with the peer-reviewed journals, we're at least at notability. Better than some PR pieces we see here for other products. Oaktree b (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The last journal article cited does not mention the product at all – it is actually is a note from the editorial team of the journal stating that, with respect to the first article cited, exuberance in reporting is evident along with some "cherry-picking" of the data (i.e., underemphasis of non-supporting data), non-parametic statistical analysis, or even a lack of statistically analyzed data., and that with respect to the article being published in their journal at all: Whereas Lymphology's main focus is to publish original, scientifically sound, evidence-based articles of interest to our readers, we recognize both the explosion of alternative/complementary treatment modalities used by patients and prescribed by physicians and other heath care practitioners worldwide and also the importance of informing and stimulating lymphologists and related specialists to examine and reflect on these practices. Based on this editorial I will assume that the first article cited is unreliable and not discuss it further. The second article (notably by the same authors as the first) is a primary source and so should generally not be used as a basis for biomedical content per WP:MEDRS – there are no remaining sources with which to support a claim to notability present in the article, and I cannot find any in my own search, so it does not appear the article meets GNG. I would always err on the side of removal of biomedical content which is poorly sourced anyways as it has the potential for actual harm – with the only substantive content in the article being poorly sourced removing it would leave the article with no useful information. Courtesy ping for Oaktree b, who appears to have based his reasoning on the assumption that the articles were reliable. Tollens (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We have only one source, and as laid out above, it appears to be unreliable, and the article possibly even promotional. Cortador (talk) 09:47, 14 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G&Y

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

can't find any evidence this existed, I'm sure it did, but it is not-notable, was previously prodded in 2016 Echetus Xe 14:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:52, 30 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!} 08:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Previously PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources provided are all non-independent – clearly this did exist (see archived copy of ref 1 and first external link), but I can't find anything at all online to support a notability claim. I can't see a good redirect based on the article contents either. I wouldn't be particularly surprised if someone was to find print coverage somewhere, but with what's available to me I can't find anything. Tollens (talk) 09:52, 20 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 delete‎. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christian and Joseph Cousins

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

Stub BLP about twin brothers who were child actors. Neither twin appears to be notable. I cannot find more than brief mentions in reliable sources. Schazjmd (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete imdb urls are not enough for inclusion into wikipedia, but a proper searching for reliable sources might help. --VertyBerty (talk) 08:35, 1 November 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 14:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Some critical notice of the pair 30 yrs on, [24] and [25]. Gsearch news brings up several articles about the pair. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That yahoo source ([2]) provides a bit of bio info, but the bloody-disgusting.com ([1]) ref is a single sentence mentioning the twins. Schazjmd (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the yahoo ref to the article and revised the content to match the source. So far this is the only RS in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Further coverage from Looper [26]. Oaktree b (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Oaktree b, I've added both sources to the article. I still don't think the twins are notable, but at least the article is in slightly better shape now and, if kept, has refs. Schazjmd (talk) 14:41, 7 November 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) 14:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in the article and BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subjects directly and indepth meeting BLPs requirement for strong sourcing.

[27], interview in an article about Schwarzenegger

[28] where are they now with interview quotes from subject.

Ping me if sources meeting WP:BLP are found. // Timothy :: talk 09:16, 21 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 delete‎. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iain Walker

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. I don't believe the predominantly passing mention and primary sources here pass WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; ambassadors are indeed not inherently notable. UK High Commissioners, however, often are. A quick search reveals enough for this man to be regarded notable. 𝕎.𝔾.𝕁. ^{(chat | contribs)} 15:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Ghana, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete UK High commissioners are not inherently notable. A search of ["Iain Walker" ambassador -wikipedia] found only primary sources like gov.uk or routine announcements. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 05:16, 13 November 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) 14:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: @W.G.J., why would a UK high commissioner be notable when regular ambassadors are not? Isn't a high commissioner essentially just an ambassador to a Commonwealth country? Our High commissioner (Commonwealth) article says:
- "In the Commonwealth of Nations, a high commissioner is the senior diplomat, generally ranking as an ambassador, in charge of the diplomatic mission of one Commonwealth government to another."

Does this mean the high commissioner to Ghana is more notable than ambassadors to America, France, Germany, Spain, Russia, China, etc.?

Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not more notable. just a naming convention. LibStar (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, my bad. I wrongfully interpreted "ambassador" in the original nomination as "diplomat", a member of a diplomatic envoy that is not by default the highest-ranking. However, I still do believe that the highest-ranking representatives, such as High Commissioners, do enjoy a particular notability but I understand that that could be put up to discussion. 𝕎.𝔾.𝕁. ^{(chat | contribs)} 10:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no inherent notability of ambassadors/high commissioners. In fact many have been deleted LibStar (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in the article and BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth meeting BLPs requirement for strong sourcing.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Named and quoted, not WP:SIGCOV	1. "Nana Receives 4 Envoys". Modern Ghana. Retrieved 11 March 2021.
Quote from article "A former Dundee man has spoken of his “cherished memories” after..." interview, fails WP:IS, WP:RS and does not have WP:SIGCOV about the subject	2. ^ Jump up to:a b Strachan, Graeme. "Dundee man spends five days hosting Duke and Duchess in Ghana". The Courier. Retrieved 11 March 2021.
Speaker profile	Tech in Ghana Conference London 2020". techinghanaconference.com. Archived from the original on 30 November 2019. Retrieved 11 March 2021.
Appointment annoucement	4. ^ Jump up to:a b c "Iain Walker appointed new British High Commissioner to Ghana". Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always. 17 February 2017. Retrieved 11 March 2021.
Appointment annoucement	5. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f "Dundee man appointed High Commissioner to Ghana". Evening Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 11 March 2021.
Primary	6. ^ Jump up to:a b c "Iain Walker". GOV.UK. Retrieved 11 March 2021.
No WP:SIGCOV about subject	7. ^ "UK High Commissioner to Ghana, Jon Benjamin set to leave in August - MyJoyOnline.com". www.myjoyonline.com. Retrieved 11 March 2021.

Ping me if sources meeting WP:BLP are found. // Timothy :: talk 09:25, 21 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seniors Solidarity Party

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

The party contested one election only, the Howth–Malahide LEA of the 2009 Fingal County Council election, where its candidate was not elected. I would suggest a redirect therefore to 2009 Fingal County Council election#Howth–Malahide, where I have pre-emptively added a paragraph including the references currently on this page. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your pre-emptive edit seems like the best solution for this non-notable party. ww2censor (talk) 13:46, 31 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!} 08:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 19:22, 9 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 keep‎. Star Mississippi 14:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rasen (TV series)

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2022 DonaldD23 talk to me 12:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a sequel to Ring: The Final Chapter, so it's obviously notable and I'm sure sources will be found; this isn't going to be deleted, at worst a merge should be considered. Nate • (chatter) 16:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nationally-televised series with double-digit viewership percentages, and the novel the series is based upon is likely notable as well. The Japanese article is at ja:らせん (鈴木光司の小説). Most sources from the 1990s will not be online in Japanese, but the first Google Books hit I see is the national magazine Shūkan Shinchō talking about how the series was a hit across Asia and contributed to a boom in Japanese horror. Dekimasuよ! 11:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjad Jani

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing has changed since the July AfD, which closed as draftify. Just moved back to mainspace by the creator without improvements that address the issues raised. Star Mississippi 12:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and Pakistan. Star Mississippi 12:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. agree with nom... not have any rs Worldiswide (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Mason (talk) 01:31, 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 a redirect/delete combination‎. Delete some, redirect others per this comment and sub thread. I will delete the relevant ones. I'm leaving the redirects for editorial handling as it isn't clear whether all targets exist. (I may need more coffee) Star Mississippi 14:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeżew PGR

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

Mass created article by Kotbot, a bot operated by retired user Kotniski.

Also nominated:

"PGR" stands for Państwowe Gospodarstwo Rolne, or "State Agricultural Farm". Every one of these was therefore a farm, not a village/settlement per se. In every instance but one these are a simple duplicate of the article related to the village they were in.

The exception is Potworów PGR (literally "Monsters PGR"). There is nothing at the location in this article but a wide expanse of forest - though of course Google Maps loyally shows Potworów PGR as a location in the forest, as a result likely of scraping data from Wikipedia. I suspect this may be a hoax, though there is no PL Wiki article that might shed more light on this.

With the exception of those sites for which a pro forma translation into another language is displayed, all of these articles are cited very generally to the TERYT database, though it is not clear how that supports these locations.

Even if these could be found on the TERYT database, the appropriate notability standard for a state farm is WP:NORG, which these manifestly fail.

In every case the original Polish article that Kotbot procedurally-generated these articles out of has already been deleted or redirected. It is not clear why EN Wikipedia should continue to host them.

Fails WP:V, WP:N, WP:NGEO. WP:CORP. FOARP (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FOARP, you might have listed these additional articles in your deletion nomination but none of them are appropriately tagged. I haven't checked to see if they were actually all created by a bot but if there is a human editor involved, they should receive a notification. Right now, this discussion only concerns Jeżew PGR. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up Liz, yes, I had forgotten to tag the other articles - tags added now. I can confirm that these were all created by Kotbot, a bot that was deactivated more than ten years ago (but still has an active bot-approval according to their page? Yeah, that should probably be removed just for security's sake if it really is still active) , operated by Kotniski, an editor who quit in 2012. FOARP (talk) 07:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, looks like everything is up to code now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (support some, object to others). Object to deletion of the ones that have separate articles on pl wiki and claims of presence in TERYT, those need stand-alone discussion. That means pl:Klejwy (Klejwy), pl:Ołownik (osada), pl:Cieleśnica-Pałac (that one seems clearly notable, setting aside the PGR association that is not even mentioned on pl wiki, mini-WP:TROUT here, FOARP, seems deserved - that's what happens when you start doing mass noms (trash, trash, trash, error, go back...). pl:Holeszów (osada) is the last one I object to (it has an unreferneced small history section on pl wiki). For others, I am fine with deletion.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Piotrus - we already have articles on Klejwy, Ołownik, Cieleśnica, and Holeszów.

If there is any information that needs keeping, it can be merged to them. However, I do not see any sourcing either here or on PL Wiki that actually supports anything to add to these articles. TERYT possibly has listings for osada that are part of these villages, but there is nothing to indicate that these are the same as the state farms that used to operate within the same villages - if there is a need for an article, it won't be under these titles or contain any of the same information. The same is true of the palace. FOARP (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be ok with redirecting those articles there, as I concur there is no stand-alone notability that is currently obvious, and also the PGR in the names is not always official, per TERYT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also OK with redirection in those cases as an ATD. For Cieleśnica Palace I agree that an EN Wiki article is warranted - I'll see if I can do one in coming days based on this and this. Reading the history, I'm not sure the PGR was at the palace - communist-origin sources talk about the palace being converted into a "place for architects and cultural workers", and later the Palace became owned by the PGR and used as a club of some sort, though who knows what the truth actually was. FOARP (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: - just a ping to say that Cieleśnica Palace is now an article. BTW - looking at the area of the palace you see the kind of harm these inaccurate articles cause on widely-used websites like Google Maps which scrape data from Wikipedia - the ENTIRE area, including ALL of the street-names, are labelled "Cieleśnica PGR", a name that properly belongs to absolutely nothing in that area since the state farm there shut down decades ago. You can simply look at the road-signs leading in to the area and the address of the local museum to see that the locals simply refer to this as "Cieleśnica" and probably wonder why they have this weird name on Google Maps and elsewhere. Indeed, Wikipedia may have essentially wished a place into existence since inevitably the locals will use addresses that can be easily found by delivery drivers/taxis etc. on Google maps. FOARP (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP I wonder where does the Google Map PGR error originates, since wikidata entry I link below has the English name (and Polish) correctly at Cieleśnica-Pałac, not some PGR. Minor note on errors: that I fixed the interwiki (or to be clear, deleted the connection). Cieleśnica Palace which you created is notable, but it is not the same as the village pl:Cieleśnica-Pałac which has no en wiki article right now (pl wiki does not have a separate article about the palace yet). Note that I've restored the pl wiki link at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3270790). Cieleśnica PGR should be moved to Cieleśnica-Pałac, assuming this is the village (or deleted if the PGR entity is some TERYT error). Pinging Polish experts: @Stok, @Malarz pl, @Aotearoa so that we can figure if that PGR article needs to be renamed (if it is about the Polish village) or deleted (if it is about a non-notable PGR)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: - To make things easy for the closer, unless anyone else comments here, would it be fair to summarize where we've gotten to here as:

Delete - Jeżew PGR, Zalesie PGR, Jawory PGR, Potworów PGR, Ostrowy PGR, Torzeniec PGR

Redirect to respective village - Klejwy PGR, Ołownik PGR, and Holeszów PGR.

Waiting for Stok - Cieleśnica PGR.

Is that a fair summary? FOARP (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More or less. Since nobody I pinged from pl wiki seems to have time or will to comment, I'll ping few more folks in case anyone cares to offer a useful comment here. @Mathieu Mars @Azemiennow @XaVi PROpolak _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zalesie PGR, Jawory PGR, Potworów PGR, Ostrowy PGR, Torzeniec PGR

Redirect: Klejwy PGR, Ołownik PGR, and Holeszów PGR

per FOARP. Many thanks to FOARP and Piotrus for their work on this. As for Cieleśnica PGR - I'll support what you two finally decide.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the articles in question were created by a bot, it is likely that the non-existent populated places were described due to database inconsistencies. It would be tough to establish otherwise as Kotinski has already quit. However, let's leave the ones that are present in pl.wiki and can be verified in TERYT. May redirects be created if you prefer so, I am not gonna insist. Mathieu Mars (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathieu Mars - Thanks for responding. Just to be clear on this, none of these are present in PL Wiki as articles - they've all been deleted or redirected there. FOARP (talk) 10:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I meant: if for any of them the redirect exists in pl.wiki, we should exclude such an article from deletion by leaving it or turning into redirect. Should've been more precise. Mathieu Mars (talk) 20:08, 6 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslan Bashirov

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

Semi-pro player with no indication of passing WP:GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5. There is a Russian businessperson with the same name but this DP article means that he is about 32 years old now so clearly cannot be the same person as the Bashirov subject to this AfD. The best that I could find in Russian and Belarusian sources was Sport5, a very brief announcement of his departure from FC Maxline Vitebsk, and Daily Storm, which mentions him a few times and has a very small quote from him about an infamous incident involving Pavel Mamayev and Aleksandr Kokorin. The article contains no information about Bashirov other than to say that he is on the books of FC Leningradets Leningrad Oblast. I could not find even one independent article with detailed information about this particular Ruslan Bashirov. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 22:56, 7 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shihab Thangal Charity Trust

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

Bringing this to AFD as a redirect to Syed Muhammedali Shihab Thangal was objected by the creator. The article fails WP:NONPROFIT. The primary sources include press releases and local coverage about some charity works did by them. Thilsebatti (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added translations of the titles of the Malayalam-language newspaper articles used as references. The Hindu is a national newspaper, and there is also international coverage from the Saudi Gazette. I think that the coverage adds up to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:57, 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!} 06:36, 16 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!} 04:30, 23 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, Daniel (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If 2 reliable sources aren’t enough to establish notability then I don’t know what is. So keep per WP:GNG Nagol0929 (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yep, looks to meet WP:GNG. Tollens (talk) 06:47, 3 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 no consensus‎. I don't think there's going to be any agreement on this, after several resists some think the article should be kept, others think it should be deleted. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of adult television channels

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

No sources indicated as it fail WP:GNG, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:LISTCRUFT. MirrorPlanet (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Television, and Entertainment. MirrorPlanet (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category:Television pornography exist. Are these paid for television channels that have only pornography, or would it include movie channels that show R rated films that have sex and nudity in them? Dream Focus 11:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: Its still unsourced, no reliable sources are found, also that contains original research. MirrorPlanet (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can do a news search for the names of any of the channels and the word "pornography". Also since its a navigation list, not needed to reference things that are referenced in the articles linked to or common sense. The first entry is AOV Adult Movie Channel, so that's in the actual name. But search for it with the word "pornography" and you find coverage easily. [29] Dream Focus 12:40, 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!} 06:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How can things be categorized unless they have some citeable qualification making them worthy of the list? Hyperbolick (talk) 06:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With the wind-down of pay-per-view on cable/satellite, many of these networks are defunct and no longer active, and I wish you (and your anti-virus program) good luck trying to find sources for all of these; most of the properties have long transferred to the Internet. This is a declining list better as a category. Nate • (chatter) 19:59, 16 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!} 04:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. List serve a useful purpose to me and other encyclopedia users. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:12, 30 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, Daniel (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I agree that the list would be better as a category. The already existing Category:Television pornography seems like it already duplicates most of the entries – I'd be all for categorizing each entry in the current list that isn't already in the category under it. Tollens (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This list article would not fit in there Category:Lists_of_television_channels_by_content instead?

A improvement to make it match other article like List of documentary television channels would just be to add a short description beside each channel and make everything into a table. बिनोद थारू (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be perfectly fine – it's simply that a list of links is exactly what a category is for. If you'd like to expand the article with additional information, by all means go ahead. Tollens (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A category and a list on one given subject matter are partially, not exactly, the same. Not only does the category here duplicates only most of the entries (i.e. not all), but the list allows to organise links in sections, add sources and comments, which seems indeed necessary for the page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:59, 6 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 Zee Marathi as there does not appear more input is forthcoming and a change in target, if needed, can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 14:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Yuva

AfDs for this article:

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

This is only a procedural AFD nomination. I was about to redirect this article. But a redirect to Zee Marathi#Sister channels has been reverted several times by an IP editor against general consensus. So we should either delete or keep this. Thilsebatti (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zee Entertainment Enterprises: Seems like the best choice, this is just a long list with no discussion of the channel. Sourcing I find is all about individual TV shows, not about the channel. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zee Marathi which contains more information specific to this channel than Zee Entertainment Enterprises. Zee has a lot of channels in large part because of the multilingual nature of Indian media, and this target makes more sense as it is the main Marathi channel and the article contains summary information on other Marathi channels run by Zee. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need to get this down to one Redirect target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:39, 30 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Protheroe

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

From my PROD which was just removed:

The only source on this page is an obituary of another person which doesn't even mention Protheroe, and the only sources I could find which did only had passing mentions. I'm surprised to find so little, especially for an article this extensive, but I do not see evidence of notability here.

The removal suggests sources in Google Scholar which may be of use here, but I could only find passing mentions in there as well so I'm doubtful. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are bios available, [30] and [31], and some coverage in the NY Times [32]. He appears to have a chapter in this 1975 book but I can't access the text: [33]. Judging by his AllMusic credits, link, Protheroe appears to have an extensive career. Given this I have a suspicion that Protheroe may prove notable - but further work, potentially with offline sources, is needed to find the evidence. If kept, the article really does need an ounce or two of WP:TNT. ResonantDis_tortion 20:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Internet Archive has British Music Now. Protheroe contributed a chapter (on Alexander Goehr) to the book; except for a short "contributor" bio (likely autobiographical) he's not profiled in it. Jfire (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly a notable (GNG) individual who is featured in multiple publications. Google Books, Google Ngram and Google Scholar. For these reasons, the article should be kept. Aye, the article clearly requires a clean up and referencing, but that's not a reason to delete the article. IJA (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: though simply pointing to google books and google scholar results is insufficient to demonstrate notability, I think the Milken Archive bio and couple of paragraphs in the NYT pointed to by ResonantDistortion are just about sufficient on their own to demonstrate a GNG pass. (The English Chamber Choir bio isn't helpful, as it is not independent, and as Jfire says Protheroe is a contributor to, not a subject of, British Music Now). Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:52, 2 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neera Arya

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

This was previously deleted as a Hoax at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 4#Neera Arya. However this article cite additional sources which I checked few of them and they did not check out. Some source do not even mention "Neera Ayra" include the BBC others are not functional links. I will leave it to the community decide rather than go for speedy deletion FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Military, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be helpful if @Dsrprj:, who created the article on 13 August 2023, would explain why the access-dates on their sources range from 2016 to 2021. Did they actually consult these sources? Or is this an unacknowledged translation from another Wikipedia? PamD 07:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm still suspicious about some of the further sources added with ancient "access-date"s, suggesting that the editors haven't looked at the material, but the book First Lady Spy Of INA: Neera Arya (ISBN 9789354886621) is published by Prabhat Prakashan on whom we have an article. If some of the sources are dubious, or cast suspicion on whether the whole tale is true, then that seems a need for careful editing and addition of further, reliable, sources. PamD 07:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That biography is listed on Amazon as "biographical fiction" [34]: I am skeptical that it is a reliable source. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  read the discription or checkout this - [35] DSP2092^talk 09:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  This 2021 version is what triggered my thought about this being a hoax. However the current 2023 version seem to be perceived as factual.
  
  @DSP2092 I think it will help everyone if you can fix the archived links and remove the unreliable references indicated in the previous discussion and also remove the irrelevant references like the BBC which doesn’t support the content attributed to FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep: I have recently expanded this article from the Hindi article. This article needs additional reliable sources, but it definitely meets the Wiki guidelines. There are even movies and books based on Neera Arya. DSP2092^talk 08:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DSP2092: did you check the sources you added, or just copy the work of the Hindi editors without acknowledgment? PamD 09:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked all the sources, but I have read the article, and it does contain information I have read in a book about her. I am going to copyedit and add some reliable sources soon. DSP2092^talk 09:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that will help, given that this is a previously deleted article for being a Hoax FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input is clearly necessary...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pinging @Dympies, @Georgethedragonslayer, @Jay, @Someone-123-321 and @Editorkamran who participated in the Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 4#Neera Arya FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the RfD, my opinion was to discuss at AfD, which we are now doing. Thanks for the ping. I don't have an opinion as of now, will go through the sources. Jay 💬 10:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX. I would like to thank Fuzzymagma for pinging me. Anyone can see my comments on RfD and my analysis of sources there. All of the sources that have been used here came after 2015, which itself proves that we have no actual serious source that is discussing this non-existing subject. Not a single cited source has any expertise in history. Dympies (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dympies How do you explain the references to an award in her name, and to a memorial to her being built, which appear genuine according to Google translation? PamD 23:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: Kindly post the sources here. There are just too many listed unreliable sources to wade through to find what you are saying. Dympies (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dympies Sources such as those currently refs 4, 5 and 7. PamD 06:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of them are newly created articles. Having a non-notable award created after a fictional person is not any evidence of WP:N. Dympies (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just like what I had said on RfD, there is no source to confirm if this person was real. It is easy to viral fake news on internet but Wikipedia is not their backwater. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dympies. Yes the subject is nothing more than a hoax. There are no scholarly sources to confirm the existence of this fake subject. In India, state-sponsored efforts are being made in the recent years to falsify history but we must avoid entertaining that.[36] Editorkamran (talk) 03:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The number of sources, found, even if some are considered unreliable, suggests that even if she did not exist she is notable as a fictional or legendary character, the subject of books and apparently a film. If the reader finds [ https://m.timesofindia.com/entertainment/kannada/movies/news/roopa-iyers-bollywood-debut-is-on-indias-first-woman-spy-before-independence/amp_articleshow/95093222.cms a Times of India article] about her biopic, Wikipedia should have an article about her.Pam D 06:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the current article is not written as fictional and please consider that Tines of India might not be a reliable sources as it known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage, see WP:RSP. I am still waiting for @DSP2092 to do what they promised (adding reliable sources and fix the dead links) FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to rewrite the article. I am copyediting in my sandbox but it will take some time. I have my exams running so i can't rewrite whole article in few days. It needs a lots of work to find RS and rewrite whole article, Regards. DSP2092 (👤, 🗨️) 16:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. We would know that from hundreds of scholarly sources written about Indian National Army if this subject was not a hoax but it is clear at present stage that it is indeed a social media fake news. CharlesWain (talk) 05:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Its a WP:HOAX. Agletarang (talk) 14:57, 5 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 12:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Gardens Shopping Centre

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a pretty standard shopping mall without demonstrated notability. Several of the citations included are reliable and independent but are not supportive of notability. This title was previously deleted via AfD, but this is not a re-creation of the original but a new and improved (albeit still not notable) article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Australia. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Toowoomba, Queensland as alternative to deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Previously deleted and could only find routine coverage that doesn't meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure that it's an essential place for those who want to buy things, but that doesn't make it notable. Doesn't seem like much has changed since it was last deleted. TarnishedPath^talk 09:55, 3 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsey Wingert

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

Non-notable individual. The incident with the foul ball is 6 of the references out of 15, and none of the others are substantial coverage about her. GraziePrego (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Colorado. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 04:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Baseball, Georgia (U.S. state), Louisiana, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 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!} 01:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: More coverage here when she left Atlanta [37], [38]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she was struck by a foul ball twice and received coverage in reliable sources after both incidents, as well as the coverage identified by Oaktreeb above. Hatman31 (talk) 21:41, 24 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, Daniel (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notable per Oaktree b and Hatman31 above.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:52, 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 Battle of Achelous (1359). If there is something worth saving, any editor is free to rescue the content from behind the redirect. Daniel (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian-Epirote War of 1359

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

This page is simply a cut and paste copy of Battle of Achelous (1359) with a couple of superficial edits Lokosos (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Albania, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Convenience link Special:ComparePages. Folly Mox (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Deleting an entire page on the grounds of its minor similarities with another page is excessive and absurd. The Battle of Achelous (1359) was a battle in the Albanian-Epirote War of 1359 which is crucial to know. It's also worth noting that this conflict had a relatively short duration and culminated in a single battle. As a result, it is entirely justifiable for the page to incorporate information regarding this singular engagement. Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's the majority of the article copied with minor copy edits and most significantly only a single extra source added. As rightly you point out it's a campaign with a single battle. There no need for two articles. Lokosos (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up if needed. It is notable and referenced.. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this isn't a question about the referencing - it's two essentially identical articles that should be merged for what extremely small difference there is between them. 37.245.43.164 (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a content fork. BLAR also acceptable. Srnec (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Battle of Achelous (1359) content fork describing same events. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Based.shqiptar.frompirok GermanManFromFrankfurt (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this content fork to Battle of Achelous (1359) Polyamorph (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as I don't reallly see anything there beyond what is already in Battle of Achelous (1359). Owen× ☎ 20:32, 8 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 List of Scotland ODI cricketers. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 14:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Naylor

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

This was the only in-depth coverage I was able to find on the subject, which is not enough to meet WP:GNG as more than one publication is needed. JTtheOG (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Scotland. JTtheOG (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ Redirect. I'd also classify it as WP:TOOSOON, as the article only lists minimal play. Also, he's 22. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 03:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Scotland ODI cricketers Doesn't seem to be enough coverage currently for a WP:GNG pass, however their is a suitable redirect here per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International cricketer for a leading associate, in the nascent stage of his career. More sources likely to become available. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, the article needs to prove notability at the time of it's inception. I think @Rugbyfan22's redirect suggestion is best. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 22:08, 8 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!} 08:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:35, 23 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, Daniel (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notable per independent, reliable 2 refs added since the deletion nomination; both are from the Liverpool Echo^[39][40]

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- GNG states that "a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source." JTtheOG (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- - JTtheOG, thanks for pointing that out -- I'd never noticed that footnote ^{(Wikipedia:Notability#Notes, footnote 4)}. My interpretation is that "a series of publications" does not refer to 2 or more unconnected articles. I suspect footnote 4 probably refers to serialized content (for example, a 3-day, 3-part series on a given topic). If that's correct, I don't think the footnote applies to this subject. Over the course of 100s of AfDs^[41][42], I've never seen this footnote invoked before -- this makes me think this is a narrow rule. Otherwise, we'd be tossing articles just because a subject's multiple references are only to New York Times articles or to Economist articles.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is humbling. After saying I've never seen footnote 4 come up before, this was just raised 4 hours ago at Articles for deletion/Sangramsingh Thakur. That said, I still think this refers to serialized content.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I think that this is a very reasonable interpretation of the excerpt. I can't say that I've seen this exact quote used in an AfD before, although I've seen the principal applied in a couple of sportspeople AfDs. Cheers, JTtheOG

Redirect per Rugbyfan22. The two RS seem to be considered by GNG to be one source – while the footnote requires a series, Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability pretty clearly considers multiple articles by one author the same source. Pinging A. B. due to the GNG discussion above. Tollens (talk) 06:39, 3 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 keep‎. A move can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 14:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Midlands Today

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

I see no claim of significance. My BEFORE search found this Coventry website, BusinessLive, and this mere mention and I still don't see enough for WP:GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and England. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move: We would probably move to BBC Midlands Today since BBC regional news since many articles have the BBC prefix in it. Akhil K. (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Rillington (talk) 09:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see no justification for this article's deletion, It is a significant regional news programme and contains independent references. Rillington (talk) 09:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's enough coverage in the sources already in the article and these further sources to pass the GNG: A look back over the first 50 years of the programme is SIGCOV.[43]. Brief comment on new look [44]. Changes to the set [45] and similar. [46] Suzanne Virdee leaving [47]. Mentions in this book [48] Agree with title change to BBC Midlands Today. Rupples (talk) 04:07, 5 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Foster (comedian)

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

No evidence of notability. Sources are opinion, unreliable or otherwise general fluff. See also related issue at fringe theories noticeboard. A source assessment table will follow shortly after the creation of this page. Fermiboson (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Fermiboson
[49]	Site appears to be catalogue of people; information likely provided by the subject himself.	? N/A	N/A	✘ No
[50]	WP:OPINION	WP:SPECTATOR	N/A	✘ No
[51]	Self-published podcast and interview	WP:UGC, WP:INTERVIEW		✘ No
[52]	? No apparent affiliation of publisher with subject.	WP:INTERVIEW	? Podcast is no longer available.	✘ No
[53]	? No apparent affiliation of reviewer with subject.	~ Reviews would normally be uncurated content and unreliable, but per WP:NARTIST 4(c) it could be significant.	~ One paragraph at the end. Normally would be a no, but since the rest of the sources are so bad some leeway is fine.	? Unknown
[54]	Site is a catalogue of events; information provided by subject.	One would be reasonably confident that the person at least is a comedian from the page.		✘ No
[55]		WP:IMDB		✘ No
[56]		WP:UGC, WP:INTERVIEW		✘ No
[57]		WP:DAILYEXPRESS		✘ 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}}.

Sources in the article excluded from this article are nearly identical in nature to those listed in the table. Fermiboson (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I can't find sufficient evidence of notability. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Entertainment, Internet, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The occasional fluff listicle is not enough to base a biography upon. XOR'easter (talk) 17:08, 2 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Bahd

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Sources on the page are either unreliable, bio listings, or not significant (nothing that goes into detail). A WP:BEFORE was unable to locate any better sources. CNMall41 (talk) 08:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ghana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 09:55, 30 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!} 08:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. could not find sources either. DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 20:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same reasons with nom. A clear case of WP:TOOSOON. The public log irks of sockpuppetry or UPE. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails in WP:NMUSICIAN... most of sources are unreliable Worldiswide (talk) 06:41, 11 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 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!} 08:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sivakururaja Kurukkal

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

The available information is inadequate to establish the significance of this article. It could be redirected to Koneswaram Temple. Rocky Masum (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Rocky Masum (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 30 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!} 08:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 07:58, 7 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wraith (video game)

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

Star Wraith is a video game created by StarWraith 3D Games, composed only of its founder, Shawn Bower. The problem is that, since the fall of the space combat genre, games of this genre have been minimally covered, and Star Wraith is no exception. I am forcing users to review this article, as well as all others about other games in the Star Wraith series, which also suffer from the fact that they appeal only to niches in gaming. The series, nonetheless, seems notable enough that its article may be kept. Eurogamer ran a feature about Bower's 30-year-plus efforts to deliver space sims. Some of the individual games may be notable enough to keep their articles, particularly some of the Evochron games. Komputer Świat had an in-depth article about Evochron Renegades, and Rock Paper Shotgun interviewed Bower about his Evochron Legends. The articles of games like these should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The rest could be merged into the Star Wraith series article. Free Media Kid$ 06:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Free Media Kid$ 06:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I simply can't find sources about this game at all. Non-notable, fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Bridge Golf Resort and Spa

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

No citations. Cursory glance seems to indicate it fails WP:GNG, although I didn't try very hard since there isn't any content here which would lead me to expect any articles with depth. Daask (talk) 06:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Golf, and Alabama. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 30 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 03:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Priti Jain

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

As per the flag of a previous editor, this subject – however admirable her work – does not at all seem to meet notability criteria for a Wikipedia article. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 04:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Medicine, India, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable physician. No significant coverage, awards, positions, or research that would contribute towards notability. Mooonswimmer 14:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:17, 30 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. and Moving to Killing of Samantha Woll. I realize that this is a judgment call but this is how I read the rough consensus of this discussion. As time passes (and I mean months and years from now, not days or a week), it might be worth reevaluating this article to see if coverage is sustained. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Woll

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

A non-notable person who was murdered, and her murder is being reported against the backdrop of a current conflict. Textbook example of WP:BLP1E, and her article should be redirected to that of her synagogue. Step hen 22:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Judaism, and Michigan. Step hen 22:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fails mandatory criteria 2 of WP:BLP1E in that she was not a low profile individual. Woll was co-chair of the American Jewish Committee's ACCESS Detroit Young Leadership Program and founder of the Muslim-Jewish Forum of Detroit. In 2017 she was selected by the Detroit Jewish News as one of their "36 under 36". From 2019 to 2021, she worked as deputy district director on the political campaign of Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin. She also worked on the re-election campaign of Attorney General Dana Nessel. that's not low profile. I think BLP1E is more to prevent victimization of people who are just average everyday low profile people. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "American Jewish Committee's ACCESS Detroit Young Leadership Program and founder of the Muslim-Jewish Forum of Detroit" MIGHT get you an article, working on various election campaign's doesn't. Oaktree b (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Anything regarding a Program run by AJC is ZERO notability on its own. Ditto regarding the Muslim-Jewish Forum of Detroit. So, not even a "might". 2607:F470:E:22:F00C:616:C1E6:62E7 (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Isaac Agree Downtown Synagogue: President of a synagogue is basically an office job; they wouldn't get an article had they not died. Notability is only in context of the place of worship. Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move to "Killing of Samantha Woll". The killing is what is really notable here. The individual would likely not have merited a Wikipedia page prior to their murder. Loksmythe (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would agree that if there is not sufficient consensus to keep the article, the incident of her death is clearly notable. Panther999 (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: So far, just another non-notable murder. Subject to change as the investigation unfolds. 2607:F470:E:22:F00C:616:C1E6:62E7 (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The significant coverage this incident has received suggests notability. Panther999 (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Isaac Agree Downtown Synagogue. Coverage has been insignificant after the fact, aside from to say the police have found no evidence of it being a result of a hate crime.^[1] Nonovix (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some manner. Durindaljb (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Killing of. There's continued national and international reporting about her killing, beyond initial expositionary reporting, that suggests her killing meets WP:GNG: [58] [59] [60]. Longhornsg (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Tareen, Sophia. "Police find no evidence of a hate crime in murder of Detroit synagogue leader". PBS News Hour. PBS. Retrieved 23 October 2023.

Merge to Isaac Agree Downtown Synagogue. I hate to say "routine crime", but now that the killing has found not to be terrorism or a hate crime, it isn't notable enough for a stand-alone article. There is certainly material that could be usefully inserted at the synagogue article, though. Black Kite (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think the killing's been "found not to be terrorism or a hate crime". As I read the reports, police just don't know. Dsp13 (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What dsp13 (talk · contribs) said. The investigation is still active, and DPD says to expect an update today. 68.42.97.120 (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC) (oops, forgot to log in) --Alison (Crazytales) (talk; edits) 13:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless at some later date proved connected to some other notable then revive. As of right now sounds just like any other unnotable memorial.2600:8800:FF0E:300:F91F:EEA6:4E6C:2A7B (talk) 08:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a low profile individual. Woll was co-chair of the American Jewish Committee's ACCESS Detroit Young Leadership Program and founder of the Muslim-Jewish Forum of Detroit. In 2017 she was selected by the Detroit Jewish News as one of their "36 under 36". Yamfri (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Her death is mentioned at Isaac Agree Downtown Synagogue#History and that is sufficient. Wylie pedia @ 14:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This woman's death has been the lead story in Southeast Michigan and the Michigan Attorney general was commenting on it before the cause of death was publicly available. That, alone, doesn't establish notability but articles about her from reliable secondary sources may come out in the near future, as the story develops. At such point she would likely meet GNG. While this happened against the backdrop of an ongoing conflict, the police have indicated that they have no evidence that the murder is was motivated by her religious or political activities. If a redirect is in order, it should point toward an article on the incident, since the incident is certainly receiving significant coverage from reliable secondary sources.--Panther999 (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM/WP:SOAP. Please stick to how this article is or isn’t necessary on WP policy grounds. The Kip 17:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep The murderous attack on this woman is likely part of the ongoing surge of attacks on Jews, by Muslims, that began during the start of the Biden (Democratic Party) presidency (an example of "liberal" racism and extremism). It is also relevant in the backdrop of the biggest mass murder of people by Islamic terrorists (on previous victims of mass murders, Jewish people, in this case) since the murderous Islamic terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001. Commenter856 (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC) — Commenter856 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep or Merge per above. Borderline notability in life, certainly notable in death and comparable to the Killing of Wadea Al-Fayoume. I can see arguments for both, and I personally slightly lean keep, but the bottom line is that deletion would be the wrong move. The Kip 17:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The killing of Al-Fayoume is a hate crime. Detroit police (so far) are saying there is no evidence that the killing of Woll was a hate crime. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "Killing of" or Delete. Very clear violation of BLP1E. It is possible an article about Woll's death could clear on notability, though I would lean delete at this point given the lack of coverage thereof within the article. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & then move to Killing of Samantha Woll. Even if she probably wouldn't pass WP:GNG prior to her death, she is notable for her death. Nonetheless, given that she had a very weak claim to notability prior to her death, keeping the article separate (as a WP:1E) and having a short bio on her in said article (as is done for many others) is the best solution here. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Case of BIO1E that no longer meets notability for own article following the official investigation, and subject's death is duly covered in the Isaac Agree Downtown Synagogue article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 00:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the synagogue article, I'm not seeing notability at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [reply]
@Oaktree b: looks like you've voted twice Longhornsg (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I'll strike one. Oaktree b (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. She was not notable for her life prior to her death and while her killing has gotten coverage, it does not demonstrate WP:LASTING notability at this point. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Muboshgu, I disagree. Her killing got an international coverage because she was notable; an average Joan Doe would not be mentioned by Independent, BBC, Aljazeera, The Guardian, Daily Beast, Daily Mail and all U.S. national media. To have been a Jewish community leader and at the same time be called "a friend" by Israel hater Rashida Tlaib - that in itself is notable. Yamfri (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  It was heavily covered only because it was initially believed to be a hate crime, which we now know was not the case. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Strongly disagree that two people who worked in politics together in the same US state for the same party being friends tells us anything about notability. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to synagogue article. Police are now saying they believe it likely wasn’t a hate crime [61]. This makes it less likely to meet the threshold of notability. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:2B9A (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Isaac Agree Downtown Synagogue per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I tried to find coverage prior to her death to help expand this article and establish notability, but what’s available doesn’t meet the biography notability criteria (almost all of it being from a single local source) and tho it had seemed like the coverage of her death would merit an article about that, info seems so limited that it’s adequately covered at the page for her synagogue. If that changes, I would suggest expanding the section at the synagogue page until such point as it requires a content fork. (Meanwhile, I am not really sure why so many people have said merge as opposed to redirect, as her death is already mentioned at the target page and I’m not clear on what other content would be relevant to the entry for the synagogue.) Innisfree987 (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - theres enough sourcing for a biography here, and there are sources going back a few years about the re-opening of the synagogue. Possibly retarget to an article on her killing, but between the Muslim-Jewish Forum of Detroit, leading the only free standing synagogue in Detroit, and coverage of her murder, and hopefully eventually trial of suspect, and funeral there's enough here for an article. nableezy - 16:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the synagogue article. For now, the biography is lacking quite a bit and the murder itself likely wouldn't pass the WP:10YT, but unless more information comes out about the victim, the best course of action is to merge. Luigi7255 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This very clearly does not qualify under WP:BLP1E for reasons already explained here by others. Agree that notability here is not the most clear-cut given the sources present, but they are sufficient for me to support keeping the article. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support merging with the synagogue. Everything notable outside the 1E is associated with it, and redirecting “killing of” to it would be fine. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Forgive my lack of background in coding and, yes, I understand why a nomination for deletion would have followed the determination that Samantha's death was not a hate crime. I write as the former long-time religion editor of The Detroit Free Press and now Editor of ReadTheSpirit.com weekly magazine, which covers interfaith issues. Samantha's entry should be kept because: First, her story now has circled the globe. I work with the International Association of Religion Journalists and journalists in Asia and Europe have asked about Samantha. One reason to retain this profile is that people will be searching for her name for a long time. Some journalists I've spoken with in Europe and Asia were not aware that her death was not deemed a hate crime by police. Including her profile clarifies both her identity and her case. Second, she was not a minor figure. I do agree with other Wiki editors who point out that the details of her resume on their own do not seem nationally notable. However, Samantha filled those posts in a way that she became a nationally known young Jewish activist and interfaith leader. Michigan's interfaith leadership saw her, and continues to see her, as a major interfaith figure. I know this because I cover that leadership as a journalist. Also, before long, some major projects are likely to be named in memory of Samantha and having her basic bio here is crucial for letting people know who she was. Today, for example, my successor and current religion editor for the Free Press Niraj Warikoo just reported: https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2023/10/29/samantha-woll-left-legacy-of-interfaith-work-in-michigan/71336170007/ User:DavidCrumm 29 October 2023 — Preceding undated comment added 13:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Killing of Samantha Woll- Per Above 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 04:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm having difficulty with the nom for a very simple reason. There seems to be a flaw in proposing !delete on the basis of WP:BLP1E when the subject is, tragically not a WP:LP. In all honesty, I'm sure it sounds petty but I don't think we can use policies written about "living persons" for pages about people who are self evidently no longer living. Maybe it was relevant, now it isn't. JMWt (talk) 06:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The policy you linked specifically says, "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died". Innisfree987 (talk) 07:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is true, however it is part of the WP:BLP which says at the top "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

This whole policy is about the inclusion or otherwise of contentious material about living people which sometimes applies to the recently deceased.

Nobody here is arguing that there is contentious material about this recently deceased person which we should remove - the discussion is about notability.

If we are to refocus the discussion on the notability of a person for only one event, the correct policy to discuss is WP:1E, which I think has some relevant and wise advice.

The correct approach it seem to me is a move to Killing of Samantha Woll, which is undeniably notable and in line with WP:1E JMWt (talk) 08:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Killing of Samantha Woll." Specifically I suggest creating an article called, the "Killing of Samantha Woll," then change Samantha Woll to a Redirect. The incident has received more coverage than she did before this tragedy.--23mason (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and Move to Killing of Samantha Woll. clearly notable per WP:GNG. Good souring.BabbaQ (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "Killing of Samantha Woll"; there's been sustained coverage of the killing extending beyond the local area. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see a consensus right now. There is about equal numbers of editors arguing Keep, Delete, Merge to Isaac Agree Downtown Synagogue and Keep and move to Killing of Samantha Woll page title.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in reliable sources continues two weeks after her death. Her many accomplishments before her death are well-referenced, moving this out of WP:BLP1E (or recently dead) territory. Cullen328 (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per User:Cullen. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:25, 6 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 Reframe‎ following discussion below. I'm not calling consensus here, but rather withdrawing this as the nominator given no other support for deletion. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tessa Sakhi

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

I'm unable to find evidence that this person meets WP:GNG or another applicable notability standard. The sources in the article, and the ones I was able to find, are all either not intellectually independent, or are not substantive. I suspect this is a case of WP:TOOSOON and that this would benefit from being draftified, but the creator moved this back to mainspace after an initial draftification by someone else. There's also clearly either a COI issue or a copyright issue with the image, and the article was substantially promotional when created; that's not a deletion reason in and of itself, but it does make working with the creator to fix this a lot harder. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Architecture. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Totally understand the concerns with the article's current state, but I think there are reliable sources available for a rewrite of the article. I've found some English- and French-language articles on her through a cursory Google search: [62][63] (L'Orient-Le Jour), [64] (Vogue Arabia), [65] (Dezeen) [66] (Arab News), [67] (Harper's Bazaar Arabia). It might be good to check other Lebanon news outlets and Arabic-language sources too. Bridget (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bridget: Those are good sources, thank you; I wonder, though, if this needs to be reframed as an article about the duo, or about the studio. Basically none of the sources are about Tessa alone. If you agree, I'd be willing to withdraw this. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde: Sounds like a plan! I was thinking similarly. Bridget (talk) 21:53, 31 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 02:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamad Nazzal

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

Fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Jordan. Skynxnex (talk) 02:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Can we get some more opinions here? This article has been PROD'd several times so is not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any sources that might satisfy WP:GNG

Waterfelt (talk) 06:45, 20 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 List of dams in Tottori Prefecture. No prejudice against a continuing discussion on whether the list is notable, but that's beyond the scope of this AFD. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misasa Dam

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

One Source, is a Stub, & WP:BEFORE found nothing. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Geography, and Japan. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The database maintained by The Japan Dam Foundation is the equivalent of an encyclopedia of dams. There's nothing wrong with a stub. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a database with bare statistics, not an encyclopedia. And there's nothing wrong with a stub when the topic is notable, but stubs for non-notable topics shouldn't stay either. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain Plus, who on earth are the Japan Dam Foundation? I don't see any reason to consider them a reliable source. FOARP (talk) 11:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this is: http://damnet.or.jp/jdf/kyokaisigoto/sigotoB.html 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a GNG failure. To the nominator, note that simply being a one-sentence stub with one source isn't really a reason to delete, as such topics can still be notable. Per WP:NBUILDING, "Artificial features related to infrastructure (for example, bridges and dams) can be notable under Wikipedia's GNG." However, I can find no sources to get over the GNG bar. The one in the article is simply from a database with a little bit of bare statistics, and I don't really see anything else beyond that, even searching for the Japanese name. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its just a bad habit of mine to put in the size of the article. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There appear to be hundreds, if not more, of these sub-stubs on Japanese dams. They appear to have been automatically created and all use the same source. While I'm sure there are a handful of notable entries in here, the vast majority of these probably fall under the same umbrella as this one. A wider RFC on their mass deletion could be called for here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do you do that? 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bundled deletion per WP:BUNDLE. FOARP (talk) 11:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of dams in Tottori Prefecture as WP:ATD. Jumpytoo Talk 04:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Creator Nirmaljoshi has previously been notified and asked not to create these stubs. See also Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 17#Dams articles. Many of these have been sent to AfD and the result has generally been "redirect to list article" — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect. That this fails WP:GNG is well argued above. People arguing for redirection to a list article need to show that the topic "list of dams in [district]" passes WP:LISTN, because I don't see any evidence that it does. If we're doing this for navigation, then we need to link to pages we have articles on, and exclude the ones that don't have articles. FOARP (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A list of dams in Japan article was AfDed last year and it was overwhelmingly kept: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dams in Fukui Prefecture. Even if my proposed target fails an AfD, the most likely case is to merge back up to it's parent List of dams in Japan, in which case the WP:DOUBLEREDIRECT gets automatically fixed by bots. Jumpytoo Talk 19:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit disingenuous. It seems like that AFD was focused on a particular usage of Wikidata entries and nothing else. Notability wasn't examined, which is the complaint here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of dams in Tottori Prefecture per User:Jumpytoo. The list passing NLIST or not is a different matter and nobody seems to have raised the issue on that list talk page. It is also long standing, so it could be assumed for now that it does. As others have pointed out, this seems to be the way articles created by this particular creator has gone as well. Fermiboson (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The list passing NLIST or not is a different matter - there's no point creating and adding to non-notable list-pages that can also be deleted. Pointing to no problems having been raised so far and the page being around for a long time is neither here nor there - these are both considered fallacies here at AFD (see WP:LONGTIME). Does any reliable source consider lists of dams in Tottori Prefecture to be a notable subject? FOARP (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. The last existing consensus on the subject per the bots noticeboard link above is that redirect to list is the thing to do though of course you are welcome to try and overturn that at the talk page of the list or other relevant venue. I think you would be very hard pressed to find RS specifically about a collection of dams in any place. Fermiboson (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last point means we shouldn’t have this list because it won’t pass WP:LISTN, since no-one ever gave any significant coverage to it. This list won’t serve a navigational purpose since none of these are articles, nor can they be developed, and Wikipedia does not host WP:IINFO. FOARP (talk) 05:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of dams in Tottori Prefecture per Jumpytoo. Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 01:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect - Fails GNG and LISTN. We shouldn't be indiscriminately creating articles or even lists for every tiny dam in the database. –dlthewave ☎ 15:58, 4 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.

[1] Tareen, Sophia. "Police find no evidence of a hate crime in murder of Detroit synagogue leader". PBS News Hour. PBS. Retrieved 23 October 2023.

[1]