Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 24	November 26 >

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 redirect‎ to Supreme Education Council (Qatar). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation Tower

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable; there seems to be no significant coverage in WP:GNG sources. Previous AfD resulted in a soft-delete, and the article has now been recreated. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 14:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Qatar. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 14:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, despite it being a distinctive design, it doesn't appear to have attracted much media attention. I can only find a brief description on Worldfinance.com. It looks like it was a commercial venture by a shipping company. Sionk (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not have SIGCOV. DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 16:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Supreme Education Council (Qatar), the building's main occupant which has its name upon it. Nate • (chatter) 21:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It might be good to mention the building on the redirect target with an RS; this seems like a good ATD. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 23:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: This building is not notable. However, the main occupant of this building is Qatar's top education department, and there is an article dedicated to it. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 17:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Not notable enough for a standalone article. The Kip 23:56, 27 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) NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Limosa (disambiguation)

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

This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title while the other entries here aren't valid. The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are only two WP:DABMENTION-satisfying entries. A hatnote on Godwit will suffice. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery, the disambiguation page has been updated and Limosa (magazine) has been created as a redirect mentioned in its target. If you're fine with it now, please change your vote so that I can withdraw this nomination. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and withdraw. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NmWTfs85lXusaybq, have you ever seen WP:BEFORE? :) In this case, you can e.g. see that Special:WhatLinksHere/Limosa_(magazine) has numerous links so it qualifies for inclusion. Why should we hide this from readers? --Joy (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy, have you ever noticed that all links of Limosa (magazine) in the main namespace are actually from the transclusion of {{European birding journals}}? That's not warranted per MOS:DABMENTION. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but that gives you a hint that at least one other editor thought there was potential. I know it's easier to just do a huge mechanic cleanup, but sometimes it makes sense to look into these because they're indicative of something else. I just skimmed your list of 200+ prod's and found several situations that could be handled differently. --Joy (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I meant. Unfortunately, it seems that nobody was willing to help check WP:ONEOTHER candidates in the last month after I tagged 200+ dab pages (of all 1,200+ candidates) with {{One other topic}}, although I have excluded ones resulted from vandalism. Thus, I believe PROD has to be used to draw more attention from our community. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the cleanup tags aren't going to be very effective within just a month at rarely visited pages. Especially in cases where there weren't even hatnote links to some of these. --Joy (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is now a sourced mention of the magazine at Sovon, and a redirect there. Still no need for a dab page, a hatnote at the bird would do.. PamD 08:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found another item in the title search with an existing redirect, a minor planet, just by scrolling through. There's also mentions of moths, but I'm not familiar with WP:PTM rules on scientific names so someone else should look at it. Spamming all this into a hatnote at an article that actually has a different title seems like it would be excessive. --Joy (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted. PamD 13:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: adequate little dab page, too much for a hatnote. PamD 13:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several valid entries, plus see also section. Boleyn (talk) 15:45, 26 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 00:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From Here (film)

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

Does not appear to meet any criteria of NFILM. Does not have a page on Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic that I could find, nor any reviews not hosted on either of those sites which I could find. The only sources on this page are listings for the screening they're about by the organizations hosting them, and none of the film festivals appear to be notable so their awards probably wouldn't count for much either. Too close to PROMO for comfort methinks. Is an orphan aside from a hatnote on From Here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Politics, Germany, and New York. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – ProQuest turns up some matches, but all are either listings of the films to be shown at the Human Rights Watch Film Festival, or copies of the same, presumably-press-release, source. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, nothing in RS. dxneo (talk) 21:10, 6 December 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. Daniel (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WebCatalog

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

I disagree with the AfC acceptance. Ignoring Valnet content farm, non-independent sources, and simple database entries, there simply isn't enough information or reviews available to justify an article. The Indian Express piece is just a guide that happens use this application, nothing usable to make an article.

That leaves a short review and a showcase. I don't think those sources are enough to make a whole article. A WP:BEFORE check revea;ed no usable sources/reviews. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Here are some notable sources: [1], [2] [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. I have added them to the article. It meets WP:NSOFT and/or WP:GNG. Annh07 (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are those reliable sources? To me they look like:

Blog
Blog that looks suspiciously similar to the first one
Unreliable source (no information on editorial controll or the writer's credentials)
Blog
Unreliable source (no information on editorial controll or the writer's credentials)
Blog
Blog

-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 23:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – could not locate any additional sources. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 23:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify again. This was already draftified before. Annh07 made some great improvements, but the sources are still too weak to imply notability. Owen× ☎ 21:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I support draftification as well, there are some content that could be useful if this software gets more coverage/reviews. Ca ^{talk to me!} 22:37, 2 December 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stand up for us

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

Completely non-notable campaign. Of the two references provided, first one makes no mention of "Stand up for us" and second one is dead. Google search for "Stand up for us" does not produce many relevant results. Only real evidence I have found for this campaign is this but one publication clearly does not warrant an article.

Completely non-notable and does not deserve an article. Elshad (talk) 12:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Elshad (talk) 12:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Education, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources found, the two used now as sources aren't terribly useful. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I found a decent number of sources citing this campaign, and even a few news articles ostensibly about it, but which limited their descriptions thereof to a single sentence. The only thing you could call significant coverage is a food journalist for The Times rallying for his right to use "gay" as an insult.[8] The more things change, the more they stay the same, I suppose. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:09, 25 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 NHS ambulance services. Consensus is against a standalone article. History remains under the redirect if a merge is deemed necessary. Star Mississippi 23:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ambulance services trust

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

Mostly regurgiated article. "Ambulance services trust" is not a legal entity, as by defintion all are either NHS trusts or NHS foundation trusts, and none of the cited sources specifically mention this term.

The rest of the article is a regurgitation / duplicate of information covered at NHS ambulance services. Elshad (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, England, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while not a legal term, which seems to be the objection, it is nevertheless a class of trust with a specific role. This page is the only page on Wikipedia that records the history of geographical coverage. Millstream3 (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge/Redirect to NHS ambulance services. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This seems an important part of a wider scope on the subject matter. Also, needs to add the "UK ambulance service" navbox — Maile (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to NHS ambulance services. No need for this content fork. Owen× ☎ 23:49, 10 December 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 Czech Republic at the 2014 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Vacek

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

I searched on Google and couldn't find any news coverage about this athlete. I'm not a native speaker of Czech language, but all I could find were brief/passing mentions and no activities of his own. Corresponding article on Czech Wikipedia is also a stub, which might help otherwise. No news has been released about him since his last appearance in 2015, either. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Czech Republic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Czech Republic at the 2014 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh. I also couldn't find a source that would be enough to sustain a separate article.

FromCzech (talk) 07:15, 29 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. I hope some editors can spend time improving this article and adding new sources to it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Direct care

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

The term "direct care" could mean almost anything in the English language e.g. "I am taking direct care of my dog", "The painting was placed under direct care of the museum". With regards to its meaning in the NHS, I could only find a single reputable source here, and even so that does not justify an article.

Essentially this is an incredibly vague term, which perhaps has a specific niche meaning in the NHS, but certainly not enough to warrant an article.

The article is essentially saying "direct care is the direct care of a patient in the NHS".

Most of the rest is just tangential information about nursing, audit etc.

None of the cited sources are about the term itself.

One of the worst articles on Wikipedia. Elshad (talk) 11:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- The article clearly scopes the subject in the lede so the ambiguity discussed in the nom doesn't apply. There is strong, sustained, extensive discussion of this subject in journals [9], [10], [11], [12]. The article desperately needs editing and expansion, not deletion (WP:DINC). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- there are many uses of the term in the NHS itself[13], and beyond in the week before this deletion request[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[]. If the proposer was a registered veterinarian, they could take direct care of their dog, otherwise you're just staff (although this applies more to cats). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamSmithonWP (talk • contribs) 14:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Direct care (NHS)" if independent sources establish notability beyond a DICDEF. Otherwise, Delete. Owen× ☎
Keep as per above. Bondegezou (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Last1in and SamSmithonWP — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 09:27, 7 December 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. I'm withdrawing this nomination because I was unaware of other sources when I made it as I was searching for the MLW M-640. Oaktree b has clearly demonstrated other sources. TarnishedPath^talk 04:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MLW M-640

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

This appears to have been WP:REFBOMBed to make it appear more notable than it is. The first, second and fourth citations do not refer to the MLW M-640 at all as far as I can tell. They reference the Canadian Pacific 4744 and then only in passing. Not sure about the third citation. If the third citation does go into any any depth, one in depth citation by itself by itself is not enough to establish notability. Given the track record of this IP user I highly doubt the third citation does reference the subject in an depth, if at all. This does not pass WP:GNG as it has no independent notability outside of the Canadian Railway Museum. Suggest a redirect to Canadian Railway Museum. TarnishedPath^talk 11:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Transportation. TarnishedPath^talk 11:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also coverage in the CP Corporate history magazine here [19] and [20], some discussion in an electrical engineering journal (paywalled) [21]. Here's a better link for the museum [22]. An "under the hood" look at the loco [23] Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anymore sources? Because I have added the current ones you mentioned into the further reading. Only for you to put them into their respective sentences that they are meant for. 118.210.56.198 (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@118.210.56.198, why are you submitting articles through AfC and then expecting others to come along later and provide sources to establish notability that you haven't been able to add yourself? TarnishedPath^talk 04:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Probably could cobble together a decent article with the new sources I've found Oaktree b (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About three paragraphs here in Trains magazine [24] Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does that ever mention the MLW M-640? 118.210.56.198 (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They mention how it was redone using AC propulsion while keeping the original ALCO. "...Development Corporation, Canadian Pacific led the way in 1984, extensively rebuilding Montreal Locomotive Works M640 4744, a conventional D.C. locomotive, into an A.C.-traction testbed. In November 1984, 4744 emerged from CP Rail's Angus Shop, still with its unique 18cylinder, 4000 h.p. Alco 251 engine, but with its electrical and control systems radically altered. Converted from..." Oaktree b (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add it to the further reading section 118.210.56.198 (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with @Oaktree b we could add the new sources he has found to the article. 118.210.56.198 (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets notability criteria per the sources found by Oaktree b. Netherzone (talk) 22:27, 25 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 12:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hanan Rubinstein

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

Fails WP:GNG; no sources in the article contain significant and independent coverage of the subject - the source that comes closest, a Bloomberg video, is no longer available and appears to have been an interview and thus would lack secondary coverage.

An online search for additional sources also reveals none. I suspect this article is an autobiography; the creator has almost no edits except to this article, and it has been heavily edited by IP's from the same location as Rubinstein. BilledMammal (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and New York. BilledMammal (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I recovered some of the dead links from archive.org. His best article is probably this fohonline.com, which reads like a press release and most others are from primary type sources or interviews.Royal88888 (talk) 21:42, 26 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. consensus is that topic meets our notability guidelines for professors, if just barely 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Yipp

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

Fails GNG. Fails NPROF, unless being a Canada Research Chair qualifies? Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: recent AfDs that involved Canada Research Chairs:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joanne Roberts -delete
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Talwar -- delete (this was a requested delete)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebrahim Bagheri -- delete
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charity Marsh -- delete
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerard van Herk -- redirect to professor's garage rock band
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Gosse -- keep
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mosto Mostapha Bousmina -- keep

There are a total of 1,993 Canada Research Chairs. Some commenters opined in these AfDs that only tier 1 Canada Research Chairs should count towards WP:PROF#C5. See Canada Research Chair#Types of chairs: tier 1 chairs are for senior academics and constitute 38% of Canada Research Chairs. The remaining 62% are tier 2 chairs for promising junior academics with potential, such as Bryan Yipp.^[25] --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. He is an assistant professor and tier 2 CRC. Whatever one thinks about tier 1 CRCs, that definitely doesn't count for WP:PROF#C5, which is only for above-full-professor level appointments. That said, he seems to be the go-to expert on NETosis (two first-author papers with 4-digit citation counts on Google Scholar, seemingly the top-cited two works on that subject), so I think he passes WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. I agree with David, while a CRC Tier 2 is an early career award and does not count towards NPROF, I think with his strong expertise on a niche field, three publications with 1000+ citations each and a healthy h-index of 23, he passes the NPROF#1 -- not by much since he is still early career but there is enough for a pass. --hroest 15:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't really see any reason to get in the way of a delete on this article, which is a one-sentence stub that would be eligible for G5 deletion if this AfD hadn't been opened instead. I realize that isn't exactly an argument for deletion, which is why this isn't a !vote, but I think it's context to keep in mind, given that no one has advanced a strong keep argument. -- asilvering (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is incorrect that this article would be eligible for G5 deletion. G5 is only for articles created by already-indef-blocked (or banned) editors evading their block. This article was created in March 2017; the SPI that banned SwisterTwister was not initiated until December 2017. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my bad. Disregard, then. -- asilvering (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Draftify. I added two significant cites from CTV News, a well-respected major national mainstream news outlet. Owen× ☎ 20:20, 3 December 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. Neither of the keep !votes offer a valid rationale to keep the article in this situation, and I find the nomination and Suonii180's comments the most compelling. Daniel (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kerr Cuhulain

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

Does not appear to meet NBIO or the GNG. The two references are both articles written by the subject. Google searches return more writing by the subject, but little in the way of sourcing about the subject. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Paganism. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:27, 10 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!} 08:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article about well known Satanist. 174.240.65.238 (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 16:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But more citations need to be added. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 08:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any citations in mind? My concern is that adequate citations don't seem to exist. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although I could find references to his writing, I couldn't find independent in-depth sources about the subject himself. Suonii180 (talk) 16:40, 9 December 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!} 08:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benito Juarez Marg

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

It exists, but I couldn't find sources to confirm it meets WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for nearly 7 years. Boleyn (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The road is notable as the South Campus of Delhi University is located along the road. This is a false statement. There are thousands of university campuses in the world, but the existence doesn't mean the roads they are near are notable. It's a generic four-lane road that's not even two km long. Reywas92^Talk 18:31, 25 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 00:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abatino Park

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

Notability tag was added 5 years ago with the reason: I don't speak Italian, but from what I can gather by using Google Translate, this is a "Garden" inside of a larger park, Piano dell'Abatino. There are a few websites with information about the larger park, but hardly anything about the "Giardino Faunistico". Perhaps the title should be changed to the more general topic so that some references can be added.' I couldn't find sources to dispute this. Boleyn (talk) 09:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's this place, just so that we can identify what we are looking for. Uncle G (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:52, 25 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!} 08:05, 2 December 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 West Roxbury. This is a difficult discussion to close due to lack of participation, however redirect is less of an imposition than a delete close, and on that basis there's enough support above to action this. Daniel (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Billings Field

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

I'm interested to see what ohers think. This appears to be a standard park, not anything I could find sources for to show it meets WP:GEOLAND/WP:GEONATURAL or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 8 years. Boleyn (talk) 09:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Arcadia book has who it is named after and what it used to be named before it was named after xem. The Arcadia books are good indicators when it comes to this, so I suspect that there are going to be a fair number of local history sources on this. Uncle G (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Sammarco, Anthony Mitchell (2004). West Roxbury. Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 9780738534596.
It looks like this might give some historical context, for the sheepskin blokes who came after the one with the lumberyard, although I have no access to it. Uncle G (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Wolkins, George G. (Spring 1941). "Village Enterprise". Old-Time New England. 41. Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities: 83–88.
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More work needs to be done! Micheal Kaluba (talk) 08:09, 27 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!} 08:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:39, 9 December 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) 21:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to West Roxbury per WP:ATD, until such time as someone actually adds something to what is there. Ingratis (talk) 04:34, 17 December 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 due to lack of participation. Daniel (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anna.aero

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

It exists, but I couldn't find that sources to show it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Websites, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 18 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!} 08:48, 25 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!} 08:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added three cites from RS, including a brief but notable description of the site from The Independent. Owen× ☎ 14:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist and to consider Owen's additions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I think the added RS aren't sufficient. They are mentioning narrowly the Anna.aero, but it may not help to write a good neutral separate page on wiki. --BoraVoro (talk) 12:43, 14 December 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 due to lack of participation. Daniel (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rossy Aguirre

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

She exists and has a career, but I couldn't establish that she is notable. Boleyn (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 18 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!} 08:47, 25 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!} 08:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources exist. Her work can be sourced with GB for most of the films taken individually. She may be notable as voice actress. (https://www.chilango.com/agenda/otros/festival-cultura-anime-kawaii-fecha-lugar/, https://www.debate.com.mx/show/Quien-es-Rossy-Aguirre-la-supuesta-hija-no-reconocida-de-Chabelo-el-amigo-de-todos-los-ninos-20230614-0131.html, https://www.elsiglodedurango.com.mx/noticia/2022/rossy-aguirre-esta-de-visita-en-la-laguna-con-bellota-sailor-mercury-y-todos-sus-personajes.html, https://www.elsiglodetorreon.com.mx/noticia/2022/una-vida-llena-de-aprendizaje-en-el-doblaje-asi-es-rossy-aguirre-voz-de-sailor-mercury-y-bellota.html, https://www.televisa.com/canal5/anime/rossy-aguirre-voz-de-sailor-mercury-y-akane-dio-positivo-a-covid-19), so there's significant coverage addressing the subject directly and in-depth. So keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that sources exist to improve this article. Rublamb (talk) 07:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too minor an industry worker at present for anything other than IMDB. MisterWizzy (talk) 14:04, 8 December 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) 21:38, 9 December 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 00:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moustapha Kassem

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

There does not appear to be significant coverage of Kassem. The only sources I have been able to find (aside from CVs and profiles which are not independent of the subject) are a page listing patents he is involved in and a quote from him for a research grant. Uffda608 (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Egypt, Denmark, Medicine, and Academics and educators. Uffda608 (talk) 12:43, 18 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!} 08:47, 25 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!} 08:06, 2 December 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 00:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Video Games Europe

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

Fails the general and organization-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Europe, and Belgium. UtherSRG (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The nomination certainly seems accurate to the article's current state - it appears to be entirely sourced to their own (1st party) website. It was a bit difficult to do source hunting though, as there are so many false positives with a generic name such as this. I did find this GamesIndustry.biz article that did a story on the subjects statistics. While not enough to keep the article, it's the only thing keeping me searching. If nothing else is found, I'm leaning delete. Sergecross73 msg me 16:00, 23 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!} 08:47, 25 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!} 08:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I made some searches using the WikiProject Video games reliable sources search engine, the Wikipedia reference search engine, and even the WikiProject Video games situational sources search engine, and it gives me nothing on the subject that could be used to make a significant article. Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 14:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I haven't been able to find any additional sourcing. No prejudice towards recreation of someone can prove it meets the GNG, but conversely, there's very little to be lost from the current article either, which has little content in it, and even less encyclopedic content. Sergecross73 msg me 15:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LabX

AfDs for this article:

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

Obscure, no sources other than own website, fails WP:GNG DirtyHarry991 (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and United States of America. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:44, 18 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!} 08:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't really find anything when I was trying to clean this up from the NPP dashboard. Material could be merged to National Academy of Sciences if ATD is suggested. – The Grid (talk) 16:13, 27 November 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I read the one-paragraph article multiple times, and still have no idea what "LabX" is. Is it a museum? An education program? Either way, absence of independent coverage suggests lack of notability, and the name "LabX" is used by too many companies to make sourcing easy. Owen× ☎ 14:26, 2 December 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 Rossa (singer). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hati Yang Terpilih

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

Fails GNG and NALBUM. Sources in article are promo about the artist and do not meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject (the compilation album & soundtrack album) directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV. There is no sourced content that would improve a target, but no objection to a consensus REDIRECT. // Timothy :: talk 10:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:58, 18 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!} 08:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rossa (singer). Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 02:48, 28 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 Amy's Choice (Doctor Who). (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) Sohom (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amy's Choice

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

The 2002 miniseries is nowhere near notable (hence it is a redlink). If you are looking for the doctor who episode, then you will waste your time on the disambiguation. If you are looking for the miniseries, it doesn't exist anyway so there is no point coming to this page. Even if the miniseries had an article, I would suggest it being a {{for}} on the DW page anyway. I don't know much about disambiguation so please tell me if my logic is outright wrong. Kind regards, JacobTheRox (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, since the deletion of the miniseries article over 4 years ago happened, no other articles link to it, so I think WP:DABRED may apply. The article on the episode seems by and far a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, with 2700 views in the last month and 45 watchers. For me, this may have been better going to a WP:RM first, perhaps looking at moving the DAB to Amy's Choice (disambiguation) and then moving the episode to the primary title. Nevertheless, i'd probably be inclined to !vote weak delete on a DAB page which isn't serving a useful purpose and has a redlinked article not linked elsewhere. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Owen× ☎ 15:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, can not redirect to Amy's Choice (disambiguation) as this page is a Redirect to this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need to overthink this? Amy's Choice (Doctor Who) and Amy's Choice (Dr. Who) and Amy's Choice all got created in 2010 about a Doctor Who episode. After some history merger and splitting this one became the equal-weight disambiguation between the remaining Doctor Who article and an Amy's Choice (miniseries) that one of the Doctor Who article creators thought had equal weight to the Doctor Who episode and also created. That latter of the 2 ambiguous articles was deleted 9 years later. We don't need the disambiguation page any more. We lose one Doctor Who edit in this edit history by deleting it, and that only really resulted from the history split in the first place and is largely empty. This is housekeeping, at best. Uncle G (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Doctor Who episode, I also think that It would be a good idea it to move the Doctor WHo episode to that page. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Doctor Who episode, I don't think a disambiguation page is needed. Was the miniseries' information included in any other pages? If so, a short note at the top could clarify things. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:55, 30 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phaitoon Phonbun

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

Fails WP:GNG. My WP:BEFORE search found only routine coverage of results and ranking positions. There may be good sources in other languages that I've failed to uncover. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cue sports, and Thailand. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined toward keeping this, since a national champion is usually notable, and this person is an international regional champion (Asian Games). Maybe someone from WikiProject Thailand would have more luck finding sources using the subject's native-script name. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A notice of this discussion has been delivered to WT:WikiProject Thailand. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:47, 4 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!} 09:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Searching with his snooker nickname, ตัวเล็ก สำโรง (Tualek Samrong), turns up a lot of results, mostly match reports and videos. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Cue Thong, Thailand's leading (and only) snooker magazine, has a profile page of him[26], as well as news coverage in several articles[27][28]. There might be offline coverage from earlier in his career that is more in-depth, but that will require digging through some library archives. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:40, 18 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll throw in a weak keep if it'll make closing any easier. The above articles provide a fair amount of coverage, and hint that more in-depth coverage probably exists. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:51, 28 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) 19:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Australia–Peru relations

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted via AfD back in 2010 and recently recreated. (I'm not an admin and can't see the original version, but I don't think the current version is close enough to qualify for WP:CSD G4.) Anyway, the arguments in the original AfD still apply. Cited sources are all either government websites and/or fall well short of constituting direct, in depth coverage of these countries' relations. Yilloslime (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the same as the 2010 version. This is purportedly a translation of an article started on the Spanish Wikipedia in 2014. It covers the same ground, but it's not a strict translation. Uncle G (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are enough sources and diplomatic relations pages are a standard on the Wiki. Styx (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that relations exist is not enough to justify existence of a stand alone article. And there are not enough sources. Yilloslime (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Australia, and Peru. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 4 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!} 07:53, 11 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!} 06:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There are some relations like a free trade agreement. However, article is based mainly on primary sources hence my weak delete !vote. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep there are things which we can find about that in Google, article needs to be improved. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:05, 25 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: OECD and other non Peru/Australian governmental coverage should be considered reliable and independent sigcov regarding the relatively recent Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and bilateral PAFTA (Peru-Australia Free Trade Agreement). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:50, 2 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lingam Suryanarayana

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 07:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and Andhra Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is not big, but enough to keep --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:35, 12 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!} 06:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- The discussion about notability appears to be used to delete some selected articles. What notability you require more than his position as Vice chancellor of an Indian Health university, Principal of a century old Andhra Medical College, WHO expert on some Health issues related to developing countries and good number of research publications. Would you like to consider only "Big" award winning persons only to have biographies in English Wikipedia.--Rajasekhar1961 10:45, 24 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!} 08:02, 25 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!} 08:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese overseas military actions

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

Overly broad. This would theoretically include every Japanese operation in World Wars I and II, in addition to countless previous actions. SilverStar54 (talk) 05:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~~This includes numerous unrelated states.~~ Clarityfiend (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or draftify. The subject is notable, the list is not unmanageably large, and mostly it just wants proper sourcing. Mccapra (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE. What is the point of this 2005 un-sourced list? There is no indication of who created this, or why. Ultimately, just about every existing nation on earth has been involved in military actions beyond their borders. But, so what? — Maile (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched for List of overseas military actions and seen no other nation has this. There is a Timeline of United States military operations and Category:Military timelines shows other nations that have these. But those are for nations, not locations that previously had a completely unrelated government. Dream Focus 05:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mere POVFORK of wars list. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a perfectly manageable list. I have no idea what "unrelated states" Clarityfiend is referring to. Lack of sources in an article from 2005 and especially in a list is no grounds for deletion. What POV does Abhishek0831996 have in mind? Srnec (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should there really be a list of "Overseas military actions by [given country]" in addition to a Category:Lists of wars by country? All of the former lists would just be an arbitrary subset of the latter. One can imagine an endless number of ways to subdivide lists of wars involving a country, but I don't think they all need separate pages. SilverStar54 (talk) 00:55, 15 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!} 06:47, 18 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!} 08:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a case of WP:TNT - There might be a list to be created within this area, but the current contents (effectively unsourced and containing vague statements like By some interpretations...) and the mismatch between it's title ("military actions" encompasses almost anything) and it's inclusion criteria (historical wars or other military conflicts outside the geographic boundaries of Japan in which Japanese soldiers participated) make this a difficult knot to untangle incrementally: removing unsourced contents would be equivalent to just removing the article, and a discussion on what the scope/inclusion criteria/title should be is exactly the kind of discussion that I've found rarely works out in practice. Easier for everyone involved to just start over. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is just junk. We have [[29]] which is also questionable, and we have Military_history_of_Japan. DCsansei (talk) 22:07, 28 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 Beatnik Beatch. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George Cole (musician)

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

Non notable--individual members of bands should redirect to the band page Blockhead14 (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The nominator should suggest which band to redirect to, as this musician has been in several. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I count two: Beatnik Beatch and David Grisman Quintet. However, he does not appear on the list of 20 members of the latter on their page or in the credits for any of their albums. So, since he is listed as a founding member of Beatnik Beatch, I propose that this page redirects to that band's page. Blockhead14 (talk) 01:48, 5 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!} 22:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Beatnik Beatch. That's the band for which he seems to have gotten the most coverage as a musician in his own right. He is described in some publications associated with Green Day as their longtime instructor, but those are fan-based. Otherwise I can only find him listed in the credits for various albums by other people in which he was a session hand, and his solo albums received little notice. I suspect that this article started out as an attempted autobiography. It looks like he has made a living as a trusty associate for many notable people, but he just hasn't gotten enough reliable coverage in which he is the focus. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:31, 18 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!} 08:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Beatnik Beatch. Not notable enough for own article as poor (primary) sourcing therein indicates. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 08:02, 25 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article or, at least, a No consensus here. Basically, there is no support for Deletion other than the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minrui Road station

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

I WP:BOLDLY redirected the above articles a few days ago on concerns of notability, however @User:Garuda3 reverted them, with the edit summary quote: "beneficial to have all stations of the system. Multiple references". However, most of the sources talk about the line which they serve, Pujiang line. On a WP:BEFORE search on both Google and Baidu in both English and Chinese, I could not find any significant coverage on the stations themselves, but only minor mentions on articles on the Pujiang line. These stations thus fail WP:NSTATION and WP:GNG, and in my opinion should be redirected to Pujiang line#Stations.

I am also nominating the following pages as well:

S5A-0043^Talk 07:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:S5A-0043, this nomination is not in the correct format for a bundled nomination so it will make a closure, whatever that is, very difficult. You can't just list a group of articles, there is code you must use. Please review WP:AFD and reformat your nomination so that it is done correctly according to the guidelines descripted there. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1979 Sligo Intermediate Football Championship as an example of a correctly formatted bundled nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I’ll get to it later. S5A-0043^Talk 07:46, 6 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) 14:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 04:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appear to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all five per sources in the articles, WP:GNG, WP:NEXIST and Necrothesp. gidonb (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’d like to point out once again that most of the sources talk about the line which they serve, Pujiang line, and not of the stations themselves. I checked through and the sources generally contain WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the stations themselves, and no evidence of WP:SIGCOV (part of the criteria of WP:GNG), and also that notability is not WP:INHERENT. I’ll offer a source check in a few hours. S5A-0043^Talk 20:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source check based on WP:GNG:

In the article:

[30] : Can’t open so can’t comment.

[31]: Significant?

(passing mention of Huizhen Road and not even a single mention of everything else) Reliable?

Secondary?

(Primary, Shanghai Keolis is the operator of the line) Independent?

(Same as secondary)

[32]: Not actually archived for some reason so no comment

[33] Significant?

(Passing mentions for all stations). Independent?

Reliable?

(State media but since this isn’t political coverage I think it should still be OK). Secondary?

.

I grabbed a few extra random sources from Google and Baidu since someone mentioned WP:NEXIST:

[34]: Significant?

(A bunch of images of the stations but not much prose). Independent?

(Sounds promotional but not 100% sure) Reliable?

Secondary?

[35] Significant?

(Passing mentions for all). Independent?

Reliable?

(Via Baidu Baijiahao, a WP:UGC platform, but authored by state media. Like above no.4 since this isn’t political coverage I think it should still be OK). Secondary?

.

[36] Significant?

(Passing mention of transfer info for each station. BTW this should also be routine coverage.) Independent?

(Authored by Shanghai Metro, system operating organization). Reliable?

Secondary?

.

Apologies for the mess, I tried using the source assessment table but mobile editing is a headache. But anyway, I honestly doubt these stations meet WP:GNG based on the above.S5A-0043^Talk 20:54, 24 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple reliable secondary sources. And also per WP:BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. 213.239.67.134 (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASIC also says trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. and that a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not (non-trivial coverage). Could you kindly explain why WP:BASIC is satisfied in this case? S5A-0043^Talk 21:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those of us who care about equity tend to be a touch more lenient when it comes to Africa, much of Asia, most of the Caribbean, and other regions with serious deficiencies in quality sources. Out of equity considerations and not replacing the need for quality sources. Just relaxing it slightly. If we wouldn't, such regions would suffer even a larger coverage gap at Wikipedia. In general, there is no need for the nominator to respond to almost every diverging opinion in AfDs. In fact, there is a strong recommendation against that. Please assume that ALL opinionators have read the AfD-rationale and are taking it into full consideration! gidonb (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I find TimothyBlue's contribution the most compelling in a debate which didn't have a lot of participation. Daniel (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dumfries High School

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

This article fails WP:GNG. There are a couple of stories about the redevelopment of its buildings, insufficient IMO per WP:ORGDEPTH which calls for greater than trivial coverage. There is no substantial, indepth coverage of the school. Guidelines at WP:NSCHOOL and the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES essay are noted. Tagishsimon (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 21 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!} 07:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This probably ended up here because of a bust-up over photos at the Teahouse. Someone inserted a photo of the teacher who some years ago faked the teacher-assessments of a large number of their pupils. In my view quite rightly, a teahouse visitor removed the photo as giving undue weight to a one-off BLP issue. They then questioned whether the headmaster's photo was okay, and I questioned heavily whether our treatment of the teacher who faked the results is fair. I have no particular desire to delete the article itself, but the "Events" part dealing with the faked results should go. This was not a particularly notable, or even unusual event, and there has been no coverage whatsoever since the time of her disciplinary hearing. Our text on the subject is possibly inaccurate (the number of faked results is disputed) and certainly misleading and less than neutral. Elemimele (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a stub. I removed the mention of the teacher. Named or not, that borders on BLP issues. One teacher does not make or break a school. — Maile (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:16, 2 December 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) 21:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NORG, no WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from WP:IS RS. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Brief routine mill news about a construction project, interview with teacher, fails WP:IS WP:SIGCOV does not address the subject directly and indepth	1. Kobzar, Elina (1 November 2022). "New school proposals to go on display". Daily Record. Retrieved 5 January 2023.
Gov site, fails WP:IS, database page, fails WP:SIGCOV	2. ^ "Dumfries High School - Dumfries and Galloway Council". www.dumgal.gov.uk. Retrieved 5 January 2023.
Brief routine mill news about a construction project, fails WP:IS WP:SIGCOV does not address the subject directly and indepth	3. ^ Temlett, Stephen (29 December 2022). "New high school construction plans to change". Daily Record. Retrieved 27 August 2023.
Brief routine mill news about a construction project, fails WP:IS WP:SIGCOV does not address the subject directly and indepth	4. ^ "Dumfries High School building at the 'end of life'". BBC News. 28 October 2020. Retrieved 27 August 2023.
About an individual, no WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	5. ^ "QosFC: Legends - Billy Houliston". qosfc.com. Retrieved 5 January 2023.
About an individual, no WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	6. ^ "From bedroom to Billboard". The Herald. Glasgow. 29 July 2015.

Keep votes provide no sources. BEFORE showed nothing but routine mill news and database records. // Timothy :: talk 05:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find TimothyBlue's assessment of the sources convincing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:56, 15 December 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 Atragon. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manda (kaiju)

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

Minor fictional monester (kaiju) from the Godzillaverse. Pure plot summary + list of media it appears in. No reception, no analysis. Poor referencing (including fanpages, even fan wiki - wikizilla). Article on ja wiki is no better. Per ATD, the best non-hard-deletion outcome I can think of would be redirecting this to the movie it debuted in (Atragon). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Japan. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. It appears in so many different media, it would be nice if List of kaiju were actually that, or failing such a list, retaining it along a similar rationale as BAND#6. That is, while not individually notable, it's been a part of too many notable ensembles (movies, etc.) for a merge to just one to be appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Atragon, the first movie to feature the creature and where it actually had a prominent role. The other movies and pieces of media listed in its "filmography" were largely just very quick cameos (with the appearances in All Monsters Attack and Terror of Mechagodzilla being nothing but reused stock footage, if I recall). Even its biggest appearance in a film since its debut (Godzilla: Final Wars) is only a couple of minutes long. Atragon is the only piece of media where it actually had a central role to the plot, thus would be the proper place to redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meh per Jclemens. There ought to be a better way to handle this but in the absence of better sources I can't object to a redirect to Atragon. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:47, 25 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!} 07:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because while the Japanese article isn't great, it does list Japanese-language sources that prove notability. I did a search and it's a bit difficult to filter through other uses in Japanese but I think there's more there as well. DCsansei (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DCsansei Which sources prove notability and how? I translated that article too and I did not notice them. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The character has appeared in quite a number of notable media and has substantial coverage in various reliably sourced coverage of those in Japanese. I think it easily passes the threshold for notability.

Again, I'd like to remind editors that WP:NOENG is, even if often ignored in these discussions, something to keep in mind. DCsansei (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Piotrus asked, you are really going to have to point out which sources you are talking about in specific for this to be more than a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument. Because looking at the Japanese wiki article, the actual content is nothing but plot summaries and technical information on the production of the special effects with no kind of analysis or reception of the monster itself. And a lot of those sources being used look to be officially licensed Toho material, including a couple pieces of fiction. And saying "the character has appeared in quite a number of notable media" is never going to be enough to establish notability, particular since, as I already talked about above, nearly all of those appearances were brief cameos, sometimes just re-using existing footage. 03:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Larín

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

Article about a non-notable Youtuber. No WP:SIGCOV on the subject and I doubt if he meets WP:CREATIVE. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and El Salvador. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find a single suitable source for the article. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 00:09, 26 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. When factoring in NmWTfs85lXusaybq's intent to withdraw and parsing the IP's !vote as neutral, there is consensus to keep this disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 16:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Insta (disambiguation)

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

This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title while the other entries here aren't valid. The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 07:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 07:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the PROD'der, I support the deletion per the nom's stated reasons. UtherSRG (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG, are you fine with the dab page after the update by Ca? I'm withdrawing this nomination once you change your vote. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to the last revision, and I'm the creator of this page. Also, add insta- from Wiktionary, where insta means "instant", as seen in "instakill". 176.33.244.42 (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, dictionary definition doesn't count as a topic in the disambiguation page per WP:DABDICT. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added some valid entries. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ca: Do you think any of them would ever be notable for their own article? If not, then we only have one notable term, and so no need for a disambiguation. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the Wikipedia:Disambiguation guideline, and there is no such requirement afaik. This DAB page helps people locate info about terms. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not explicit, but it is implied in that the way disambiguations come about is when a topic has too many hatnotes that a dab page should instead be created. You only get hatnotes when you have articles, and you only get articles when you have notability. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm a bit confused with G14: Does an entry of MOS:DABRED count as one extant Wikipedia page in the criteria? If not, Insta (disambiguation) could be speedily deleted. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! That's even better. I've now CSD'd it. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG No, the question is "Would a redirect from this term, "Insta", to that article be compliant with WP:Redirect, especially WP:R#KEEP?" If the answer is "yes", and there happens to be more than one article for which the answer is "yes", then a dab page is needed (or hatnotes). PamD 09:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion re-opened and relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 27.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Rather obscure uses of the term outside Instagram, but I don't see a reason to delete it. Oaktree b (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - When there is only one meaning to a term and no article, but an obscure reference to an article with a different name, we sometimes create a redirect. The disambiguation page serves the function of those redirects, for unlikely but possible search terms. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a rather straightforward example of a disambiguation page properly disambiguating a term. BD2412 T 00:40, 11 December 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!} 08:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hacktivist Vanguard

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

Non-notable per WP:ORG and WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search turned up the same self-promotion of the three sources currently cited, mostly reposts of a "Force for Cybersecurity" manifesto, which in the initial creation had a dozen copies cited on various blogs masquerading as newspapers. It's a recently created group, and may have only one member, as "Hacktivist Vanguard" is credited only as the cinematographer of several films on its IMDb entry. The article is a near copy of Draft:Hacktivist Vanguard, created by two other SPAs. An IP editor tried to credit the group as "hacker group" in the cast sections of the two film articles linked in the See also section, but I can find no evidence of any film roles for this "group" online. It all reads like a recruitment page for a new hacktivist group. Wikishovel (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Computing, Internet, and India. Wikishovel (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - current sources are blog/PR. Was not able to find anything reliable; everything just seems to be user-created promotional materia. Sam Kuru (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G11. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no WP:RS coverage.Sohom (talk) 09:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11 and no RSes or notability Softlem (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all 3 of the sources on the page came up empty-handed on a reliable sources search. Chumpih ^t 19:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MP1999 ❯❯❯ Talk 08:07, 27 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 Oracle Corporation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oracle Academy

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

GNG fail, not clear what other criteria apply (NORG?). All sources are primary. Fermiboson (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Technology. Fermiboson (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oracle Corporation. DJ InstaMalik (talk) 00:46, 26 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) NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Henderson (disambiguation)

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

This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title. The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Leaning oppose for now (I removed the PROD), but this may be a technicality that can be resolved. The problem is, that WP:ONEOTHER says: "If there is a primary topic located at the base name,..." and bases everything that follows on that condition. However, that condition is not satisfied, since the primary topic is currently not located at the base name, and so I presume that ONEOTHER does not apply here for the time being. The primary topic is clearly the convict (who has the PARENDIS, at Russell Henderson (convict)) and who gets all the search results up to #12, where the musician, Russell Henderson, first appears. However, we don't have an article at Russell Henderson (convict), just the redirect for the convict. So, I'm not sure what happens when PRIMARYTOPIC is a redirect, and whether that affects this. I judged that it probably does, because the convict appears to easily meet criterion 1 (usage), and although it wasn't clear some years ago, now it does seem clear with continuing coverage of the Shepherd case that it meets criterion 2 as well. So, I think what needs to happen here, is swap (convict) into undisambiguated position, add '(musician)' to the other one, and then revisit this to see where we are then. I think at that point, the initial ONEOTHER criterion would then be satisfied, and removal of the disambig page would be indicated. Mathglot (talk) 08:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you have misunderstood WP:2DABS. "If there is a primary topic located at the base name, ..." doesn't actually exclude the case of WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT at all. It's only a depiction about the case when there's a primary topic associated with the base name, comparing to the case of WP:NOPRIMARY in the section above WP:ONEOTHER. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not assuming it's excluding PRIMARYTOPIC, I'm assuming it means what it says, namely, the PRIMARYTOPIC is at the basename, or translating that, that the PRIMARYTOPIC is at the pagename 'Russell Henderson'. What I am saying is, the PRIMARYTOPIC is not currently at the basename, therefore per the if-condition given, ONEOTHER does not currently apply to this case. (But it would apply, if the titles were swapped.) Mathglot (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot, how is Russell Henderson (convict) a primary topic? It's only your opinion and had been contested by PC78 in the RM discussion which was closed without any consensus. Since you never start another one after that, the current topic at the base name remains primary. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but WP:CCC, and it isn't my opinion, well it is, but it is the PRIMARYTOPIC based on data, which you can reproduce yourself, by executing a search for 'Russell Henderson' and tallying up some of the top results. The musician first appears at #12. Look, I don't really care that much about this, and if the D-page gets deleted, then so be it. But I'd rather it be demonstrable by current guidelines and the best data we have available, and I don't see it. Mathglot (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can see Matthew Shepard is a clear primary topic with respect to usage from clickstream dataset and there's no problem to make it a primary redirect. I'm afraid that you have to start a separate RM for the potentially controversial move, since you have proposed one with no consensus. However, the disambiguation page should be deleted anyway and it might not be a proper way to exploit AfD for this move without any change to the outcome. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regardless of one's opinions on which is the primary topic, a hatnote on that topic pointing to the other will suffice. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. A disambiguation page is not required. If the musician is not the primary topic then that page should be moved to a disambiguated title. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Withdrawn in light of comments below. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are now 5 valid entries. Part of WP:BEFORE for dab nominations need to be looking for entries not on there, but which do have an article, or meet MOS:DABRL or MOS:DABMENTION. Pinging Pppery, Shhhnotsoloud, Mathglot and NmWTfs85lXusaybq as the page has changed since it was nominated and commented on. Boleyn (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch; that's persuasive. I don't know if the steel band musician is PRIMARY or not, but that has no impact on how this discussion should turn out, which now ought to be keeping the D-page. (Also, pinging @Pppery: on your behalf.) (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If they're fine with the dab after update, I'm withdrawing the nomination after their votes get stricken. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still unconvinced that adding a PTM and a bunch of passing mentions is useful, but sure, go ahead and close as withdrawn. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will wait for response from @Shhhnotsoloud. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:53, 29 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!} 08:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ceili (disambiguation)

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

This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title while the other entries here aren't valid. The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A disambiguation page is not required: any potential ambiguity is dealt with by the hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:14, 30 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 700 (number)#790s. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

790 (number)

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

Currently, there is only one source in the article that mentions one mathematical property of 790. The other properties are all calculated, so the article does not comply with Wikipedia:Notability (numbers). Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) mentioned that numbers must have three mathematical properties and at least these mathematical properties can be directly mentioned in the source of the article, so it is recommended that the article be redirected to 700 (number). 日期20220626 (talk) 06:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 700_(number)#790s. Owen× ☎ 16:06, 25 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Luthor

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

Non-notable comic character, most coverage is about the Arrowverse version of the character Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there appears to be significant coverage of this character, including related to her role in Supergirl (TV series), e.g. [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], and on GScholar, but also as a comic book character, e.g. DC Comics Ultimate Character Guide New Edition (p. 121), The DC Comics Encyclopedia New Edition (p. 192), DC Comics Encyclopedia (pp. 26, 35, 311, 366, 794, 795, 832), Superman (pp. 97, 112, 752, 885, 943, 1166, 1197, 1284), Disability and the Superhero: Essays on Ableism and Representation in Comic Media (p. 78 - comparing her portrayal in the CW/Arrowverse to her comic book depiction), etc. Beccaynr (talk) 08:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The character guides were all written by DC or in partnership with them so not independent. Sources 2-6, 8 are episode recaps. The superman one is pure plot summary Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is casting news, which talks about the fact that TVLINE has casting news. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are also two books cited in the article at the time the nomination; American Comic Book Chronicles: The 1960s, 1960-64 and The Essential Superman Encyclopedia. The scholarly literature on the character at GScholar is independent, e.g. [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], as is the analysis cited above comparing her representation in comics and television. And while I quickly pulled sources from extensive GNews results, sources such as Supergirl: Lena Luthor Is Only the Latest Example of the Arrowverse’s Biggest Problem (CBR, 2021) (#7) and Arrowverse: Why Kara And Lena Aren't Real Friends (Screen Rant, 2020) (#8) seem to offer secondary evaluations of the character. Also, based on coverage of this character in various comics, as well as the television series, there does not seem to be a single redirect target, so per WP:PAGEDECIDE, this context also seems to support keeping and further developing this article. Beccaynr (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like majority of this coverage is on the arrowverse version. From the looks of it that version is more notable, could we potentially split the page into two seprate ones? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WHENSPLIT does not appear to support this, according to size, the notability guideline (e.g. the available coverage for various comics and the TV series and WP:PAGEDECIDE, "where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page"), and neutrality (e.g. disability/ableism coverage discussing the comics character in a wheelchair and the television character). Beccaynr (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first two books seem like plot summaries for fans, at the level of our current article. The scholarly literature shows some potential but it is paywalled/snippetted. I would be willing to consider a keep vote but it is the reponsibility of those arguing for keep to show there are sources and not just that WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES. Please use Wikimedia Library/LibGen and like to access the scholarly sources and either quote passages here that demonstrate non-trivial analysis that meets SIGCOV or improve the article and ping me. Until then I vote to redirect this while preserving history, since what we have is pure unencyclopedic WP:FANCRUFT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've notified Wikiproject Women in Red about the AfD and how this article may benefit from further research and development.
From my view, this character verifiably has appeared in multiple television shows and comics (and this article is linked by roughly 230 or so articles), so a redirect may not help improve or maintain Wikipedia. I think questions related to how to organize and improve an article for a character this integrated into the encyclopedia could benefit from a talk page discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per the various break downs of sourcs (by myself and User:Piotrus above I think mabye there is enough to merge it into List of Supergirl characters. Personally I dont think the comic book character is notable while the Arrowverse character has potential.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the claim of @Beccaynr: or merge with List of DC Comics characters: L in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. Too trivial for Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

That's...not a deletion argument. You don't get to decide what's trivial. Reliable source coverage is what determines notability. Otherwise you're arguing all fictional characters are trivial? Silver seren^C 03:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITEXISTS is not a valid argument. Some fictional characters are trivial, some aren't. I note that the vastly more important fictional character the Baron de Charlus does not get a page although he has an article in Britannica. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

But isnt that arguement WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appears to be quite a bit of significant coverage of Lena Luthor from an academic and published book perspective, particularly in relation to feminism and the LGBT community. Here's just one example of that, among many. And that attention has appeared to only expand due to the recent television shows due to the writers essentially using queerbaiting to generate interest. Silver seren^C 03:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per the sources given above and due to her notability not just in the comic book series but also regarding LGBTQ+ and feminism. Whilst some reception would be great for the article, deletion is not appropriate. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to Strong keep per Siroxo's sources and analysis. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The academic sources found by Beccaynr are sufficient to demonstrate that the subject meets WP:GNG. —siroχo 04:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to try to save editors some time in this discussion, here's some from two of Beccaynrs sources. Not an exhaustive representation of those sources.

Hicks in Supersex, 2020 (available via TWL) has multiple pages of SIGCOV including for example.
... season 2 saw Supergirl undergo several dramatic changes, including the introduction of Lena Luthor, the adopted sister of ... Lex Luthor. In her original Action Comics appearances, Lena is Supergirl’s best friend, and unaware that she is related to Lex Luthor. Because of Lena’s ESP powers, how-ever, Supergirl is constantly worried she will unwittingly “confess” her true identity to Lena. In addition, because she knows who Lena’s brother is, Supergirl continually doubts the veracity of Lena’s friendship. The television series imports these tensions while slightly rearranging their specifics. Because Lena is a Luthor, she is mistrusted by most people in National City. The key exception is Supergirl, who, for the most part, trusts Lena has good intentions, even as she continues to keep the identity of her alter ego a secret from her. Lena herself notes that her friend-ship with Supergirl exists “against all odds”: “Who would’ve believed it? A Luthor and a Super, working together.”36 The emotional drama of the friendship that develops between both Lena and Kara as well as Lena and Supergirl is bolstered by these tensions and by the onscreen chemistry between Benoist/Supergirl and McGrath/Lena. This in turn fuels fans’ championing of a romantic interpretation of the two’s relationship.
...
In some ways, the Supercorp fandom is organized around the figure of Lena Luthor rather than Supergirl; Lena typically works as a self-insert character, and stories are frequently told from her perspective and/or con-structed to prioritize her point of view. Tumblr user katiemccgrath argues that “the Supercorp fandom is just a bunch of bottoms self-projecting onto lena luthor and that’s Valid.”53 One effect of this conventional pat-tern is that, instead of reifying a patriarchal framework that would seek to contain Supergirl’s supersexuality, the Supercorp fandom celebrates Supergirl’s abilities and her sexual dominance of Lena. Although some fans do openly identify with Supergirl and make Lena/McGrath the object of their sexual desires, they appear to be in the minority. In some fan conversations, lusting after Lena is even (jokingly) disapproved of; some Supercorp shippers react as if it places the fan in competition with the all-powerful Supergirl, who has already “claimed” Lena.

Church, in Girl of Steel, 2020, has a 19 page essay dedicated in large part to the subject. Here are two snippets:
Lena, conversely, constructs her "normal" public persona as a stereotypical CEO based on her own experiences: she is guarded with those around her and apprehensive towards trusting them. Both are responding to societal assumptions of how females and millennials would behave in contemporary society, and use these assumptions to create a false self for the public that are interpretations necessary for assimilation.
...
For Lena, her public/ private masks work much differently. Rather than suppress her power draw from anger, Lena has to constantly suppress her vulnerability and insecurities from the public. As a CEO of a billion-dollar company, she cannot afford to be seen as weak or emotional. She also cannot express anger because National City's citizens are wary of her family's psychotic history. On an individual level, the series suggests that like these characters, we all have parts of ourselves that we repress to either protect others or ourselves. On a more symbolic level, it also highlights society's fear of strong, powerful women as demonstrated by National City's reaction to these characters as well as the characters' need to repress their true selves.
—siroχo 07:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The second source is good but the first one seems to be more of a plot summary with some comments about Lena-Supergirl relationship, but next to nothing about Lena herself (that is not plot summary). That said, we are getting close to having enough content to warrant keeping this. Anything else? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I quoted here from the first source is sufficient to demonstrate SIGCOV, but I did include a link above that grants access via TWL, if you want to read the source in full. Fair warning, the source itself is uncensored. —siro χ o 11:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this is the partial quote available at p. 78 from Disability and the Superhero: Essays on Ableism and Representation in Comic Media (2023), critiquing her portrayal in Supergirl as a "missed opportunity to portray bodily diversity" and stating "There are various iterations of Luthor in other media, one of the most prominent versions being a wheelchair user..."

this is a link to 29 results with partial quotes for "Lena Luthor" in the Girl of Steel: Essays on Television's Supergirl and Fourth-Wave Feminism (2020) book

the Journal of Lesbian Studies article abstract includes, "The Supercorp fandom refers to the platonic friendship between Kara Danvers, aka Supergirl, and her friend Lena Luthor. [...] Supergirl’s screenwriters were notorious for placing Kara and Lena in heteronormative relationship scenarios, effectively queerbaiting (or covert courting) the audience by suggesting a romantic relationship never explored on-screen"; The New York Times briefly covers SuperCorp in 2017, and CBR has more coverage in 2020.

Beccaynr (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, while I have not found access to American Comic Book Chronicles: The 1960s, 1960-64, based on its description, this does not appear to be a plot summary - it is used in the article to cite Lena Luthor's first appearance in a comic; the book's description is focused on the history of comics, including "significant publications, notable creators, and impactful trends".
At the Wikipedia Library, there is a review of Cosmic Adventures of the 8th Grade from the School Library Journal, Brickey, Morgan, Jul2016, Vol. 62, Issue 7, Literary Reference Center Plus (..."Thankfully, as Linda, she makes a friend in Lena Thorul, but Lena is not who she seems..."); there is another review in Teacher Librarian, "Women Who Fly.", Sanders, Joe Sutliff, Jun2010, Vol. 37, Issue 5, Master File Complete (..."Fortunately, Kara's gloomy roommate is very supportive--but who is that bald super-villain she keeps sending e-mails to?"...) Beccaynr (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Bleeding Cool (15 Oct 2014), reviews various iterations of the Lena Luthor character as part of presenting her latest appearance in a comic; this does not seem to be a plot summary, but instead secondary context that finds her past presentations noteworthy for understanding her character. And The Worst Things Lex Luthor Has Ever Done (CBR, 2016) includes "...the absolute worst example involved Luthor's own sister, Lena Luthor. Lena is a paraplegic. In "Adventure Comics" #5,..." Beccaynr (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CBR also provides an overview in 2020 noting Lena Luthor's debut is Superman Girlfriend Lois Lane #23, her character development, and her role in DC Super Hero Girls (as Lutessa Lena Luthor) and her role in Smallville as Tess. CBR also mentions this in 15 Times the Arrowverse Copied Smallville (2016), e.g. "One of "Smallville's" biggest reveals came two seasons later, explaining that Tess was actually Lex's biological sister, Lena Luthor, who their father had given up for adoption." Screen Rant makes a connection in 2021 between Smallville and the comics, i.e. "Tess discovered her birth name in the final season was Lutessa Lena Luthor, confirming she was Lex's canonical sister from the comics." Tor.com, in a 2017 review of the Supergirl episode "Luthors", mentions: "knowing next to nothing about Lena’s history in comic book canon, [Kara and Lena's] interactions are lacking in any dramatic irony for me." CBR also includes Lena Luthor in Smallville: Every Main Character's Age, with biographical information and references to various appearances in the show; the source suggests age "can help a viewer understand character dynamics and relationships". Beccaynr (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But a repeeted theme with these seems to be the television versions, and what this article is about is the comic. Mabye the page could be reworked into primarly being about the television, but I'm not seeing very much on the original comic version Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not only about various comics; the lead and sections cover comics, television, and other media. And various sources refer to a comics canon, and the relevance of her past portrayals in various comics, including when discussing individual comics, as well as her role in television, indicating a connection between portrayals that does not seem to support a split (which as noted above, also does not seem supported by WP:SPLIT). I have also found two reviews that note her role in the graphic novel Cosmic Adventures of the 8th Grade, and two reviews of her role in Robot Chicken's DC Comics Special 2.

I also think the secondary coverage for various portrayals as a group helps support the concern I expressed earlier about the 200+ articles that link to this article and my suggestion about discussing article reorganization and improvements on the article talk page. Perhaps this article would work better if it is edited into more of a list, because Lena Luthor characters across various media appear to be notable as a group or set, and it could benefit the encyclopedia to have one article written in summary style.
I am concerned about the potential impact of a merge/redirect of Lena Luthor to the Arrowverse, when she is otherwise so widely linked for other roles. According to WP:LISTN, each individual role does not need to be established as independently notable; based on the available sources, it appears we can provide an encyclopedic resource by providing an overivew and directing readers to the particular Lena Luthor portrayal they may be seeking when they visit this article. Beccaynr (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CBR (2022) also provides an overview of various portrayals of Lena Luthor in 10 Greatest Golden Age DC Legacy Villains ("Lena Luthor is a character that has been changed a lot by the shifting tides of DC continuity"); The New York Times, in A ‘Crisis’ Brings Together Many DC Comics Heroes (2019) reports on the television series "inspired by 1985’s Crisis on Infinite Earths, a 12-issue comic book series", Lena Luthor is mentioned. Beccaynr (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Screen Rant discusses a portrayal of Lena Luthor in a comic (Adventure Comics #6) in The Most Evil Thing Lex Luthor Ever Did is Still Outrageous (2022) - this appears to be commentary, not just a plot summary.
Screen Rant (2020) also reviews Robot Chicken's DC Comics Special 2, which includes a story with "an impromptu trip to the beach where Lex’s daughter Lena has absconded with Superboy" [...] "Highlights include a Grease-style singalong with Lena Luthor and Superboy and Aquaman summoning an army of seahorses to defeat Starro." An IGN review includes, "there's also a running conflict involving Luthor's daughter Lena ditching her father to hang out with her boyfriend Superboy on the beach for spring break. That culminates in one of the longest and most intricately crafted segments I can remember from the series as the Legion of Doom frolic on the beach, battle the Justice League, and then unite to confront a common enemy." Beccaynr (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with that is those seem to cover other things, that happen to include her more as passing mentions. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the WP:SIGCOV guideline, trivial mentions are discussed, including Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material; an example of a line of text is offered that is "plainly a trivial mention."

By contrast, the first Screen Rant source in the comment above (2022) has two grafs of commentary and discussion related to Lena (beginning "And as one savage moment shows, even the lives of his own family aren't safe..." and ending "...giving his own sister hope before snatching it away is the perfect example of why Lex is above all, a monster.") This appears to be both significant coverage and secondary commentary, according to the guideline. In the second Screen Rant source (2020), Lena Luthor is discussed in the context of the sketch ranked the best and described as the longest, and as part of a "highlight." This is a review that helps show her appearance in a notable work, along with the IGN review (2014) describing her role as part of a "running conflict" and also offering secondary commentary supporting the notability of the work. Beccaynr (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving the issue of what should happen to this article aside, Screen Rant is a content farm that should never be used for assessing WP:Notability or WP:Due weight. TompaDompa (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a 2021 RfC about Screen Rant with the conclusion "Screen Rant is considered to be a marginally reliable source. It might not be appropriate for controversial statements in BLPs, but it is reliable enough for other uses." Beccaynr (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a source is WP:Reliable, i.e. usable for WP:Verification, is orthogonal to its usability as an indicator of WP:Notability and WP:Due weight. TompaDompa (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we disregard the screen rant source, most of what your bringing up is plot summary Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage has been found to convince me this meets the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 10:39, 29 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!} 08:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

El Hadji Badiane Sidibé

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

Player fails WP:GNG. Created at a time in which an appearance in any WP:FPL was enough to pass notability test. This player made two appearances for Újpest in 2014, and the rest are in semi-pro divisions. No in-depth, independent coverage to be found. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Senegal. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:03, 25 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 00:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karnataka Quiz Association

AfDs for this article:

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

Sourcing not meeting "Intended audience" clause from WP:ORG. It is only covered in local newspaper (bengaluru) बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:ORG. Almost exclusively primary sources. LibStar (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Freinland (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Dragon Ball characters. There is consensus to merge, and this is the strongly-preferenced destination. Daniel (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Android 21

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

This one I've been wrestling with for awhile, because I'd *like* there to be more here, but ultimately there's no indication of any importance outside of this one game. Most of the quotes are small and minor, a lot of it focusing on her Majin Buu "turn people into treats" gimmick. Reference 6 in particular feels slightly misrepresented, while reference 7 seems to be its strongest one.

WP:BEFORE isn't helping here either, especially going through google news and excluding the usual valnet: there's no discussion or analysis. Scholar also had nothing. Trying a web crawl through sources excluded from Google News like Paste magazine also turned up nothing, and many of the articles are initial reactions to the trailers/game. Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dragon Ball characters As she has appeared in multiple Dragon Ball video games, that should meet the criteria for "Other recurring characters". Adding her with a condensed version of the current "Concept and design" section could work well. QuietCicada - Talk 14:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dragon Ball characters. The reception as usual has some value, but it is cobbled from passing mentions or niche churnalism. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep on this, based on these sources that are included in the article:
1. There is in-depth coverage of the subject's impact on a videogame and its competitive play scene here: [50], the majority of the article is dedicated to it.
2. There's in-depth coverage of the character's place in Dragon Ball canon here: [51], again the majority of the article is dedicated to the discussion. There's also a related piece from the same author [52]

—siro χ o 05:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Siroxo: main problem with the first one though is it's entirely focused on that one game and one version of the character, which they later nerfed. I'm always wary about game stuff because unless it's tied to reactions outside of the game (i.e. Symmetra, Rugal Bernstein) it's ultimately forgotten when the game EOS's eventually.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I get ya. That's why I am "leaning" rather than firm. I think if it were ~10 years on in this exact state, I'd probably agree with the merge. But, I can imagine this one getting more coverage over that timeframe, and the way I like to write/improve articles, I prefer to start with an article like this. (I realize merging preserves history, so it's not the end of the article in that case, I'm not going to die on this hill if the consensus goes that way) —siro χ o 05:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Siroxo: The first source is not really about the character, just about her implementation in one particular game, that was criticized by players as being "too strong" for a while. This is trivial coverage. The second source(s) are better. But IMHO the second (third) of those two reuses parts of the first one, so it's hard to treat them as two spearate sources. I'd say we have one borderline good source which I think should be added to the article and preserved through merge if it happens. Is there anything else? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources in the reception and the coverage showing clear notability. An ATD to deletion would be draftifying and/or merging to the List of Dragon Ball characters. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dragon Ball characters. I am rather unconvinced she passes WP:GNG based on the provided sources so far. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Red Ribbon Army (not the List of characters). Sources are needed for every entry in every Wikipedia article, so the sources in the current article are not enough argument to keep the article. The character itself is not notable enough in the outside world, with impact in popular culture and deep coverage by reliable secondary sources aside from some reviews by video game websites. We can trim the cruft and keep well-sourced information into an Android 21 section in the RRA article. --LoЯd ۞pεth 20:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Red Ribbon Army seems largely based on content farm sites to prove notability. That should also be merged into the character list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Until/Unless the Red Ribbon Army article is merged into the List, it is the most accurate destination for this potential merger. --LoЯd ۞pεth 18:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. Insufficient sources to pass WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she was just added to Dokkan and seems to be making yearly appearances in Dragon Ball media ever since debut. Jotamide (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jotamide: That's not really the argument. A lot of characters appear in various media but actual discussion is another matter. If that manifests later I'd be fine with saying spin it out but for the time being it's not there to satisfy notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have a division between those arguing Merge and those advocating Keep plus more than one Merge target suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Dragon Ball characters: For now, not notable enough for a standalone article. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of DC Comics characters: D. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Thirteen

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

Non-notable dc comic character. Fails WP:GNG, my before gave my nothing. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: D in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I would be willing to accept a merge. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the article is not kept, we likely need a disambiguation page. Thirteenth Doctor and Thirteen (House) are currently linked in hatnotes from this page. TompaDompa (talk) 19:19, 27 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!} 08:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ITKO

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

Advert for defunct company; heavily sourced to press releases Orange Mike | Talk 03:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. Orange Mike | Talk 03:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Aside from routine company inception and takeover information, the article text at outset and now is largely about iTKO's LISA testing product, which, following a series of acquisitions, is now part of Broadcom's DevTest Portfolio [53]. Searches are not finding evidence of attained notability for the former firm or for the product. AllyD (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't seem to find anything useful on the company, but the product may be notable:

MacVittie, Lori. Lisa: More Than a Pretty Face. Network Computing. 2006;17(22):36–38. (I don't have access to this but according to the abstract, it's a full-length review.)
Cithan, Rick. LISA Smiles on J2EE App Testers. InfoWorld. 2005;27(2):25–26. (This one is available via EBSCOhost.)
Pollice, Gary. LISA 2.5. Software Development. 2005;13(6):44. ISSN 1070-8588 (Couldn't find this online either, the journal's title is hardly helpful in that.)

Maybe this could be spun off into an article on that, but that would require someone who could get the sources. Failing that, my !vote is delete. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:06, 27 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 05:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aromanticism (disambiguation)

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

This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title. The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete - per my edit note for the prod, the HAT notes for the primary topic are already complex enough including the not to be confused with aromatic which is listed in the See also on the DAB page as a misspelling of Aromantic per MOS:DABMISSPELL, but is recommended to be listed in See also (or a Common misspelling section), but is thus more than one other topic for the DAB page. Raladic (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, any entry in "see also" section doesn't warrant a topic for the title, including that of MOS:DABMISSPELL. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
retracting vote, changing to delete per your and other other people's explanation, apologies for the churn. Raladic (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The hatnote can not be made more complex by replacing the disambiguation link with the one other meaning. BD2412 T 02:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly an unnecessary dab page. Only WP:ONEOTHER meaning for the exact term, hence a hatnote is preferable. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:18, 25 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 05:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ante Pavelić (disambiguation)

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

This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title while the other entries here aren't valid. The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Croatia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per WP:TWODABS. BD2412 T 02:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delte Hatnote, seems better Dawid2009 (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we're here is because Ante Smith Pavelić got removed from the list. Nothing in the English Wikipedia currently mentions that person, though there's many references to them in a Google Books search. --Joy (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suppose it's not helpful to readers of English Wikipedia unless an article is created to warrant that entry. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another way to look at this might be to examine whether there are any actual references to Smith Pavelić as just Pavelić? IOW was he actually eligible for inclusion in that list in the first place. --Joy (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~The point is the entry of Ante Smith Pavelić can't warrant a different topic with the same article Ante Pavelić (1869–1938), regardless of MOS:DABRL.~~ It won't be more complex to depict multiple topics from the same article with hatnote, even if the entry of Ante Smith Pavelić is warranted per MOS:DABRL. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understood the first sentence, can you rephrase please? --Joy (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, agreed, if and when anything is written about Smith Pavelić, we can then see if it's legitimate to add them to the hatnote. (Delete) --Joy (talk) 10:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. –Vipz (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 27 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 05:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hacqueville (disambiguation)

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

This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title while the other entries here aren't valid. The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per WP:TWODABS. BD2412 T 02:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Hacqueville" is not ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:10, 30 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 04:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Petrozavodsk (disambiguation)

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

This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title while the other entries here aren't valid. The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per WP:TWODABS. Everything else is just a WP:PTM referencing the city anyway. BD2412 T 02:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A disambiguation page is not required; "Petrozavodsk" is not ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:30, 26 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. The article for the third entry has been created. (non-admin closure) NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olesha (disambiguation)

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

This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title while the other entries here aren't valid. The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep the nom cannot count: there are three valid topics. - Altenmann >talk 01:13, 25 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.