Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 11	December 13 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beta-Lactamase Database (BLDB)[edit]

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

Sole source is primary. Tagged non-notable for years without improvement * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find several mentions in primary sources (mostly comparing it to other beta-lactamase databases, of which there are several), but no significant secondary coverage. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The database is cited hundreds of times in the literature, appearing in several recent review articles as well. While those probably don't qualify as significant coverage, I would argue it is notable though niche. The Beta-lactamase article even uses it as a reliable source. Not sure what the outcome should be, but deletion doesn't seem appropriate. ― Synpath 19:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but include the information in the article on β-lactamase. I don't see any point in having a separate article. Athel cb (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the decision is to not keep it as a separate article but to include it at Beta-lactamase, it should be retained as a redirect given that it is listed at List of biological databases. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is actually a good and helpful database. What needs to be deleted is another page, i.e. Beta-Lactamase Database (BLAD) (it is no longer operational). My very best wishes (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This deletion is long overdue, given how long it has been tagged without getting improved. Redirect seems unnecessary because people are not likely to use this as the search term instead of simply Beta-Lactamase. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - good, helpful, and even useful, but there are few secondary sources. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean RS which cite this database (indeed, they are secondary in this regard), there are hundreds. Looking in Web of Science database, the paper about this resource, i.e. "Beta-lactamase database (BLDB) - structure and function" by Naas et al. is a highly cited paper, and it is cited in 306 other publications. This is the reason I think it is notable enough and voted to keep. I never used it though because my interests are different. My very best wishes (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This database is cited in 69 scientific review papers. One could make a really big and nice page about BLDB on wiki using these reviews. It is just that the authors apparently do not care. The actual candidate for deletion is another page (see above).My very best wishes (talk) 21:56, 19 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Chol[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It fails WP:NBLP at the very least. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete toobigtokale (talk) 17:54, 18 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Conakry[edit]

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

Only 1 sentence in this article is actually about the embassy. The rest is a content fork about bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Identical problems to Lusaka article that is also on AfD right now. All sources discussing the embassy itself are WP:PRIMARY, including those I was able to find that are not int eh article. This seems to be part of a string of embassy articles with the same problems. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — not about the purported subject. — Biruitorul ^Talk 20:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 14:22, 19 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Lusaka[edit]

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

Only 1 sentence in this article is actually about the embassy. The rest is a content fork about bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- All sources discussing the embassy itself are WP:PRIMARY, including those I was able to find that are not int eh article. THis seems to be part of a string of embassy articles with the same problems. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ample precedents. — Biruitorul ^Talk 16:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 14:22, 19 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Kinshasa[edit]

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

Only 1 sentence in this article is actually about the embassy. The rest is a content fork. LibStar (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Democratic Republic of the Congo–United States relations. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ample precedent; no redeemable content. — Biruitorul ^Talk 20:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 14:22, 19 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. Daniel (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your life its back (Venezuelan Movie)[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a not-yet-released film, not properly sourced as the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria at WP:NFILM. As always, films are not automatically notable just because they've entered the production pipeline -- the minimum notability bar for most films is that they've been released, and films are supposed to get articles in advance of release only if they can be sourced to a substantial volume of production coverage, such that even if they collapsed and never came out at all they'd still likely be permanently notable anyway (e.g. Star Wars or Marvel films). But this just cites a tiny smattering of production coverage, nowhere near enough to confer permanent notability this far in advance of release.
In addition, the page's title is completely unverified in any sources at all, and appears to be an original research attempt at inventing an English title for a film that doesn't have any known English title yet -- but "we don't even know what title the page should actually be at yet" is another reason why this would be too soon. ("Come Back to Life" would be a more appropriately idiomatic translation of the film's native-language title, but that's not properly verified as the English-title of this film either — remember that foreign-language films' English titles are not always literal translations of their original-language titles, so we can't just assume that its English title will necessarily be "Come Back to Life" just because its Spanish title is slated to be "Vuelve a la vida", and have to wait until a reliable source verifies that before we can title an article about it that way.) The film also has no article at all on the Spanish Wikipedia yet, even though it can hardly be more notable to the English-speaking world than it is in its own country. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Venezuela. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good afteernoon

Thanks for your review alwways its good learn in this plataform.

The article have four citation from the principal newspaper of Venezuela. About the titlee its translated as that in the official instagram account of the movie. in addition of that the film have noticed for be development by the directors of " Papita, Mani, Toston" The most sucess Venezuelan movie in recent years. About the spanish article, its in construction, some others native languaje production dont have articles in wikipedia in spanish. GEORGEB1989 (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caracas, Te Quiero Que Jode and Papita, maní, tostón are previous work of hueck directors.

@Bearcat GEORGEB1989 (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has three citations from newspapers — the fourth is an IMDB-like directory, not a newspaper — and three citations from newspapers is not enough to make a film notable while it's still only in the production pipeline. Films in the production pipeline can collapse and fail to ever get released at all, so you need a lot of production coverage, not just three hits, to make a film notable in advance of release — as in so much production coverage that even if the film did collapse, its failure would be permanently notable in its own right. Normally, films are not notable at all until we can source a firm premiere date, and even after the premiere some films can still fail to pass our inclusion criteria at all: films still just don't always get the necessary depth of coverage at all, so they simply aren't exempted from having to have good sourcing just because they've been released.
And what other films the directors made is irrelevant, as notability is not inherited, and you've also failed to address the problem with the page title at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep per WP:NFILM, since there are sources about its principal photography, it has already been screened at the Guadalajara Film Festival and outher sources allow the article to meet WP:GNG and WP:NEXIST: [1][2][3][4].

~~That said, the article is in poor shape and could really use improvement.~~ --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did some improvements to the article. There probably are going to be even more sources once the film is screened to the public, but the current coverage should warrant it being kept. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per the above. The sources are minimal from a WP:NFF perspective. Not enough that I'd recommend creating an article, but not so sparse that I'd recommend deletion in the face of an upcoming scheduled release. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have included a Reception section and found more sources: [5][6]. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opportunity to evaluate new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - improvements made by NoonIcarus appear to address the issues raised now Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:27, 16 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. I'm in a really awkward situation here that I feel like in many respects the deletion argument is probably more persuasive overall, assessing it as the closer. That being said, there is significantly more support for the keep argument. Trying to balance this is hard to do and find a clear outcome, and I've landed on No Consensus as a result of that. Daniel (talk) 11:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Amin[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable, weak and lazy nomination. International player with ongoing career who has played in the top leagues of Sweden and Norway? Swedish Wikipedia has sources. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 21:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @GiantSnowman: There's actually not a whole lot on the Swedish wikipedia. Mostly just player profiles match reports and routine transfer news. Simione001 (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This and this and this and this from Google. Giant Snowman 12:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @GiantSnowman: Did you actually read these? The first one is a brief article about his contract expiring. The second is pay walled. The third article isnt even about the player in question and the last one is a match report. These do not satisfy WP:GNG Simione001 (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is mentioned in the third one, you clearly haven't read it - just as you clearly haven't bothered to do any BEFORE. I have located numerous coverage about this person, you have done nothing. Giant Snowman 21:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - excuse me how do you know what i have and haven't done? I have read it and I've just read it again, the third article you provided, this article is not about the player in question. This is simply a list of players that were nominated for Allsvenskans Stora Pris. This doesnt satisy WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is still mentioned in the article, so you have not read it. Giant Snowman 22:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seems like we are going around in circles here and im not sure what you are trying to achieve. Anyway, not sure why you provided the source in the first place, it doesn't do anything towards satisfying WP:GNG. Do you still think he's notable based on the sources provided? Sounds like just another case of WP:ILIKEIT. Simione001 (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes GNG. Plenty of coverage if you search his Arabic name.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case please provide links for the consideration of members. Simione001 (talk) 11:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From the sources mentioned above: 1 is a routine transactional update N. 2 I can't access. 3 is literally just his name in a list published by the Swedish Elite Football organization N. 4 is a mention in a routine match recap plus a quote from teammate Strandberg N. Even if #2 is SIGCOV, that is still not equivalent to GNG.

JoelleJay (talk) 02:58, 12 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!} 22:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There is coverage on sv.wiki in addition to Arabic sources, as mentioned above. Svartner (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per WP:GNG. Article needs improvements. But Afd is not a clean-up service. Sources are notable.BabbaQ (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except that they aernt notable at all. Simione001 (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and above. gidonb (talk) 04:53, 19 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Aubale Epstein[edit]

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

This is an article for a non-notable real estate agent in the USA. All of the citations seem to be to SEO churnalism sources; reprinters of press releases. Wikipedia should not be an extension of an SEO operation. Tagishsimon (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, California, New York, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and current status.. The article does not establish the notability of its subject per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The references provided appear to be weak and some primary sponsored content, which do not qualify as independent, reliable sources offering significant coverage (WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). The article resembles a promotional resume rather than an encyclopedic entry, lacking the depth and standard of coverage necessary for a standalone article. Will say, @Tagishsimon nom, could have been slightly better.

Reference [1] is a sponsored segment, other sources such as Bizjournals, are a trade pub, that merely mention one award. I couldn't find any other sources of notability on the subject. PD Slessor (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete using churn for coverage, not independent or truly secondary. Not notable. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 14:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - (1) run of the mill business person; (2) one whole section is unreferenced with any significant coverage, while (3) one point of contention ("counsel") is internally contradicted. Even if she was notable, it would have to be entirely written from scratch. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 19 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Torture Justice Center[edit]

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

This article was made in user-space, moved to main space, draftified, and moved back, and moved through various names, so its deletion is clearly controversial, at least with its creator. It has already, under another name, been nominated for speedy deletion. The problem with it is that it's extremely contentious, but lacks any inline citations. I'd have no problem with the creator incubating it properly in draft space or their own space and putting proper references, but to dump this uncited into main-space is completely wrong. I don't know if it should be speedied, draftified, or discussed properly, so we're here. Elemimele (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and nuke it from orbit and start over, whether it's notable or not, it's basically an unfinished homework assignment and makes no sense. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 22:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTESSAY and WP:OR. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG as this is currently written. WP:NOTESSAY and WP:OR apply as well. User:Let'srun 15:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per G11. This article includes background information about what lead to the creation of the organization and then a pitch for the organization itself. Even if this does meet NORG, the prose is not worth saving and I would vote to TNT this. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should be speedy, G11, but we're here. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 14:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and creation protect. Besides still being so poorly written that it needs to be deleted outright, it smacks of an opinionated essay, which is untenable in 2023. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 19 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. Daniel (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External (mathematics)[edit]

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

As noted at the WikiProject Mathematics discussion page, this is original research. All of the discussions on the article's Talk page, going back to 2011, are about how it's not a real topic. A prod that was endorsed was then removed. XOR'easter (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unsure before, but the WT:WPM discussion convinced me that this is original research. No reliable sources for this topic have been uncovered. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's talk page has been preserved at the talk page of this AfD. Aside from being OR, it is entirely a series of DICDEFs. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search of academic literature for "External magma" turns up sources about magma. "External semiring" turns up a couple of results about universal joints. "External semigroup" and "external monoid" turn up only a few results each. "Left external binary operation" turns up nothing at all. It look like this may be a couple authors' personal nomenclature which has not been adopted by anyone else yet. –jacobolus (t) 21:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:OR, only one source used in the intro. Frigyes06 (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: A passage added by the page creator and since removed makes clear that this article was trying to make fetch happen: It could be argued that we already have terms for the concepts described here, like dynamical systems, group actions, modules, and vector spaces. However, there is still no other terminology available for an external monoid for which this terminology gives us a concise expression. Above all else, this is a reason this term should be of use in the mathematical community. XOR'easter (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and @XOR'easter - The concept of "external" as described lacks clear definition and context within established mathematical literature. The provided references do not appear to be from reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject, as required by Wikipedia's general notability guideline WP:GNG. As sstated above, the article seems to contain original research WP:OR and fails to cite significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject WP:SIGCOV. Without verifiable and reliable sources, the term does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards for inclusion.

PD Slessor (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found two primary source mentions of the term "external semiring", and one of them was about antenna design. I applaud the author's attempt to coin a useful new term, but WP isn't the place to do that. Owen× ☎ 14:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is pure original terminology from the author, not attested anywhere in the literature. PatrickR2 (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is deleted, some of the material should be kept, in other articles. Including some of the lists of examples. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:28, 18 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 Public image of Javier Milei. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies involving Javier Milei[edit]

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

None of those "controversies" have any actual substance to them, or is even worth a standalone article. All of them are just "Politician says X", and "someone somewhere is outraged", or even just "Politician says X". All of them lasted for just some days and died as old news, without any actual consequences. In this day and age, all this stuff is just routine. Heads of state are always saying something, and someone is always reacting to those things said, even if just for a couple of hours.

Note as well that a page "controversial stuff involving a BLP" can easily get carried away into undesired directions.

And note that Trump and Putin, the most controversial world leaders of recent times, do not have any similar articles. Cambalachero (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Conservatism, Economics, and Argentina. Cambalachero (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Trump has several articles about particular controversies, from mishandling classified information to sexual misconduct to... There is precedent at Wikipedia for these types of articles. That said, quickly glancing over this one, "alleged" this and "alleged" that is different. Trump actually did those things (he denies most of them, but there is at least some proof to the contrary), while this person seems to have just been mentioned in connection with xyz thing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is true. I think some content can be merged to Public image of Javier Milei, as suggested by @Pedantic Aristotle, and some may also be relevant for La Libertad Avanza, for example the invistigation also involving the coalition. But just saying that all of them [sic] are just "Politician says X", and "someone somewhere is outraged", or even just "Politician says X" is an exageration. In fact, that may only apply to "Insults to Horacio Rodríguez Larreta", which could be moved at the "Public image" article, since many sources have noted how Milei insulted his political opponents or journalists. Many of them are in fact legal investigations (hence alleged), perhaps his plagiarism can be considered proved (he admitted it for the first case and for the second case reliable sources took it as self-evident) so alleged can be removed, and controversies that attracted significant attention (children and organ trade positions or the state terrorism denialism accusations, etc.), so much so that Milei himself has been described as controversial. So I find the nominator's argument too dismissive. All of this may not warrant its own standalone article but a merge yes; they are acting as though literally none of this has any value or significance. Davide King (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump has articles about specific controversies, with a well defined scope. I meant that there is no parent article "Controversies involving Donald Trump" or similar. Cambalachero (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Could use a rewrite, but most of this seems well-sourced. Perhaps not as NPOV as I'd like, but there is notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with a !merge into the "public image" article as suggested as well. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Ideally these are merged into different articles, where they can be added in relevant contexts. Some parts could be deleted, and seems more like trivia rather than encyclopedia content. Ideally a lot more content is written, where dedicated articles are created for the more notable topics. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - this makes me very uneasy, because it's a BLP list of mainly "alleged" accusations gleened from non-English sources: "Alleged cover-up and illicit association", "Alleged plagiarism for El Cronista and Infobae", "Alleged plagiarism for Pandenomics", "Accusations of alleged state terrorism denialism," "alleged sexual favours", "Alleged sales of candidatures", "Alleged involvement of neo-Nazi and Argentine military dictatorship apologist candidates". Unless proven, this is just political gossip. Political leader or not, since when does English Wikipedia create articles/lists based on rumors and gossip — Maile (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, alleged is used because some of those were followed by investigations, and thus the use of alleged is warranted, so hardly "political gossip". His plagiarism seems to have been confirmed, and his vice-presidential candidate seems to be a proved apologist for the Argentine military dictatorship, so the alleged can be removed if you feel only proved things should be listed. Those relevant to the coalition could also be moved at La Libertad Avanza, and others could be at Public image of Javier Milei, for example for a section about his rethoric and insults, for which he is well known. As for the non-English sources, they are allowed, and it is not like there is literally not a single English-language source... Davide King (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I"ve changed to "Merge", and hope for the best outcome either way. — Maile (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Pedantic Aristotle and Davide King. As suggested above, move content relevant to the coalition to La Libertad Avanza, and the other content to Public image of Javier Milei#Controversies. I agree with the nom.'s rationale in opposition to keeping as a standalone page. Sal2100 (talk) 17:23, 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 merge‎ to Organisation and structure of the Metropolitan Police#Specialist Operations. Daniel (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Area Major Incident Pool[edit]

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

No sources cited. Seems to be more of a definition rather than entity. Google search provides only mostly Wikipedia mirrors. I did find three mentions in this report (page 115) but still not notable enough to warrant an article Elshad (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and England. Elshad (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Given the time period (1985-2000) I'm not surprised little information is available online, but everything in the article (assuming it can be cited, I've not looked) is encyclopaedic information. I agree though it's a bit thin for a whole article, so I recommend merging this to a broader article about the structure of the Met over time as this is not the first AfD I've seen about such units. I don't know if such an article exists yet, but if not it can be started. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. What is the suggested Merge target article here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Organisation and structure of the Metropolitan Police#Specialist Operations, since it seems that some of the wording for this article is taken directly from there and the remainder may be relevant as historical information if added. Reconrabbit (talk|edits) 21:33, 12 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 He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. Original close was redirect with the history preserved to facilitate a merge, but Siroxo requested a merge close and tag and, as I don't see that being a huge difference I've done so. Star Mississippi 18:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fearless Photog[edit]

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

This is an *extremely* minor character that, while it has some development information, lacks any actual discussion as a fictional character to demonstrate notability. In writing articles for wikipedia it's important to demonstrate *why* a subject meets notability through significant coverage discussing the topic and illustrating people discussing a subject and why it's important outside of the scope of the main subject.

While this is an obscure character in the He-Man franchise, there's no indication of that importance. Furthermore it's not an isolated instance of an obscure character in the franchise being revisited as a toy much later. And as a fictional character, which should be the most important aspect of such an article...there's nothing.

The whole subject could be covered in a list entry with nothing lost Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - MTV news gave significant coverage about this in a very detailed review at https://www.mtv.com/news/urxntw/picture-perfect-motuc-fearless-photog-action-figure-review The other references show it covered in https://www.sun-sentinel.com/1986/01/01/youthful-mattel-toy-creator-awarded-college-scholarship/ and elsewhere. You couldn't fit all the valid information in the article in a list article, most would be lost. It has enough information to fill its own article. Notability is determined by coverage, not personal opinions. Dream Focus 16:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Literally all of that could be fit into a paragraph on its development. What reception is there of it as a fictional character? Even as a toy there's still nothing indicating any significance over any of the other MotU toys, other than its origin. The coverage indicating that importance isn't there. The coverage discussing it as a fictional character and why it's important also isn't there Dream.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters where he has an entry. There's niche newspaper coverage of its creation because, hey, cute/cool news, 12 year old kid designed a toy, and then a reliable review of the toy. Very borderline. I'll note that the newspaper above is Sun Sentinel while the article cites but does not link to a presumably similar story in Gettysburg Times. I'll ping User:Cunard who is good at finding newspaper sources. Maybe there's more. I am nonetheless not feeling that notability based on effectively one-event coverage in regional newspapers plus a review by anonymous MTV staffer make for a strong case to keep. How's this better from all those articles abotu video game characters or like we routinely merge, even if they cite dozens listicles? Is this better because regional newspaper coverage > modern listicles? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has notable reliable third person sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the He-Man characters list. It's not really a matter of notability here, but of the fact the information here can be easily covered in the list with little to no detriment. The article just doesn't have the bulk to justify its separation. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:02, 8 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!} 19:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others and as a notable topic. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE by not clearly demonstrating its impact or significance. GNG is not passed here, no prejudice to recreation if someone is able to find sources that indicate why this character is recognized by the public at large. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 00:04, 16 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. Daniel (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce D. Jette[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

After seeing the consensus of the Afd for Jette's successor as United States Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, this position does not confer notability by itself. Independent sources are just not there. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I didn't bundle this guy with the three others nominated above because this is his second Afd. I didn't find the 2018 keep verdict particularly convincing. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has coverage in reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- What independent sources are there about him rather than events in which he may have played a part? Clarityfiend (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - [7][8][9] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Passing mention, and two routine non-independent announcements, one by the US Army (duh) and one by the government about his appointment. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sohom (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG due to lack of independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpen320 (talk • contribs) 2023-12-12T17:34:14 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The last AFD discussion was convincing when one reads right to the bottom and then follows-up on what MelanieN pointed out five years ago.
As explained there, this started off as undeclared paid editing by Biografix (talk · contribs). Then Dszarek1234 (talk · contribs) and 141.116.106.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (an IP address from the Office of the Secretary of Defense) stepped in saying "As the Digital Media Analyst with ASA(ALT), I've been tasked by the Director of External Communications to scrub Dr. Jette's wiki page and use his official Department of Defense bio.".
Then after the first AFD discussion in 2018 a single-purpose account Acquisition1954 (talk · contribs) and 141.116.250.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 141.116.107.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 141.116.54.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (more OSD IP addresses) got at the article in 2019 and filled it with all sorts of unverifiable stuff like what the innermost thoughts of the article subject, coincidentally who was born in 1954 and worked in acquisition, were at age 5.
We should get rid of this entire edit history.
There have been no contributions apart from the usual mechanical fiddlings for categories and whatnot by anyone else. There's no writing here that hasn't either had or outright declared a conflict of interest, and there has been at least one direct statement of intent to violate our fundamental NPOV and verifiability content policies (which latter the article now hugely does — at least the undeclared paid editor gave a pretense of adhering to the verifiability policy, but the "tasked" people and the people with the coincidental usernames and Pentagon IP addresses haven't even bothered at all to tell readers how they can check, say, what this person did as a football mascot in the early 1970s) by the people who wrote this content.
Uncle G (talk) 21:35, 12 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 Ranmoor with history preserved for a "slim merge" if needed. Star Mississippi 01:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carsick Hall[edit]

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

This building doesn't appear to meet WP:N. There is the possibility of merge/redirect to Ranmoor, but I think that would give it overdue prominence in an article I'm not sure it even needs a mention in. Boleyn (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does not look notable - There is no listed building designation for it and although it is just within the Ranmoor Conservation Area there is nothing about it in the statement of special interest. EdwardUK (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE - Agreed. Its sourcing is also odd, it appears to be the original creation of an SPA, and it contains some dubious statements. To suggest that Sheffield has few old buildings because of the Blitz is nonsense - it has many, including many far more notable than this, e.g. Sheffield Town Hall. KJP1 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is some more information here but I'm not sure that's enough to be notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Doesn't appear to be listed. Some of the article checks out. (William Creswick at that address in 1843. Sales description in 1879 Sheffield and Rotherham Independent as well as notice of sale to Mr. James Ward for £370. Mentions in The Times and The Telegraph as home of Francis Balfour in the 1950s. Telegraph gives Eric Robinson as owner in 1980.) I think there is also evidence that it might be among the oldest local buildings ([10] states most of buildings of interest date from 1860–1914). Also brief mention in The Making of Sheffield, 1865-1914 p 194 ("...Carsick Hall, a small double-fronted house unworthy of its name but very old and very old-fashioned."). In the lack of any detailed coverage of the house, leaning slim merge to Ranmoor, where it might merit a mention. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:54, 26 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!} 21:05, 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) 17:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (leaning towards delete) -- The article appears to have sources, but they are cited in a peculiar (and incomplete) manner. The house is apparently a minor mansion, but not obviously notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two major problems with this:
- https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/topic/441346-carsick-hall-help/?do=findComment&comment=7893247 is quite clearly how the original single-purpose editor got xyr information. It's a fortnight before the article was created by ChaosAlien (talk · contribs). I don't have any access to whatever "Find My Past" is, and the original single-purpose editor provided zero citations of whatever bunch of old newspapers have been stitched together to make this. Espresso Addict hasn't provided enough above, either, alas.
- The ~~good-faith~~ citations added later by someone else are impossible to check. Having laboriously found what each one is and digging it up to cite it properly, I've had to add {{pageneeded}} on every single one it turns out. One of them is an edited collection book and the citation didn't even say which article in the book by which author is being cited. Needless to say, not a single one of those sources is accessible to me.
Verification is simply impossible here. I've tried. This is unverifiable by any reader, or anyone at all who didn't write the article. Uncle G (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That's simply not true. I verified much of it, just typing "Carsick Hall" into one of the WL newspaper searches. I don't always provide citations when I do this kind of search because typing and especially cut & paste hurts my injured hand, but the search is trivial for anyone with library access. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm afraid that it is true. "Mentions in The Times and The Telegraph in the 1950s" doesn't cut it. As I said, I've looked for sources, and tried to look into the sources already cited. A vague handwave in the direction of an entire decade of two newspapers points to nothing. It's as vague as the handwave to a 264-page book (which Google Books reports no instances of "Carsick" at all inside) from 1948 is. If you cannot point to things that I or other people can check, then verifiability is simply not there. Amazingly, all of the people with the claimed actual access to these old newspapers, from the person on the WWW forum through the article creator to you, have not cited one single specific newspaper article for the rest of us, let alone the clearly multiple ones used in the WWW discussion forum. Uncle G (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - In attempting to check the sources and found copies of some on archive.org (Reeder, Walton and Tiratsoo), and White Rose eTheses Online (Donnelly). But searches within these indicate that none mention Carsick Hall, Walton has only a brief section on Ranmoor (p.225) and there were no search results for Sheffield in Tiratsoo. Cannadine and Hebblethwaite require journal access but the statements they are there to support do not suggest notability. I do not have full access to the British Newspaper Archive, but a search for Carsick Hall shows some results that could verify the residents and history section (Sheffield Independent 10 May 1879 p.11, and 7 March 1938 p.2, and Yorkshire Evening Post 11 June 1940 p.5) but these also do little to indicate notability. Delete seems a reasonable option because if all the unsourced and trivial content was removed there would be little left to merge. EdwardUK (talk) 09:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's names and dates at least, more than anyone else has given. I didn't think to look for an in-copyright 1997 book in the Internet Archive, and thank you for the pointer to the thesis, too. It's very disappointing to discover, especially after all of that effort hunting down the proper citations, that all of the additions by GavinMansfield (talk · contribs) were false sourcing. Having seen now how irrelevant they were to this subject, especially the thesis, I have changed my mind about these being good-faith edits. Uncle G (talk) 13:07, 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 on whether to redirect this, or to move it ito a proposed article about its successor. Suggest those discussions continue on the Talk page as I don't see a 4th relist establishing any clear path. Star Mississippi 01:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SPIN (cable system)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general notability requirement. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, Oceania, and New Zealand. UtherSRG (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not hellbent on keep this as a standalone article but we out to keep some record of proposed/unrealized submarine communications cables somewhere. Could be nice to divide List of international submarine communications cables into groups like "active", discontinued", and "unrealized".Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 07:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would be good with that and making this a redirect to the list. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:16, 22 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!} 21:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is well worth documenting

AaronVick (talk) 08:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC) — AaronVick (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Comintell (talk · contribs). [reply]

Can you speak to which notability policy would allow this article to continue as it is? notability is a requirement to be an article. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge as @Crunchydillpickle's suggestion

Lewcm Talk to me! 22:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I see a suggestion to divide an article, is this the target article you are suggesting? It's not clear what the consensus is here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I support redirecting to List of international submarine communications cables, which could then be re-worked. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: There is coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and I suspect that notability could be proven if someone developed and referenced the article. However, nobody has been interested enough to develop it much. There is not even an article for its successor project, the Hawaiki Cable, which is much more notable as it is an operational cable, and there is arguably demand for an article. I suggest we rename this "Hawaiki Cable", do basic reformatting, keeping the info about the SPIN predecessor, then wait and see whether anyone develops it. An article on an operational cable is much more likely to attract editor attention than a defunct cable proposal from the 2000s. Nurg (talk) 01:09, 13 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!} 23:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Flagg Gibney[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and author-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, United States of America, and New York. UtherSRG (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NBIO. Available sources are mostly primary or passing mentions. Her obituary can be found in the New York Times, but that is not enough to demonstrate notability. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage and the obituary in the New York Times alone is not enough to meet WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:05, 19 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 16:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Nchinda-Kaya[edit]

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

Listed competitions do not seem to establish notability – winning a Résisprint International does not seem to fulfill GNG or NSPORT as a "major international competition". InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Cameroon. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, thank you for the nomination giving us a chance to improve the article. Samuel Nchinda was a regular on the international track and field circuit in 1991 and 1992, not just at major championships where he advanced past the first round at two different Olympics. Résisprint is a World Athletics Continental Tour Challenger level meeting -- though this distinction didn't exist in 1992 it was a premier international meeting. If you want to get technical about WP:NATH, he satisfies point 8) as Nchinda's 10.24 PB is listed on the IAAF "senior all-time list" for men's 100m on page 15 here: Senior all-time list. I also added a cite that Nchinda competed at the 1991 World Indoor Championships, setting a national record and qualifying for the semifinals. Thank you, --Habst (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every sporty sperm isn't with a couple of tin cups worth a Wikipedia entry. There are sporting websites for that. MisterWizzy (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. No evidence of GNG coverage, which is necessary to establish for athletes regardless of their accomplishments. Being listed on the IAAF senior all-time list does not exempt the subject from the requirement that a SIGCOV IRS source be cited in their article.

JoelleJay (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC) EDIT: Keep per new sources found. JoelleJay (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay, thank you for commenting because it has spurred me to look for more GNG coverage. I found dozens of contemporary newspaper sources featuring Sam under the name "Sam Nchinda" -- perhaps the article should be moved to that title. I added a few of them to the article (the article now has 19 references) but I am not done going through them yet, here are just a few from the Edgware Observer, Harrow Observer, and Pinner Observer: Sam takes on best in world Sparkling Sam lifts the gloom for Gayts Olympian Sam goes out in heats. May I ask that you please re-evaluate the article in light of this significant new information added? --Habst (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sadly, BEFORE didn't help. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces, thank you for commenting because your comment along with JoelleJay's above drove me to find more GNG sources for this article. The article now has 19 references including several significant newspaper sources that focus specifically on Nchinda, see above for some examples. Can you please re-evaluate based on the new changes? Separately, if you could help organize the newly added information in the article into sections, that would be greatly appreciated. --Habst (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Habst This is a good job you've done. Thank you so much! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I now lean towards Keeping this article based on this. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also have done the re-organisation as you requested. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the additional sources provided by User:Habst. Ingratis (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fantastic work by Habst in finding sources to demonstrate notability and expanding the article. @JoelleJay, Vanderwaalforces, and MisterWizzy: BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:38, 12 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!} 18:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, expansion and sources added satisfy notability guidelines, good work, Habst! ~ Tails Wx 03:31, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jynxzi[edit]

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

Subject is a You Tuber for gaming and fails GNG where by subject does not have significant coverage by independent, reliable sources where by the source talk about the subject in length and in depth for verification. Cassiopeia talk 21:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 21:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Internet, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the Kotaku, Dot Esports and IGN Brazil sources. They each contain adequate significant coverage about his web content and aspects of his life, proving he meets WP:WEB, WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Also per WP:BASIC's "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" guideline, the BBC, VentureBeat and PCGamesN sources can also work for extra verifiability. PantheonRadiance (talk) 08:30, 29 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!} 20:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Kotaku is fine, it's a RS, but it's not long. Otherwise there's coverage in Game Rant, but nothing extensive. The BBC coverage mentioned a comment above this is a trivial mention. Oaktree b (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG, with WP:THREE already presented above by PantheonRadiance. Skyshiftertalk 03:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think the sources go into enough depth to fulfill notability criteria. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources doesn't look fine for GNG. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:12, 11 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!} 18:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources above don't quite meet the threshold to pass WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 09:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dot Esports and IGN Brazil sources are entirely about the streamer, so there's at least 2 very clear SIGCOV sources. Skyshiftertalk 14:19, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Donkey Show (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and band-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and California. UtherSRG (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can find brief mentions about the band's existence from specific members that were popular by themselves, but nothing decent about the actual band itself. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 03:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Don't buy the article's assertions about how famous and influential they were. Instead, they were a local band that got some gig announcements in the local press, a couple of mentions in scenester blogs (e.g. [11]), and brief mentions as historical tidbits in articles that are actually about other bands or their former members (e.g. [12]). Otherwise, all that can be found are the usual social media and self-upload links. While searching, note that the band's name is also an old Mexican urban myth. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:47, 19 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. ✗plicit 23:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ato Ampah[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JMHamo (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Ghana, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Same again as the other Chelsea youth, I don't know if he will be notable in the future or not, draft article for now. Govvy (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON Svartner (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: This is too soon and should be probably marked as a promising draft after draftification. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:32, 16 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Essex Arms[edit]

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

No refs on the page, I don't see enough independent RS to show notability. JMWt (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Found reviews from The Quietus, DIY, and AllMusic. That's plenty enough already. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reviews found by QuietHere and since added to the article. The article could use some expansion but there are enough pro reviews to support a typical stub album article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reviews that QuietHere found; sources found and used should be enough for at least a stub/start-class article. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 03:25, 16 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. Daniel (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CEA-PME[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. BEFORE search turns up few mentions of the organization outside its own website and related business websites, and no reliable, third party sources. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Belgium. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious promotional tone of the article also asks for WP:G11, but I am not sure (how it stayed here for more than 15 years?). This nomination was created 6 days ago, so it should be resolved soon enough. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NCORP and WP:PROMO. It is somewhat surprising how little coverage this organisation has, given the claims in the article. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 23:57, 18 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. Daniel (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Hughes (banker)[edit]

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

Non-notable business professional. Related companies are not notable. Seaweed (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Some coverage around the time he moved to a Russian bank [13] but I don't see extensive coverage of this person. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the above, it also seems to fail WP:NBLP. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:16, 13 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. Daniel (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean State Cup[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NRIVALRY due to a lack of significant coverage independent of the subject. Let'srun (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Rhode Island. Let'srun (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. This state-level inter-university competion does not have significant coverage in secondary sources. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:37, 19 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 Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023#Clarksville, Tennessee / Allensville–Russellville, Kentucky. Clear consensus not to retain below (delete + merge), and probably a consensus to merge independent of delete !votes regardless of its preference as an ATD. The eventual redirect can be re-targetted to a different section within that article, or a different article, if so desired. Daniel (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Clarksville tornado[edit]

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

Not notable enough for standalone article, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LASTING, WP:EVENT. Usually, standalone articles are for tornadoes that are particularly deadly and have a massive lasting effect on a decently-sized community. This tornado caused 3 deaths and was rated as an EF3. This may also apply to 2021 Tri-State tornado, which although an EF4, caused 8 deaths, compared to the effect of the Mayfield EF4 that casued 57 deaths and destroyed several towns. In my opinion, for a tornado to have a section on an article it should either cause 1 million USD or more in damage, be rated EF3 or more, or cause 20 or more injuries. To have its own article, I think a tornado should have to cause 10 or more injuries in three communities and 10 or more deaths in total. The Clarksville tornado caused damage, but it was an EF3. This is pointless as an article and should either go in its own outbreak or go onto the tornado list in December. Cutlass ^Ciera 14:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that even if you think it is a minor event, it had killed 6* people and counting. Even if it wasn’t an EF5 or even an EF4, it had done possibly permanent damage to the people of Clarksville, TN. Yes it wasn’t the 2013 el reno tornado but it doesn’t hurt anyone to have this article. It is better to inform people of events like such because events like the December 9th tornado will get covered by other big news like politics, then people forget. With an article about it that people can read, the reader can understand the devastation that the people that experienced the tornado had gone through. There is no harm by having its own article, it might help though. People reading the article could contribute to helping the communities hit by the tornado through donations and or by informing others. Once again, no harm is done by this article. It should not be deleted. EvanAndrews22 (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First off, it killed three people, not six. Two, even if it did permanent damage, it doesn't mean that it is notable. The rest of your statement reads off as WP:USEFUL and WP:HARMLESS. Cutlass ^Ciera 16:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I am just going to repeat what Reecey said and say that it was one of the strongest December tornadoes in recent years. While not THE strongest, it is still notable in its own right, being the strongest of one of the worst December outbreaks in recent years. You have provided no points except for the fact that El Reno is only notable for size, which it is not. You also fail to realize that the outbreak of which this occurred in was a one-in-a-million chance. I mean, some tornadoes took the same paths as the ones two years prior, which is remarkable, and can only really be compared to the Moore tornadoes and the Codell Tornadoes. I rest my case, this should not be deleted for the reasons stated above and the reasons stated by other people. 108.67.192.250 (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention this, but this article is NOT a stub, and you can tell that there is enough info for an entire article. It also was very long-lasting, being an hour long. 108.67.192.250 (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your argument of "Long lasting effect on a decent sized community" is easily disproven by the fact that the tornado destroyed 114 homes, heavily damaged 857 others, mostly in a town/city of over 160k people. 108.67.192.250 (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

100 out of 160000 is a very small percentage. Even if we assume 10 people per household, that's still trivial. Oaktree b (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with that, it is a city of 160k, which is a more than decent sized community. 108.67.192.250 (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're tunnel-visioning on what you personally feel is notable. Tornadoes like this occur all the time. Check out Perryton, Matador, Amory, Sullivan, Winterset, Wynne, etc all from this year. None of these have articles for a reason. Wikiwillz (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but we can't use Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument. ChessEric 16:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was a major event, and even if you don't live around here, it killed half of the people that were in this outbreak, and it was possibly a multi-vortex. If you want to use the "It was an EF3" argument, then we should also delete the El Reno tornado article. You see how unfair that is? I stand my case. Clarksville (and Hendersonville) deserve their own articles, separate from the current, very tiny, outbreak article. This is IP address user, signing off. 108.67.192.250 (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The El Reno tornado was particularly notable due to its large size, which is unique. A run-of-the-mill EF3 with three fatalities is not really notable. It doesn't work that way. Cutlass ^Ciera 16:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the storm doesn’t matter. The damage it caused does. By saying it doesn’t work that way is saying that those 6 people who died don’t matter as much as those who died in the el reno tornado EvanAndrews22 (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point here. The size of the storm does matter. The EF3 damage was three or four very poorly built houses flattened and a strip mall destroyed. That itself is not grounds for an article. The rest of the article is refuting an argument I never made. Cutlass ^Ciera 16:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable, It killed 3 people, and was an EF3. It was one of the steongest December tornadoes in recent years. The article shoudl be kept. Reeceycat123987 (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, this isn't proving it to be notable. Being "one of the strongest December tornadoes" is not grounds for an article. Three people is not grounds either. Cutlass ^Ciera 16:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Trivial weather event. Under 10 people dying is rather routine for a weather event; to be blunt, we've had articles in AfD where more people were involved in a mass shooting in the USA and it's been deemed not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: The event was a low-end EF3 and was fairly tame. Dozens of other tornadoes even in the last couple of years are much more worthy of an article over this. The speed in which this article was written gives me sort of WP:HATSHOP vibes as well. Wikiwillz (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-Oaktree b & Wikiwillz — Would you both support a merge into Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023? The AfD nominator also supports a merge into the article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, given it is substantially thinned down to increase readability. Wikiwillz (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023, now that the latter article is in mainspace. Ionmars10 (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023: we have more than enough sources to support verifiability for an expanded section in the target article. Owen× ☎ 17:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023#Clarksville, Tennessee / Allensville–Russellville, Kentucky as an WP:ATD, non-notable event. Just because the tornado was an EF3 and killed three people doesn't mean it is notable. ~ Tails Wx 17:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to 2023 Northern Tennesse Tornado. Cwater1 (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — As article creator, I do think it passes WP:GNG, so deletion is out of the question. That said, while I am not opposed to merging, a merge will make the outbreak article…well, off-balanced, since the RPS (readable prose size) of the tornado article is actually larger than the entire outbreak article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC) (See new comment below relisting comment) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This argument has no ground to support it. The section can be trimmed to make it readable. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is readable as is. It passes WP:GNG and WP:LASTING. Your deletion reasonings was strictly based on casualties/impact, but that isn’t what makes an article notable. Sources do. That is why WP:NEXIST exists. The 1999 Aïn Témouchent earthquake survived AfD because it has multiple reliable sources. The state of the article (and overall impacts) weren’t that high…Yet it has the coverage, so it passes notability requirements. Like I said, I’m not opposed to the merge, which it seems you aren’t either. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A large amount of these sources lack WP:DEPTH. The NWS survey is a routine survey done of every tornado that is reported to cause damage in the US. Several of the other sources are news articles that only say one point (e.g. that the tornado was an EF3). Cutlass ^Ciera 18:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd lack to add Cutlass, that this is how a majority of tornado's are written. The NWS survey is the most official and comprehensive detail of damage and chronological impact. There's little need to scour for sources that would really have less detail or authority to the survey itself. Wikiwillz (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article passes WP:GNG, but the thing about general notability guidelines is that they're.. well... general. There are nuances to consider. I support a merger, sounds like the smart thing to do. Wikiwillz (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Now that an article for the outbreak has been created, there is no need for an individual article for this tornado. I support a merger. ChessEric 18:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC) ChessEric 19:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge-We can summarize this in the outbreakn article. Reeceycat123987 (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To get this back on the log following DRV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep – Since a WP:SNOW, merge closure was overturned, I am going to double down on the keep. Passes WP:GNG, passes WP:NEVENT and while still a recent event a few days ago, the tornado still gets complete individual news articles about it ([14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]"Federal disaster declared after Clarksville tornado"), aka secondary RS coverage at least 5 days after the event, indicating WP:LASTING may be satisfied as it clearly isn't a true WP:NOTNEWS event. All original issues with the AfD all pass. In previous struck comment, I originally was ok with a merge, but given the merge overturning, I no longer support a merge. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't the merge that was overturned in DRV. It was your blatantly inappropriate WP:INVOLVED attempt to prematurely shut down discussion here. Your renewed "double down" campaign smells of WP:SPITE. Owen× ☎ 12:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No WP:SPITE at all. I honestly don’t think it needs merged anymore, given the clear RS consensus that it wasn’t just a passing news event, meaning it passes all the requirements to be an article. Also, several editors suggested the discussion be quickly-closed by a countersigning admin. That never occurred, so yes, the merge was overturned, because that was an option suggested by some editors during the DRV. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - "destroyed 114 homes, damaging 857 others", pretty notable. "claimed the lives of three people, including a child, and injured an additional 62 others." Notable - who on Wikipedia puts a number to "notable" when it comes to human life? — Maile (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable in death count,but is in injury count. The only notable thing about it is that it damaged over 900 homes. EF3 tornadoes happen all the time, but other notable ones (Such as Amory or Little Rock). If this tornado has an article, a few others from this year should as well (Like the ones mentioned above). 72.46.58.62 (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to put keep in the reply above. Reeceycat123987 (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – No reason for a standalone article. Can easily be included in main outbreak article. United States Man (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Would be consistent with past practice in the WikiProject. A standalone article just isn't justified, IMO. Penitentes (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'm not convinced this is WP:LASTING yet. We can always split the merge out to another article if we've gotten this wrong. SportingFlyer T·C 15:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We're doing this again? My position hasn't changed; this can fit in the main article without being split. ChessEric 16:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The summary actually isn't finished because the Kentucky part has not been put in yet, but I still lean merge. ChessEric 16:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not again; it's the same AfD, resuming after an out-of-process interruption. Please strike out one of your two !votes here. Owen× ☎ 16:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...you talking about me? My other comment was a note, not a 2nd vote. Also, someone else relisted the AfD, not the original creator. ChessEric 16:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you have two bolded Merges. Please strike one. I relisted the AfD as a close of the DRV. It is the same discussion now being allowed to reach consensus. Star Mississippi 16:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a separate vote though and I don't understand why that matters. I'll do it though. ChessEric 19:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023#Clarksville, Tennessee / Allensville–Russellville, Kentucky. No indication of WP:PERSISTENCE and limited WP:EFFECT or WP:DEPTH. All sources in article are either NOAA or WP:PRIMARYNEWS. No reason for a standalone article to exist. Note for closer: If merge is unsuccessful, please consider my !vote for deletion as not independently notable under WP:NEVENT. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — with Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023 — it is not surprising that there are numerous reliable sources covering the Clarksville tornado. However, I don't think that notability independent of the broader severe weather event has been established, namely in terms of diverse coverage (beyond human interest stories and what-was-hit overviews) and in-depth coverage (beyond just narrative from local news). —TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 19:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As unnecessary CFORK, can be squeezed into the December 9-10 article and still adhere to SIZERULE. Btw the DRV was wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 December 12. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.123.49.55 (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC) strike sock -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note, WP:CFORK is not an issue as the section in the outbreak article is 138 words while the article has a readable prose size of 1,278 words. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this topic can sufficiently be covered in Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023. There is not enough WP:LASTING impact from this tornado to warrant a standalone page. Recreating a standalone article can be revisited in the event there is more lasting impact down the road. Frank Anchor 12:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge not sure why this discussion is reopened, but this article is not notable enough nor WP:LASTING enough. Most of the information is just WP:TOOMUCH or information no one cares about with means to beef up an article of a weak tornado that caused small pockets of EF3 damage in an average path. With this being said, I feel the author of the article, who wrote the entire article less than 48 hours after the event, may have been acting out of WP:HATSHOP motivation, though I should proably assume good faith. Wikiwillz (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023 — per Last1in and TheAustinMan. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 23:24, 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 merge‎ to XBoard. Daniel (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fairy-Max[edit]

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

Couldn't find any reliable sources. QuietCicada - Talk 14:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Software. QuietCicada - Talk 14:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to XBoard. Seems to be verified here, and is mentioned at target. Jclemens (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting. I suggest merging or redirecting. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:03, 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 no consensus‎.

Numerically, we have no consensus, with about 40% of opinions in favor of deleting and 60% in favor of keeping the article.

In terms of strength of argument, many "keep" opinions invoke the WP:N guideline. These opinions must be discounted, because lack of notability of the topic is not the reason for which deletion is sought. Instead, the nomination argues that the contents of the article constitute original research by synthesis, i.e., "combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source" (WP:SYNTH). In assessing the strength of arguments made here, we must examine whether this argument is made or rebutted convincingly. I find that neither is the case here.

To make a cogent SYNTH case, the "delete" side would have needed to address the specific sources cited in the article, and they would have needed to show how exactly these sources say one thing and the article text says another, and then they would have needed to show that these defects cannot be remedied except by deletion of the article (WP:ATD). But the "delete" side has failed to make their case in this way. They merely allege, but do not demonstrate, inadmissible synthesis.

The "keep" side does not really do better: with the exception of Homerethegreat and a very few others, nobody really addresses the specific sources cited in the article, and how well they correspond to the article text (as would have been needed to rebut a WP:SYNTH deletion rationale). Instead, they make sweeping allegations mostly about how notable the topic is, which, as explained above, is beside the point here.

Consequently, there is no informed consensus to delete the article. A merger discussion or a more convincing renomination for deletion remain possible. Sandstein 13:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This looks like a re-creation of an article that was deleted two months ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis). The current article suffers from similar issues. The majority of the text in this article is WP:SYNTH, in that the source cited doesn't explicitly say that the Hamas-lead attack constituted genocide. In fact, many of the sources predate the attack, so they can't possibly be making that assertion. The few sources that do explicitly state f should be covered under Second_Holocaust#Claims_that_Palestinians_are_committing_genocide. VR _talk 13:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. VR _talk 13:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging participants from the last AfD (BilledMammal—Iskandar323—SomethingForDeletion—Marokwitz—JMWt—nableezy—Oaktree b—Daveout—Sj—Zero0000) VR _talk 13:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are lots of extreme concepts flying around this conflict from various commentators and I don't think we have to participate in the war of words. If there really is a reason to write an article about the use of words in this conflict it seems to me to be way WP:TOOSOON to get the full picture. At very least we need to wait until we can write the page fairly. JMWt (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still a delete, as SYNTH. Sources dating from before the attack... If you want to create a general article about this topic (without mention of this event), fine. A case could be made for that. Mooshing together a bunch of articles that talk about different things to try and prove a point isn't necessary. Oaktree b (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And in response to the "sourcebot" comment last time, you can install a browser extension for use on Wikipedia that uses the various RS lists we have and will colour code the sources used in the article. Beyond getting into a technical discussion about it, that should suffice. Oaktree b (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SYNTH is not a valid deletion reason. There are sufficient articles that directly address the topic to establish notability. Anything else is just a content dispute. Marokwitz (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I included 20 sources referring directly to genocide accusation as well as being after the attack. It is below. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - article on very notable topic. I wrote it 2 months after the event, seeing along the discourse of experts in the fields of international law, genocide studies, history and more discuss the issue at length and when it became clear that it has received more than enough coverage and it has become clear that the topic has grown notable enough, seeing there was no article written I endeavored and wrote it. The allegation of genocide has/is (depending on time of reading) been brought up to the International Criminal Court in Den Haag. Notable topic has garnered international attention in multiple reputable news outlets as well as WP:NOTABILITY:

There is "Significant coverage" on the allegations, there are Reliable sources that deal with this topic directly, Secondary Sources are used, therefore meets WP:NOTABILITY

Article is also written in neutral language and attributes claims to scholars and therefore avoids wikivoice.

Furthermore, article is not Synth, sources directly refer to the allegation of genocide. Other sources that predate describe background of event which is normal. I will use an example to explain the rationale: Would one deny a source explaining that blue birds live in Madagascar from 1990 and are in danger of extinction when describing the background if those same blue birds were extinct in 2020?

Furthermore, regarding propositions to merge to 2023 Israel-Hamas war article or The Hamas attack article, it has already been raised multiple times in these articles that there is need to make child articles so that those articles do not become to long and burdensome. Furthermore, topic is of such repute that it is worthy per notability explanation above to be its own stand alone article.

Furthermore, this article deals with a specific event on a specific point of time, not the notion of fear from second holocaust. Indeed holocaust describes a different category of slaughter which would destroy or significantly wipe out part of the Jewish people. This is not the case here and therefore should not be merged with the article proposed for merger. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding here a list of sources, all different directly on the topic, to show notability used in the article:

^[1] The Atlantic

^[2] The Economist

^[3] Haaretz

^[4] Times of Israel

^[5] Genocide Watch

^[6] France 24

^[7] Times of Israel

^[8]Times of Israel

^[9] The Economist

^[10] Genocide Watch

^[11] The Australian

^[12] The Bulletin

^[13] Jerusalem Post

^[14] Engelsberg ideas

^[15] Time

^[16] Israel Hayom

^[17] The Wall Street Journal

^[18] The Jerusalem Post

^[19] The Jerusalem Post (United States Government referring to issue).

^[20] AFP, Barrons'

I think this is enough for notability, also included several renown newspapers such as WSJ, The Economist, Time in order to show international notability. Homerethegreat (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why this can't be covered Second Holocaust#Claims that Palestinians are committing genocide? VR _talk 23:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the following, I believe it was explained, Marokwitz provided an adequate answer in Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel#Merge into Second Holocaust. Furthermore, I also referred to that specific question in my answer, please read what I wrote above and also the other mentioned. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You said that this topic can't be merged into Second Holocaust because it doesn't deal with "destroy or significantly wipe out part of the Jewish people". But the very definition of genocide is to attempt to destroy a group of people "in whole or in part". VR _talk 23:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This mess of pottage is a very obvious POV end run around the earlier deletion discussion; if the parent Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis could not survive AfD, how can a subtopic of it? Furthermore..never mind. Selfstudier (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nominator's deletion reasons are not aligned with our deletion policy.

Policy requires that we evaluate this subject for notability on its individual merits - AFD for another article is irrelevant.
Any concerns regarding WP:SYNTH or other content disputes can and should be addressed through editing, not deletion.

The topic of the article is undeniably notable through direct coverage in reliable and secondary sources. Here are just a few examples demonstrating the notability of this topic:

Israeli families bring genocide complaint against Hamas to ICC reported by Al Jazeera.
How the term “genocide” is misused in the Israel-Hamas war from The Economist.
Hamas has genocidal intentions against Israel - White House, reported by The Jerusalem Post.
Hamas's Genocidal Intentions Were Never a Secret by Bruce Hoffman, published in The Atlantic.
9 bereaved Israeli families bring ICC war crime, genocide complaint against Hamas. The Times of Israel.

These sources are not only reputable but also directly relevant to the topic at hand without any original synthesis. They provide significant coverage and come from reliable outlets, fulfilling the criteria for notability as per WP:GNG. Marokwitz (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some Israelis filing papers at the ICC, which anyone can do, is not even news. The Palestinian genocide accusation was a well sourced reality before the current indiscriminate bombing of Gaza and that is why it survived AfD and the ridiculous Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis did not, and neither should this. The Hamas attack constitutes war crimes no doubt and that is covered at War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war otherwise one attack does not a genocide make, this is just an invented topic with no real history until October 7. Selfstudier (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Palestinian genocide accusation also widely refers to events from 7 October onwards. I honestly find it confusing, on the one hand some editors say there should be sources only from after 7 October, others suggest from before 7 October, I'm finding it absurd. I understand this is a hot and notable topic. Please read the sources presented and familiarize yourself with the topic. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Start Over -- this topic as stated last time is irretrievably NPOV as long as it does not include both sides of this conflict. For every source about one side's atrocities, there is one about the other's. It is unencyclopaedic to take sides and give WP:UNDUE weight to one viewpoint. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is contradictory. By suggesting to start over, you are acknowledging the notability of the page's topic, therefore it should be kept, and any issues addressed through content edits. Marokwitz (talk) 10:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, quite the opposite. My objections are not based on WP:GNG. As I stated, the focus of the article as it stands is irretrievably biased. It is, imo, literally impossible to write an NPOC article with a one-sided, islamophobic title. It could be encyclopaedic if you WP:TNT and build an article about claims of genocide across the Israeli-Hamas conflict. I chose not to use the TNT tag because someone objected in another AfD, claiming that it was inappropriate in the context of the mutual atrocities on both sides. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best article that we can compare this to is the Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian War. I will note the current article is actually modeled partially on the above per consistency and precedent. The Russians also claim that Ukraine is commiting genocide against Russians in the Donbas see Accusations of genocide in Donbas. In the Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians it is focused on Russian actions, international response, academic discourse etc... There is its own article, whilst Russian accusations have there own article. Therefore there is precedent. I will also mention that there are other specific item allegation Wikipedia articles such as Palestinian Genocide Accusation, should it be combined with a wide article on genocide accusations in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? As I recall it I actually tried to advance such a scheme in this particular however it was rejected and therefore it is article per topic. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any time we have articles that focus on a conflict, behaviour or attitude from a single side, we enable bigotry. In this case, the accusations of genocidal behaviour and policies are rampant, from and towards all sides. In such a situation, imho, it both unwise and against NPOV to have single-sided articles. Last1in (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You say: "the accusations of genocidal behaviour and policies are rampant". Yes, exactly. Such claims appear in multiple RS, and they are well founded. This is the reason for the page to exist. My very best wishes (talk) 05:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all the sourcing appears to be opinion pieces and light press articles. I don’t see any reputable scholars of genocide or large human rights groups making this claim. Perhaps this will change with time, but until it does the article in its current form is unsuitable. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are two options here: either you didn't read the article, or you think all the scholars of genocide cited in the article are not reputable, including Gregory H. Stanton , Israel Charny, Niall Ferguson , Stephen D. Smith among others. Marokwitz (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Article on very notable topic and sourced. Any potential issues of SYNTH can be addressed. Dovidroth (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia:Notability per homerethegreat, WP:GNG per Marokwitz. Eladkarmel (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Homerethegreat. \\ Loksmythe // (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced article with clear notability. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clear notability per Homerethegreat and Marokwitz Justanotherguy54 (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable and is a well organised article. LuxembourgLover (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "the term does not necessarily signify mass killings"... The allegations, although depend on the definition (as almost any genocide allegations), are significant enough. Also per Homerethegreat. פעמי-עליון (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason has been presented to delete, this article. Coretheapple (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A needless WP:NOTNEWS spinoff that will inevitably have to be cleaned up in a few years if kept. The content is definitely worth being included in other articles, but doesn't warrant a standalone entry. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant international coverage by reliable sources that refer directly to the topic, including the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, France 24 and many others - which estalishes clear WP:Notability. Noon (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect, but don't know to which target. Andre🚐 21:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrevan: how about Second_Holocaust#Claims_that_Palestinians_are_committing_genocide? VR _talk 05:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Andre🚐 05:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nop, that would be inappropriate. This page is about Hamas (rather than Palestinian people) committing genocide. That's why the deleted page Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis was actually on a different subject. Please keep this page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article cites notable scholars with relevant expertise (such as genocide studies or international criminal law), who believe that the action of Hamas constituted genocide. Wikipedia should report the existence of the views of those scholars. I think there is too much relevant sourced detail to merge this to some other article. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't believe there is any issue with WP:SYNTH in this article, as it is well-sourced and I think it just doesn't fit under that rule, but any concerns one has about OR in the article can make comments on the talk page about editing revisions to the page, and does not have to advocate for the entire deletion of the page. It's not WP:TOOSOON either, because the war has been going on for well over 2 months now and there's enough concrete evidence and analysis by RS to use in an article. EytanMelech (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The use of "genocide" to describe things that are not genocidal is problematic. Wiki's policy is to reflect reliable sources, so I'm not currently voting either way, but it feels like every group is calling things genocide to cut through social-media noise, and it's problematic. Drsmoo (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are several definitions of "genocide". Your argument relies on using one of them and ignoring the others. Popular definitions emphasise the idea of industrial scale mass murder; some scholarly and legal definitions are much broader, and include as "genocide" actions on significantly smaller scales, and even actions which don't involve killing anyone at all. Arguments that the Hamas attack was genocide are relying on those broader scholarly and legal definitions, not the much narrower popular one. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't imagine Drsmoo would be moved in his belief that the term 'genocide' is over-applied with a reminder that the term is sometimes applied to cases that do not match a stricter definition of genocide. Zanahary (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is well established that Hamas is genocidal (by the “old definition”) in intent. However, there is a kind of inverse “euphemism treadmill” where every group wants to be the loudest and to do so jumps to the worst name possible to get the attention of an increasingly jaded populace. Eventually a new word will be used for the old definition, rinse repeat. It is well established that Hamas committed crimes against humanity, per what would be the old terminology. Words change meaning, genocide already seems to be broadly redefined to the new meaning in any case. Drsmoo (talk) 04:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the evidence for them being genocidal is based on things that are deliberately out of context, e.g. threats of violence that leave out, "if Israel don't stop (some specific injustice) we will…" to look like the violence itself is the goal for it's own sake. Irtapil (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or just years out of date.Irtapil (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point is the broader definition is the original one. Raphael Lemkin coined the word "genocide" in his 1944 book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, and he included as examples of genocide the Nazi attempts to suppress French and Dutch culture; the 1948 Genocide Convention's definition is narrower than Lemkin's, but still a lot broader than the popular definition. Most people who argue from the narrower popular definition are doing so in ignorance of the fact that the broader definitions are older and more authoritative. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First of all, the nominator did not provide any valid justification for deletion. This is not a recreation. The "Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis" (see last version) was on entirely different subject and had almost no overlap with this page. Secondly, this page is legitimate because (a) it is about the crime by terrorist organization Hamas (rather than by Palestinian people), (b) this subject has significant coverage in news and other sources, and (c) the page is well sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly parts of that could be salvaged to improve this article. Irtapil (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic is a bit weird. Are they terrorists or are they doing a genocide? Those ideas are almost mutually exclusive. Terrorism and genocide come from opposite directions, like the residents of Lodz ghetto hurling Molotov cocktails and other improv explosives at Nazis in 1943. Irtapil (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are making strange point. Yes, they are terrorists and they were making genocide in Israel. Exactly. This is nothing special. Consider Armenian genocide. Was not it a form of Terror (politics) designed to terrorize the population? Did not the attack by Hamas serve the same purpose? See RS [24] My very best wishes (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Homerethegreat. I'll now also need to create a translation of this article to Russian and perhaps Ukrainian, to improve it's resilience from deletion with no valid reason. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and Arabic. Irtapil (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon; synth. There's way too many different narratives and concepts being written regarding this fresh conflict. We don't know yet what will be notable. Zanahary (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mostly per sources provided by u:Homerethegreat. I have sympathy with the view expressed by some editors that a lot of extreme terms are applied to this conflict and that a lot of sources are newspaper articles. However, as long as we cover ongoing events, and as long as we have the current RS policy, I believe that this is inevitable. Also, u:Marokwitz has provided some scholarly opinions. Alaexis_¿question? 07:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely insignificant subject and weak sourcing, meant to push a narrative. WP:ARTN also applies. Salmoonlight (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the accusation is significant, the accusation is being used to justify a real genocide (or at the very least ethnic cleansing) that is currently a very high risk, imminent, or actively in progress. Plenty of dangerously terrible ideas need good wiki articles, e.g. the Great Replacement theory, the Love jihad conspiracy theory, and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This current topic probably needs a better Wikipedia article, but deleting this article definitely won't help. Irtapil (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sources presented by Homerethegreat. François Robere (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - It is important to keep this article to put the accusations in the proper perspective and historical context. Obviously the allegations massively stretch the "or in part" section of the definition of genocide (and the evidence for "with the intent to" is spurious). BUT the story is that there are accusations and not that any reasonable unbiased person would describe this event as "genocide" or even an "attempted genocide" - especially in light of 1948 to 2023-10-06 and 2023-10-09 until the present moment. Irtapil (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; insufficiently notable for encyclopedic coverage, rife with POV and OR issues (i.e., suitable for TNT at best), WP:TOOSOON, big WP:SOAPBOX/NOTADVOCACY energy overall. Taking an exceptionally generous approach, maybe parts of it could be merged into a new article on Crimes against humanity in the 2023 Israel–Hamas War, for example, or another suitable merger/redirect target. WillowCity^(talk) 18:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is an already an article on war crimes in the 2023 Israel-Hamas war for the things that Hamas and their allies actually did do that day (like taking civilian hostages).

I think the genocide accusation article needs to stay separate, to put the genocide accusations in their proper context and perspective, it needs to exist for the same reason as climate denial or the great replacement theory or holocaust denial or AIDS denial or any of the other dangerously dubious ideas that need good Wikipedia articles about them.

I think bits of this current article are salvageable to create a good article on that concept. Possibly combined with bits of another deleted article somebody mentioned above. If we keep deleting it, new bad articles will keep popping up. It would be better to turn it into a good article.

If we expand the scope it could be exaggerated claims about Hamas in which we could include "40 beheaded babies" (which was actually 40 civilians under 18, one of whom was possibly beheaded, which is still awful, but not "40 beheaded babies") and "alleged similarity to ISIS" (when they actually hate ISIS, like most other Muslims do, and arrested multiple people in Gaza with alleged connections to or sympathies for ISIS). Or something that includes accusations made against Israelis in the current war the are proven false, like that the truck loads of blindfolded men were lined up and shot.

But it could be better to keep this separate, because "40 beheaded babies" was factually false, whereas the "October 7 Genocide" claim is much more subjective.

Or possibly put the focus back to the prior article which was "Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis" (meaning the one i already linked above - I'm not sure that redirect is really appropriate) because I suspect the current rhetoric of "they are trying to wipe us out, so we need to do it to them first" is a dangerous reoccurring theme and continually just deleting articles that pop up to push that agenda is massively counter-productive.

Irtapil (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Irtapil This is a really interesting point. But can it be done based on existing sources, or do you expect that other sources will emerge exploring Israeli use of mirror politics? This proposed shift in direction is intriguing, but the underlying topic is already seriously lacking in terms of WP:SIGCOV, and OR/SYNTH (or repeated attempts at such) are rampant on this page. If you are aware of sources treating this allegation as a dangerous and discredited propaganda tool, I'd be interested to see them for my own edification. WillowCity^(talk) 02:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not see a problem with the sourcing. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this page has few redeeming features: the page is more a mausoleum of rhetoric from marginal figures than it is a serious topic in its own right - much of it would be more fitting in a reactions section or page about the conflict. The structure seems improvised and the article is replete with synth (less so after a cull). Even if it were to be deemed worthy as a standalone topic per WP:PAGEDECIDE (and that I doubt, since the context of the statements is everything and thus it makes more sense contextualised), this rendition would not be it. This is a WP:TNT affair. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claims that this is not a valid deletion reason are bizarre; the nomination statement makes sense and does not appear to violate any policy I can think of. The information here should clearly be dealt with on articles it is related to, such as Hamas, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, and 2023 Israel–Hamas war, where appropriate. -- asilvering (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH. The existence of the article itself seems to imply that the allegations themselves have notability, but the article is just a bunch of people making those allegations. None of the sources do any analysis to establish why this topic deserves its own article. I still don't know why people think Wikipedia is a place to propagandize but the bias in this article is obvious. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 11:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Marokwitz, Dovidroth and homerethegreat. Notable topic, well sourced by mainstream media. Noon (talk) 12:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is clearly a notable topic and well source. I don't feel the nomination statement is supported by the content of the two articles with the old, now deleted, 'Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis' article focusing on a different subject to this one. If people feel there are issues with this article then they should to be fixed not purged. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 13:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; clearly notable subject per Homerethegreat and others. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a blatant SYNTH violation. There is maybe one source discussing this as a topic. This is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamas and the Taliban analogy, where people were collecting sources making such an analogy and then constructing a topic about the analogy. But those sources did not cover the topic, they were the topic. Here, there are sources discussing genocidal intent in Hamas's original charter (and every source that pre-dates the attack is obviously SYNTH in an article about accusations about the attack), sources saying that the attack was an act of genocide, and those are the subject of the article, not sources covering the subject, and a few sources covering academics saying it was an act of genocide, and that would be a secondary source about the topic. But that last chunk is the smallest chunk in the sources, and they dont establish this as a notable topic. This belongs as a section in the article on the attack, as those sources are secondary sources discussing that topic. But here, this is mostly cobbled together with a. sources that should not be used (all of them published prior to the attack), and b. what are primary sources here (the ones making the accusation themselves). nableezy - 20:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, lets take a look at that supposedly impressive list of sources. #2, The Economist. The only place it says "genocide" is where it says As a share of Israel’s population, it is equivalent to 12 September 11th attacks—a daily mortality rate exceeded only by full-scale wars, genocides or natural disasters. That is not an accusation Hamas committed genocide on 7 October. That is, apparently, the result of somebody googling "genocide Hamas October 7" and then not reading the results before posting them here. So for the people claiming the list of sources support the article, did you even read those sources? nableezy - 13:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Yet another WP:CFORK in this exaggeratedly contentious topic area. Per Nableezy I don't think there's a lot of actual content of the article we should keep and I support that it be merged into Second Holocaust. This article is just another name-calling WP:SYNTH amalgamation. There's little more in this page other than "X said this". Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike Second Holocaust, this page is about crimes committed during the specific operation by Hamas, i.e. 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. The important and significant well sourced materials from this page are only briefly mentioned on page "Second Holocaust". One might reasonably argue this page should be renamed to something like "War crimes by Hamas during 2023 attack on Israel". However, an outright deletion of this page would be wrong. My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Already exists. However we really needed to have an article of the same thing but calling what the opposing side did a genocide, because that's the trend now. An absolute insult to actual genocides such as that of the Armenians or the Holocaust. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there's significant synthesis and recentism here. There may be scope for expanding Second Holocaust#Claims that Palestinians are committing genocide but it is not appropriate at this time to accumulate a list of lots of different public statements by lawyers, politicians, opinion columnists and so forth. A topic like this (which should start more broadly, like Allegations of genocide by Hamas) would need to be grounded in academic journals, books and sources that summarise different factions/ideological viewpoints, rather than ourselves choosing out of the many thousands of quotes by public figures on Israel and Palestine that are verifiable. — Bilorv (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Hoffman, Bruce (2023-10-10). "Understanding Hamas's Genocidal Ideology". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2023-12-07.
^ "Hamas's attack was the bloodiest in Israel's history". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2023-12-07.
^ "Deadly Hamas Rampage Constitutes 'International Crime of Genocide,' Hundreds of Legal Experts Say". Haaretz. Retrieved 2023-12-07.
^ WINER, STUART (15 October 2023). "Hamas actions are war crimes, could constitute genocide – international law experts". Times of Israel.
^ Watch, Genocide (2023-10-18). "Legal Experts: Hamas committed War Crimes, Genocide". genocidewatch. Retrieved 2023-12-07.
^ "Israeli families bring war crime complaint to ICC: lawyer". France 24. 2023-11-03. Retrieved 2023-12-07.
^ AFP, TOI STAFF (3 November 2023). "9 bereaved Israeli families bring ICC war crime, genocide complaint against Hamas". Times of Israel.
^ Even Khen, Hilly Moodrick (30 October 2023). "Israel is not committing genocide in Gaza: An international legal perspective". Times of Israel.
^ "How the term "genocide" is misused in the Israel-Hamas war". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2023-12-07.
^ "Holocaust & Genocide Scholars condemn Oct 7 Hamas Massacre". genocidewatch. Genocide Watch. 2023-10-25. Retrieved 2023-12-07.
^ "Hamas 'Intending nothing less than a second holocaust'. Neil Fergusson". The Australian. 12 December 2023.
^ "Hamas 'Intending nothing less than a second holocaust'. Neil Fergusson". The Australian. 12 December 2023.
^ "Can the Hamas Oct. 7 massacre be compared to the Holocaust? - opinion". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. 2023-10-29. Retrieved 2023-12-11.
^ "Hamas' genocidal massacre on October 7 has deep historical roots". Engelsberg ideas (in Swedish). Retrieved 2023-12-11.
^ "Finding Common Ground Between Israelis and Palestinians". TIME. 2023-12-08. Retrieved 2023-12-11.
^ Avraham, Rachel (22 November 2023). "Denying October 7 must be condemned worldwide". www.israelhayom.com. Retrieved 2023-12-11.
^ Ahmed, Qanta A. (2023-11-10). "Opinion | The Scenes of Genocide I Saw in Israeli Morgues". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2023-12-11.
^ "Son of Hamas co-founder: Death penalty for October 7 massacre terrorists". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. 2023-11-30. Retrieved 2023-12-11.
^ "Hamas has genocidal intentions against Israel - White House". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. 2023-11-08. Retrieved 2023-12-11.
^ Presse, AFP-Agence France. "Israel, Palestinians Accuse Each Other Of 'Genocide' At UN". www.barrons.com. Retrieved 2023-12-11.

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uchana Amit[edit]

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

Non-notable Singer. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, India, and Haryana.
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO, with no sourcing other than Spotify streams. This is all I find, but it's basically a PR piece [25] Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uchana Amit is a notable Singer worked with Badshah here is his instagram ID for reference @theuchana, you can also check YouTube for his songs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parth1221 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that's promotional coverage, not valid here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources don't support this person as notable, plus article is written in a highly promotional nature. Ravensfire (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted most of the unsourced and promotional fluff and it really drives home the notability problem. No WP:SECONDARY sources with WP:SIGCOV of the article subject. Ravensfire (talk) 16:41, 13 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 03:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TVBully[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation. Issues have been left unaddressed since 2015. Sources is about the criticism of the TV network, nothing on the website at all except for a dead Facebook link.

A CSD would be worthier for this non-notable organization SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Organizations, and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Facebook groups are very rarely notable. Nate • (chatter) 19:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 12 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 23:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Identity (video game)[edit]

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

Had been dePRODded previously; nominated due to issues with general notability and lack of significant coverage. Sources do not assert notability, not even a single review. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only RS is around the Kickstarter funding, in the five years since release it's not had any coverage. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing is here showing this is any different than any other MMORPG. Fails WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 17:24, 12 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. Daniel (talk) 11:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Leach (trader)[edit]

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

Non-notable WP:BIO. In a WP:BEFORE search all I can find is a ton of self-promotional interviews and obvious paid placement, including deprecated sources like WP:THESUN and WP:DAILYEXPRESS, but also the cited "contributor" article from WP:FORBESCON, and the Bangkok Post interview cited here which is at least clearly marked as PR. His charity work has only routine local newspaper coverage. The rest is passing mentions such as the Reuters and Huffpost articles cited about him joining charity fundraisers, articles written by him, and unreliable sources like news blogs. Speedy deleted G11 once at Samuel leach (created by same editor), and this one is borderline.Wikishovel (talk) 11:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and England. Wikishovel (talk) 11:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed a fair amount of organic coverage on this individual:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/22143690/i-once-shared-one-room-with-my-dad/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/eladnatanson/2023/09/21/the-rise-of-the-smartphone-trader-experts-on-the-future-of-investment-apps/

https://www.express.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/1763562/fire-movement-early-retirement

https://www.manxradio.com/podcasts/manx-newscast/episode/in-conversation-with-celebrated-entrepreneur-samuel-leach/

https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/entrepreneur-has-big-plans-for-the-island-591649

https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/money/saving-and-banking/fire-savers-regret-save-salary-wife-leave-me-2300748

https://techround.co.uk/interviews/a-chat-with-samuel-leach-samuel-co-trading/

I got bored of pasting more, but there is a lot of coverage on this notable individual. Autocorrectgods (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are in unreliable sources (The Sun), Forbes is a contributor piece, so also not notable. Rest are promotional or PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is typical [26], PR-ish coverage. Nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-Notable, almost all references are blog types (Interviews, promotional content, trading services). Kkb091 (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have semi'ed this to avoid disruption pending the SPI. Star Mississippi 02:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Created by a sock of User:Abbasshaikh124 but enough other editors have worked on the article that I don't think it is eligible for CSD G5. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage consists of profiles and non-independent/insignificant coverage. Does not meet WP:NBIO. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 13:35, 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 delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Fenner[edit]

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

I cannot find any in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Fails to meet either WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. The only claim which comes close to satisfying CREATIVE is sourced to a press release. SmartSE (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. References are atrocious. No indication of signifance. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 15:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have researched him and Lincoln Fenner is actually an established director noted in Australia, the US and in the UK.

He is represented by the talent agency Imperial Artists Agency (IAA) London

https://www.imperialartistsagency.com/creatives

specifically:

https://www.imperialartistsagency.com/creatives?lightbox=dataItem-ki5v7aki

Articles refer to the person's film reputation in the US where film awards have been won in New York at the New York City International Film Festival.

I will add the following links to the page as well.

Please remove the marking for speedy deletion.

West Australian Newspaper (multiple articles)

https://thewest.com.au/entertainment/movies/more-4-fenner-ng-ya-330468

https://thewest.com.au/entertainment/movies/more-4-perth-director-ng-ya-152176

https://thewest.com.au/entertainment/movies/us-nod-for-wa-movie-ng-ya-157991

Perth Now publication

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa/wa-film-stars-turn-out-for-annual-wa-screen-awards-at-astor-theatre-ng-7a65b9849f71e24dc6e145bd4c13a3db

IF (Independent Film)

https://if.com.au/more-4-me-wins-doco-award-at-new-york-city-international-film-festival/

https://if.com.au/the-australian-film-festival-returns-this-march/

https://if.com.au/the-25th-annual-wa-screen-awards-2013-nominees-announced/

https://if.com.au/wa-governor-endorses-more-4-me/

The Reel Bits

https://thereelbits.com/2012/01/05/3rd-australian-film-festival-offers-local-debuts-and-screenplay-competition/

Mumbrella

https://mumbrella.com.au/more-4-me-at-the-cannes-film-market-89341

Australian Film Festival

https://filmfestivals.com/blog/editor/3rd_australian_film_festival_swerves_into_action_for_2012

Screen Australia (government film body in Australia)

https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/the-screen-guide/p/lincoln-fenner/26807/

Laptop.org

http://blog.laptop.org/2011/07/24/more-4-me/ Giantwings770 (talk) 05:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC) — Giantwings770 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

this page should be retained given the number of significant citation references now added to the page. 124.170.46.63 (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since Fame Us fails NFILM and is about to be deleted, subject therefore fails NFILMAKER, as well as ANYBIO. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG, and the linkdump above does not remedy the issue of lack of significant coverage. Daniel (talk) 11:51, 19 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 The University of Nottingham Ningbo China as an ATD. Daniel (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DiversityUNNC[edit]

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

References are all primary, and I couldn't establish notability with Google. —Panamitsu (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, China, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect / delete. This could be redirected to The University of Nottingham Ningbo China per WP:ATD-R, but there are zero secondary sources so deletion is also acceptable. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 23:39, 18 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 11:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skye Aurelia[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:NMODEL or WP:BIO. Speedied G11 three times Draft:Skye Aurelia, but this one isn't eligible for speedy. WP:BEFORE search turned up passing mentions for modelling credits in WP:RS, but no significant secondary coverage - the best I can find is the Harper's Bazaar Serbia softball interview cited here, but an interview is a primary source. Wikishovel (talk) 10:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and Women. Wikishovel (talk) 10:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The most I can find is various fashion shoots. Non-notable individual. If the draft was deleted 3 times, that's a good hint that it's not notable. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Created by a sock of User:Abbasshaikh124 but I untagged it so its fate could be determined here in this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable biography . बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:24, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 11:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lacrima Dairy[edit]

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

Non-notable WP:CORP, no significant coverage online from reliable sources, only passing mentions found in business listings in a few languages. Original version was highly promotional, and there's a previous history of this from a blocked account a year ago: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LÀCRIMA DAIRY, and the accompanying article and draft history. Rather than bother with a SPI, it seemed better to clean it up and take it to AFD, but there's no real sign of notability here. Wikishovel (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and Bulgaria. Wikishovel (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same as the last two deletions, lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NCORP. I found no evidence of significant coverage in secondary sources. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:58, 19 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobic tropes[edit]

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

Unencyclopaedic topic. We don't make lists of possible views; the broader topic is covered at Islamophobia. Fermiboson (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Religion, and Islam. Fermiboson (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – we have similar articles on Antisemitic trope and Anti-LGBT rhetoric. The article is not exactly in ideal shape, but there's plenty to be expanded here. A quick search turns up a few pertinent articles:
- doi:10.1177/1461444816642169
- doi:10.1111/j.1467-8322.2011.00825.x
Also, Islamophobia is already near the upper size limit, so it makes sense to have a separate article for this topic. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 08:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with ~~Islamophobia~~ Islamophobia in the media (thanks, Significa liberdade!). True, the target is already a long article, but this small, specific section is not a good one for branching. Owen× ☎ 11:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If merged and/or redirected, I might recommend Islamophobia in the media rather than Islamophobia more generally. However, as Maddy from Celeste has noted, we have similar articles for other defamatory tropes. I have also included a quick list of articles that discuss Islamophobic tropes on the article's talk page. If we don't merge/redirect, I might recommend draftifying. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Islamophobia in the media: This may be a notable topic, but this is far from it and WP:TNT is sorely needed for this one. As it stands this fails WP:LISTN due to a lack of definable criteria. No prejudice towards someome else recreating this at a later date. Let'srun (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick check suggest that this topic meets WP:GNG when you include such common synonyms as "myths" and "anti-muslim". There exists enough sources that the article could be expanded from its current state (which is not good, but quality is not a good argument for deletion). I also think it makes sense to have a separate article for this, like Antisemitic trope and Anti-LGBT rhetoric. Sjö (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~ Keep per WP:BEFORE's criteria D4 -- I agree with the Keep !voters above that the article should exist, and the nomination seems very much in the category of WP:ZEAL (it came less than three hours after the initial creation). That said, this is not the article that needs to exist. At the moment, it is nothing more than a flat list of statements with no context or explanation, and there is no encyclopaedic treatment of the subject. Draftify will allow the editor to build it out and get assistance from others who might be willing to find Quality sources are out there. A casual glance at gScholar shows that the subject is widely discussed in academic literature [27], [28], [29]. A key term that editors may want to include is Orientalism, the precursor to Islamophobia. Also, there seems to be good secondary articles on such tropes in Buddhism ([30], [31], etc.)that could globalise the article. Cheers, ~~Last1in (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)~~ Last1in (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with draftifying; it is in mainspace that articles may develop. If we draftify, realistically, the only one who will know or care about the draft will be whoever created it. In mainspace, it will be more visible and thus will solicit improvements from a larger range of editors. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Per WP:BEFORE's D4, If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination (emphasis in original). I will change my !vote above. It does sorta raise the question of what Draftify is for, though. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article's talk page has a list of sources that may be used to expand the article.Sjö (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nom comment Without comment on the rest of the arguments, I resent the implication that this is a WP:ZEAL nomination. The article as it stands then and now is highly unencyclopaedic, and it was not clear what type of sources could be used. (I would argue it is still not clear, because the scope of the article is poorly defined. Trope and rhetoric are different things, and there's also the "by whom" question.) This is a highly contentious topic, one in which it could be argued that an unencyclopaedic entry is worse than having no entry. Someone who actually bothers to make an improvement can make a new article if it is needed, and in the meantime, letting the article as it currently is stay up unchanged because someone can hypothetically change it for the better is irresponsible (note that having an imperfect article is not an argument for deletion, but TNT is). If the AfD does close as keep without any improvement, I will probably be TNT stubifying the article. After all, if this was clearly inside ARBPIA, it'd have been db-gs'd centuries ago. Fermiboson (talk) 09:07, 12 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!} 08:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - I'm inclined to think that this is a worthy article for inclusion but I have no idea how it could be fairly written without WP:OR. Fwiw I disagree that this could/should be a redirect to an article about the media because the notion of a "trope" is that it has a life outside of the published media. JMWt (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article now is essentially the same as it was when nominated. Regardless of the outcome of this AfD, the nomination was appropriate and made in good faith. The accusation of WP:ZEAL is baseless. Owen× ☎ 11:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You do understand that WP:ZEAL has nothing to do with zealotry, right? It has to do with a rush to delete an article before we know whether it's worth keeping. A better name for it would be WP:OVERPROTECTIVE. There is nothing about bad faith in that entire guideline (nor intended in my use of it), just that some folks propose an article for deletion before editors have a chance to build it out. Anytime an article comes up for AfD a mere hours after creation, ZEAL is a reasonable part of the discussion. In this case, the article was (and is) labeled a stub, the nomination came three hours after the first post, and I feel that the subject does have valid scholarly sources as I linked above. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know exactly what WP:ZEAL is about, and I stand by my statement. Whether it was three hours or three months, if the article wasn't ready for main namespace, it should have been introduced in draftspace. The topic could have--and I believe should have--been developed inside the Islamophobia in the media article, and only spun off if and when its size and independent notability allowed for a standalone page. WP:ZEAL is an essay intended to discourage editors from nominating articles that haven't had a chance to get fleshed out. It is not an automatic waiver against nomination of pages less than X days old. Yes, ZEAL is indeed often part of the discussion when the nomination comes shortly after the article's creation, but that is not to say that it is always a reasonable part of the discussion. If the potential to mature into a viable article isn't apparent, article age is irrelevant, and a ZEAL accusation is unreasonable and unnecessarily antagonistic. Owen× ☎ 13:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, I made no accusations here, and there is no reason to be nasty about it. Until a few hours ago, this was a discussion on the merits of the article, not the editors. I found an AfD where (1) I easily located hundreds of quality RSs many of which could help make this a good article (I posted my WP:THREE), and (2) the AfD came three hours after the article's first post (which felt like -- still feels like -- overprotectiveness). Whether it should have started in draft space or not, AfD is not for cleanup and I felt Draftify was a good option. Maddy's point about draftifying an existing, mainspace article felt persuasive to me so I moved from Draftify to Keep. If this is is again going to devolve into insults and accusations, I'll take my leave. Thank you and good day. Last1in (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Not ready. A worthy topic gleaned from a list on CNN news. Needs expansion and explanation. See structure of Antisemitic trope and Anti-LGBT rhetoric. As is, this one is just a little list from a cable news outlet. — Maile (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Not mainspace ready. Needs more sourcing. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 19 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. Daniel (talk) 11:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wales Centre for Health[edit]

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

This short-lived agency only existed for four years (2005-2009). No sources are cited other than the laws that governed it. This article fails WP:ORGSIG since there is no outside coverage of it. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, United Kingdom, and Wales. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Institutions established by statute are generally notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:INHERITED, unless there is a policy related to agencies such as this. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INHERITED clearly does not apply here. Inherited from what? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Something is not inherently notable because of something else. "Institutions established by statute are generally notable" would be a claim of inherit notability. Industrial Insect (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're referring to inherent notability, not inherited notability! Different things. To reiterate, in general we have kept organisations, institutions and departments created by statute. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for mixing up the essay and policy. To clarify, I'm not advocating for deletion, I haven't done any research yet. However, as of yet, I agree with the nom that Wikipedia:ORGSIG has not been passed. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:42, 5 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!} 07:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Delete- The only 2 references listed are from the same website, one of which is about a health act & not the centre specificaly, neither of the two refs provide significant coverage of the centre. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've been watching this since the nom. and hoping someone else would find something, but as it is on the second relist, I've taken a fuller look. I am unimpressed by an argument that says "are generally notable." If this is notable, there will be sources. If there are no sources, it is unclear how any encyclopaedic page can be written. The nom specifically cites WP:ORGSIG which says No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is. So is this notable? I can't find sources talking about it. There is a touch more about the Welsh Health Common Services Authority which also has no page (not the same thing). There was a Welsh Centre for Rural Health and an institute for Health Informatics that were funded by Welsh Government but independent. There were a whole plethora of Welsh Health organisations over the years, all of which would be scraping the barrel to find their way beyond permastub status as pages. What is missing, I think, is some kind of page looking at the healthcare landscape in Wales. We have NHS Wales but that is largely the current situation. The Wales Centre for Health could be mentioned in an as yet unwritten page looking at the historical situation, but there is not notability for a page in its own right. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:12, 12 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 keep‎. Daniel (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CocoWalk[edit]

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

Small mall that lacks WP:SIGCOV DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Florida. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, the article is sparse at best but the actual place is a fairly significant shopping center in that area. Skroob (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Skroob (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

For the article to exist for 18 years...there's really nothing significant stated on it. – The Grid (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the existense of sources that meet SIGCOV guidelines.

Here are links I could find of sources to satisfy this significant coverage requirement. I am currently unable to add these to the article, but I will be sharing the links here.

https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/650904536

https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/article/the-miami-herald-cocowalk-property-1984/69726780/

https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/656236427

https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/657073065

https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/635805980

https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/642257530

https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/637566270 BurgeoningContracting 16:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The contributions where I have synthesized information from the sources into the article. BurgeoningContracting 04:47, 9 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!} 07:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Excellent sleuthing, BurgeoningContracting. Meets SIGCOV. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not agree that this article lacks significant coverage. From my perspective, there are sufficient reliable sources to support what is written in the article. ST7733B (talk) 23:46, 12 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 05:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rectifi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Only cites two sources, one of which is its website. Very little coverage available online DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing much beyond routine listings and passing mentions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It does not appear to have any notability Svartner (talk) 04:45, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 04:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trustix[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable Linux distribution with almost no reliable sources available DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Whpq and Ham Pastrami: Courtesy invitation to the active partcipants of the last AfD. Pavlor (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no sources to establish notability. Also delete its redir, Trustix Secure Linux. The non-admin AfD closure in 2008 was improper, and shouldn't be a factor now anyway. Owen× ☎ 20:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Although it did bring up two potential sources, one of which points to a third. They're not very good, in my view, having a whiff of a warmed-up press release about them, but we shouldn't be outright ignoring what was brought up, otherwise this is no better a discussion than last time. Uncle G (talk) 09:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails the relevant notability criteria (WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, WP:NSOFT). I couldn't find much of anything beyond the two sources mentioned in the previous AfD. This reads like churnalism/native advertising and while it may or may not be, the other reference being a routine coverage of an acquisition announcement is very specifically trivial coverage, and the only sources I could find outside of what was discussed in the previous AfD was coverage of the aquisition which again is trivial and does not contribute to notability. - Aoidh (talk) 03:55, 13 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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Eastern Eagles football team[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Lacks WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. This is not even a varsity team. It's a "club" team that played three games against "junior varsity" squads from three small colleges, losing two of those games. Cbl62 (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Honestly don’t remember making this, but it definitely is not notable under any circumstance. Especially with a Division III school. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is just a mirror of website content. killer bee  04:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV. User:Let'srun 17:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eastern Eagles football unless SIGCOV is found. Alvaldi (talk) 16:14, 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 delete‎. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Fifth Quarter (TV series)[edit]

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

Unsourced for over a decade, found no WP:SIGCOV online. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Previously prodded, but deprodded with the rationale: "8 seasons on national network may meet WP:NTV" ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, and Australia. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NTV is an essay which explicitly states that it is not an SNG. Without an SNG to provide additional guidance, we must use GNG. With little to no sourcing or coverage upon which one can judge notability, one must conclude that the subject is not notable. While having 8 seasons is certainly an accomplishment, that is insufficient in itself to prove notability. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can't make a credible delete argument relying solely on the current citations in the article. We also need to determine whether there are other sources out there. WP:NTV suggests that, for a show with this profile, we're likely to find something. ~Kvng (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kvng: Add sourcing to the article showing notability then ping me. I note that of the two online sources below, the one from The Age is a recap of the previous night's episode and the Sydney Morning Herald is a single paragraph that boils down to "These are the hosts." That is not the kind of extensive coverage required to show notability. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Below is some of the coverage that is out there. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Duffbeerforme, can you or @Cunard please find URLs for the refs below you mentioned, so that I can put the refs in the article freely. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 01:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Devlyn, Darren (30 June 2004), "Ten goals in Fifth Quarter", Herald Sun

"The Fifth Quarter has consistently topped the 200,000-viewer mark in Melbourne, a significant achievement given its graveyard timeslot."

Epstein, Jackie (18 April 2004), "Flying high in the fifth quarter", Sunday Herald Sun

Wilson, Caroline (11 March 2004), "Ten prepares for football, the extended version - FOOTBALL", The Age

Short what's coming

The Age

The Sydney Morning Herald

Capsual comment from Bernard Zuel

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear from more editors plus an assessment of recently identified sources in this discussion (if they are accessible online).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources for the article. I agree with user Jkudlick that this stub is just an essay. killer bee  05:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No Sources, even if it was notable enough for a few articles it barely makes an article. If anyone cares enough about this topic to re-open the article in the future then they can do so. Tooncool64 (talk) 04:43, 19 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 06:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Quist[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC with no chart activity or third-party coverage. Article has remained in its current state since 2006 creation. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that the article fails WP:NMUSIC. Doing some research reveals some sources but none of them are sufficient to pass. She has a song that has a quarter of a million listens on Spotify which would lean the article more towards passing but there's simply not enough media coverage. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 03:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I am not very familiar with WP:NMUSIC but after trying to find sources for this article, I think she may meet notability. She performs and/or records with two Grammy Award winners, Kitarō and Bobby McFerrin, and is a long-time collaborator with the latter. I did not add this to the article but saw in several sources that she is also in a band with a member of the rock band Heart. She also composed music for both Cirque du Soleil and an Emmy nominated film. Does this fit WP:NMUSIC? Rublamb (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Described as an electro-Balkan meets New age artist in some sources, but all are streaming sites, social media, then non-RS. There just isn't enough in RS to keep the article. Having a large number of streams on a certain platform isn't notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think I have solved the coverage issue with non-social media sources. Rublamb (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have found and added enough secondary sources to convince me of notability. Rublamb (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for searching. However, these don't really establish notability. The Albuquerque Journal is a passing mention, both Taos News articles and Corvallis Gazette are promotional pieces for upcoming shows, and Rock at Night doesn't appear to be a reliable source. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 07:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Perhaps you did not read the "About" page for Rock at Night Magazine. It used to be a print publication and is writen by staff journalists. From its website: "Covering globally, but concentrated in the United States, United Kingdom, and Europe, Rock At Night is dedicated to professional journalism and photography, publishing news daily, in its website and many social media formats." Thus, this is a reliable secondary source. Rublamb (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful to get more opinions about recently added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. killer bee  05:04, 12 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. Daniel (talk) 02:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pentaapeirogonal tiling[edit]

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

Subject is not notable. I cannot find mention of it in either of the sources, nor the external links. A search for more sources turns up no mentions in any reliable sources. Admittedly the topic is difficult to search for since it is unlikely to be called the "Pentaapeirogonal tiling". It's more likely to be referred to by symbol or diagram, which are difficult to search for. It is however unlikely that this receives any significant note, because it doesn't appear to have any unique properties among the uniform tilings of the hyperbolic plane. All the properties in the article are pretty trivially derived from its Coxeter-Dynkin diagram.

It would be better served as a single entry in a list of uniform tilings if any of these properties could even be sourced. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge with Uniform_tilings_in_hyperbolic_plane. Seems this is related with uniform tilings so probably can be moved there. killer bee  05:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not merge. There are literally infinitely many uniform hyperbolic tilings and there is no evidence that this one has any independent notability. Everything in this article is generic properties of all such tilings, original research, or both. This tiling is literally never mentioned in either of our article's two supposed references, nor even in either of its two external links. No other sources are available: the word "Pentaapeirogonal" does not have any hits in Google Scholar and web searching finds only copied Wikipedia content, so it appears to be a neologism. Without sourced content there is nothing to merge. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The naming "Pentaapeirogonal tiling" is consistent with a naming scheme used by Jonathan Bowers and Richard Klitzing, which both self-publish a lot of info on uniform polytopes. My guess is that either Tom Ruen got it from them, or they from Tom Ruen. I don't think that changes the substance of your comment though. Without a reliable source it falls under the policy of neologisms. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I completely agree with David Eppstein. jraimbau (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Uniform tilings in hyperbolic plane: per nom and K6bee9. This is an excellent stub, but unlike Tetrapentagonal tiling, Pentapentagonal tiling or Pentahexagonal tiling, notability of the term isn't enough for a separate article. Owen× ☎ 15:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Delete per David Eppstein, after a closer look at the references. Owen× ☎ 20:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot merge anything without sources for the content we merge. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right. It seems the references were bulk-copied from the other tiling articles, typos and all - Chaim Goodman-Strauss is consistently misspelled as "Strass" in all 160+ tiling articles that reference Conway et al.. I fixed some of those; probably a job more suited for a bot. We should probably check all those pages to see which are actually covered by the book. Changing to Delete. Owen× ☎ 20:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@OwenX: Have you heard of WP:AWB? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea; thank you! Owen× ☎ 21:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done; 176 pages fixed. Owen× ☎ 22:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Sadly, it is likely to be much more difficult to determine which of those 176 pages legitimately reference some content to that book and which are like this one, a reference that does not actually cover any article content. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not merge — there aren't any sources that can support an article and nothing in the page as it stands can be merged anywhere, per basic policy. A merge, even to a line in a table somewhere, would violate WP:V and WP:NOR. XOR'easter (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per David Eppstein killer bee  04:41, 13 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 keep‎. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial Acres, California[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Non-notable location with little information found. Satellite image of coordinates does show a cluster of small buildings surrounded by desert, suggesting this may be a populated place; however, without any legal recognition, it fails WP:GEOLAND. All mentions found have been passing, confirming that this is a place, but without further information nothing can be said. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers.com brings up a 1977 legal notice mentioning To that portion of the unincorporated area generally known as Aerial Acres .... Another reference to it from 1985 as a development between Mojave and Rosemond. Several passing mentions to things being located there or occurring there refer to Aerial Acres, Edwards or Aerial Acres, North Edwards, suggesting that this development is a locale within or related to Edwards, California or North Edwards, California. The book Gem Trails of Southern California by one James R. Mitchell has this as a "small group of homes and trailers". I'm struggling to find any sort of significant history for this site; the indications I am seeing are of this location as an informal housing development. Hog Farm _Talk 03:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND and the legal notice above. बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there are 50-60 homes clumped together in some sort of old development. Aerial Acres is now a scruffy-looking place deep in the middle of nowhere. Our article says it's supposedly a "fly-in community" but I see no sign of airplanes or a runway when looking at Google Earth^[32] I don't want to hurt any residents' feelings but Aerial Acres is a bleak, unpromising place. Google Street View is even bleaker: desert, dust, dirt roads and occasional yard plantings. There's a high-power rocketry range on the edge of town.^[33] The only store is "The Mothership", a second-hand shop; the name makes sense since Aerial Acres looks like the sort of isolated place where alien abductions occur.
As for "keep" or "delete", recent AfD decisions for obscure California locations have been inconsistent. !voters have kept places with no historically mapped indication of habitation and deleted other places with 500 residents. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- They are only inconsistent when one applies totally wrongheaded and daft (given how the encyclopaedia would turn out if everyone applied them) standards like what your subjective opinion is of what the place looks like in Google Earth. If you keep doing it wrong, you're going to keep being the outlier that thinks that everyone else is being inconsistent, when it's actually simply you that's doing it wrong and being inconsistent with subjective measures, over and over and over. Hog Farm has the right approach: research, not subjective personal opinions of Google Earth images. Research would tell you, for starters, that the whole "fly-in" thing is a red herring added by Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs), and that the source that xe cited says no such thing. Uncle G (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Old topo maps give additional information; 32 US Geological Survey maps give time slices of this place's physical history over the last 108 years.
    I would argue that failure to consult these and current satellite imagery is, in fact, "totally wrongheaded and daft", especially when these resources are highly reliable and readily available.
    As for "my subjective opinion", when I count houses, I'd say that's hardly subjective.
    Note that I don't say "fly-in" community is a basis for notability -- in fact I used visual evidence and old maps to debunk the assertion.
    As for "keep" or "delete", I have not cast a !vote -- I've simply presented information.
    So, @Uncle G, aside from taking potshots at me, what's your take on this place? And why? What are your sources? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - A.B., the basic problem is that you're trying to judge this stuff almost entirely off of maps, which just doesn't work. Try Martensdale, California - a notable former community in this county which does not show up on maps. Same with Dubuque, Arkansas, which I wrote awhile back and have struggled to find a map showing the community on it. Meanwhile, a large number of AFDs have held that routine HOA developments/subdivisions/housing tracts without any sort of formal recognition or significant coverage in reliable sources do not warrant a separate article, and those sort of things would appear on maps or when counting houses. Count of houses does not lead to notability - what leads to notability is the history and coverage of the area in RS. Review of maps is often helpful (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intake, Inyo County, California where map review solved a rather odd situation) but we can't just judge notability based on maps or structure counts. It is rather arbitrary to try to judge notability by how much seeming was/is there from a map perspective, and is frankly a form of original research. Hog Farm _Talk 20:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hog Farm, I don’t know if this place is notable or not. I do think maps, photography and satellite imagery should be part of the mix in evaluating these places. My instincts tell me this place is probably not notable but I want to see what other information turns up here. Looking at old maps, this place grew up with Edwards AFB - it may have been a failed development. There are multiple unbuilt, unused roads. We’ll see. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        No. Giving us your subjective opinion and then even worse asking us for our subjective opinions too, and not even checking whether "fly-in" is true by simply applying the verifiability policy and seeing that the source said no such thing and that Carlossuarez46 just added that conclusion taken from thin air (which I've seen done in many Carlossuarez46 substubs, alas) are utterly the wrong approach to content. Uncle G (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - And you're still getting it wrong. "My take" from looking at Google Earth or aerial photographs isn't how to construct an article. The only use of looking at maps is to tell us what to look for when the article doesn't even say, or when we know that Carlossuarez46 just pulled things out of a hat when dumping GNIS data, and sometimes to check that a source found is talking about the same place and not another place by the same name. Uncle G (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Hog Farm, except that a Rand McNally commercial atlas puts this under the umbrella of California City, California, and other things just give this as a prose list of minor residential places that are "rural and low-population density" in the Antelope Valley. Rand McNally says ("RMC Place") that this is simply an entry in the California Rivers and Mountains Conservancy database and points to California City ("incl. with California City (Inc. Place)") for details. I think that we should follow the Rand McNally lead and redirect to California City, California. Uncle G (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Uncle G, I’m confused. You criticized me above for using decades worth of USGS topo maps plus satellite imagery with strong language like ”totally wrongheaded and daft”. Now you’re using a Rand McNally atlas? What’s up with that? —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I'm using its gazetteer, which has Rand McNally's description, in words, which I even quoted outright right in front of your nose there, not a subjective analysis of "scruffy-looking place deep in the middle of nowhere" or "I see no sign of airplanes or a runway". Do you really not understand the difference between your own subjective guesswork and consulting an authoritative source? Asking me for my subjective guesswork instead of what I read in a source shows that you are still utterly wrongheaded here. We don't do this. It's daft. Think about what would happen if everyone evaluated subjects this way.
    We don't know what the thing is. We know from long experience that Carlossuarez46 just made up things, perhaps helpfully intended (in the knowledge that "unincorporated community" is meaningless when you are saying it in hundreds of thousands of data-dump articles) but still outright made up from whole cloth. So the obvious approach is not to squint at photographs and guess and tell us how something is "bleak" and "scruffy", but to consult a gazetteer. They tell us what things on maps are.
    Uncle G (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep. I'm inclined to keep unless there's a better argument to fold it into something else. I'm not sure if this lies within the North Edwards, California CDP, but there are definitely references to "Aerial Acres" as its own community. There was a local newspaper, not online, called the Boron Enterprise, that i see a reference to being the only paper that cared about Aerial Acres and other local communities. Total aside, i must also give props to A. B., for his color commentary "I don't want to hurt any residents' feelings but Aerial Acres is a bleak, unpromising place....the name makes sense since Aerial Acres looks like the sort of isolated place where alien abductions occur."--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The discussion here is very interesting but I see fewer editors have weighed in with an opinion on what should happen with this article. We have two rather weak Keeps, a Delete and a Redirect suggestion. I'm not counting "votes", just stating where consensus stands right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G, so why is one Rand McNally gazetteer more reliable than decades worth of USGS maps? That's repeated aerial photogrammetry and goundtruthing by an American federal agency. Is all this not from "an authoritative source" as you put it?

Is it just because the United States Geological Survey presents data graphically and Rand McNally uses prose?

As I wrote previously: "I do think maps, photography and satellite imagery should be part of the mix in evaluating these places.". Each AfD is a puzzle to solve and we all bring different pieces.

And as for my language like "scruffy" which you still make such a big deal of, what Milowent already observed as "color commentary", I put that stuff in for fun. A sanctionable violation of some obscure WP:PG?

I continue to think this is just a very old subdivision.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3 more comments:

I’m not finding much official guidance specifically about using maps as sources. There is WP:GOOGLEMAPS with which I agree. Nothing much from WP:RSN either, at least not for high quality maps (I’m using a mobile device so I may be missing something on WP:RSN).
WP:MAPCITE is very good however it is an essay. I think my usage of maps is in line with the essayist’s views on maps.
I will note that Google Earth images are reliable however all the labels they associate with the image are very unreliable and should never be used. Perhaps they use GNIS?

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~. Not notable. I am agnostic as to which target to use -- three reasonable possibilities have been presented (Edwards, California, North Edwards, California California City, California) and I'll support what others here decide.

Notability (geographic features)#Settlements and administrative regions says one of these can make a populated place notable:

"Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low."

This is not a legally recognized place.

"Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources."

I'm not seeing anything that meets GNG. Not even alien abductions.

If something comes up to establish notability, ping me -- I may be traveling this week. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I made a comment on the "Boron History" page on facebook asking about news coverage of Aerial Acres and got this response: "Not much is written about Aerial Acres from what I found in old clippings it was known as "Poor Man's Paradise" Aerial Acres was made up of homesteads established somewhere between 1916 to 1918, (this was before North Edwards was developed. It did have a small airstrip at one time. Aerial Acres was part of California City and annexed in the late 1980's/ early 1990's and it went back to Kern County and California City got Wonder Acres."--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again. After User:Milowent's latest comment, I think Redirection might be a suitable outcome but closures are based on consensus, not the closer's opinion. Milowent, are you still standing by your Keep opinion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Keep- per WP:GEOLAND 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am going to stick with my keep !vote. I have found coverage of the community in the archives of The Bakersfield Californian and added some to the article. (ping:Liz and A. B.) --Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. killer bee  05:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Milowent. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:23, 12 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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Barry (jailor)[edit]

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

Fail WP:GNG. No more sources found in online which can pass GNG. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 02:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police, India, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 5 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!} 03:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above. Not notable enough. killer bee  05:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm curious as to why the nominator does not think that the five sources currently in the article are enough to pass WP:GNG. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a far as I can see the article does not indicate anything other than his occupation as a jailer at Cellular Jail and thus no notability aside from that. This would not seem to be enough notability for a stand alone article. An alternate possibility would be to redirect to Cellular Jail. Dunarc (talk) 23:34, 18 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. Daniel (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Mikalsen[edit]

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

The subject seemingly played one game for the Jamaica women's national football team a few years ago. However, she does not meet WP:GNG in my opinion. I found this article from the Jamaica Observer, which is a good start, but everything else that came up in my searches are passing mentions (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Jamaica, and Florida. JTtheOG (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. killer bee  05:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:03, 12 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. Daniel (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikol González[edit]

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

The subject, a Venezuelan women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found was this, which are mostly quotes from the subject. Otherwise, it's all passing mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Venezuela. JTtheOG (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG. killer bee  05:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:03, 12 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 14:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Fitzgerald (writer)[edit]

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

Non-notable writer. Self-promo article, no independent sigcov provided to establish notability. Jdcooper (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Technology, Computing, Internet, Oregon, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. The article does seem like an advertisement. The sources used are from personal website as well. killer bee  05:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SPIP this is a self-biography. See User talk:Mjf2009 - it was noted by multiple editors at the time. The user did not respond, and the article was never deleted. — Maile (talk) 13:38, 12 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 06:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gnyana Sudha Vidyalaya Bidar[edit]

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

Unreferenced for 8 years. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Karnataka. LibStar (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I could find no reliable or significant coverage for this school online through Google, Google Scholar, Google Books etc. Most hits on Google Search were either short advertisements/admissions listings or social media information. Fails WP:GNG and also WP:NSCHOOL. The Night Watch (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No information on the article. No sources mentioned as well. Not notable. killer bee  05:24, 12 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. Daniel (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indonesian schools abroad[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. From a wp:notability standpoint, there are no references which cover the topic as such. Regarding being a list article, there is really nothing that says what it actually is. What is an "Indonesian school"? Without that, IMO, besides failing wp:notability it really has no specific defined content or sourcing that included schools meet that non-existent criteria. North8000 (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Lists, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Also the article is just a list with no proper details as per above. killer bee  05:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN and WP:NOTDIR. No notable entries. Ajf773 (talk) 08:15, 12 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 Colonial Clash. Daniel (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Knight Trophy[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Colonial Clash. Left guide (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A rather obvious Merge to Colonial Clash. Jahaza (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Colonial_Clash. killer bee  05:29, 12 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 keep‎. Daniel (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doehling–Heselton Memorial Trophy[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football. Joeykai (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of significant coverage of the rivalry and trophy:
- https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-reporter-ripon-lawrence-rivalry-2000/136670698/
- https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-oshkosh-northwestern-ripon-college-r/136670649/
PK-WIKI (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. Books turn up coverage. 1 Lightburst (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added some more newspaper coverage cites, hopefully this helps. ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 18:56, 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.

[1] Hoffman, Bruce (2023-10-10). "Understanding Hamas's Genocidal Ideology". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2023-12-07.

[2] "Hamas's attack was the bloodiest in Israel's history". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2023-12-07.

[3] "Deadly Hamas Rampage Constitutes 'International Crime of Genocide,' Hundreds of Legal Experts Say". Haaretz. Retrieved 2023-12-07.

[4] WINER, STUART (15 October 2023). "Hamas actions are war crimes, could constitute genocide – international law experts". Times of Israel.

[5] Watch, Genocide (2023-10-18). "Legal Experts: Hamas committed War Crimes, Genocide". genocidewatch. Retrieved 2023-12-07.

[6] "Israeli families bring war crime complaint to ICC: lawyer". France 24. 2023-11-03. Retrieved 2023-12-07.

[:1-7] AFP, TOI STAFF (3 November 2023). "9 bereaved Israeli families bring ICC war crime, genocide complaint against Hamas". Times of Israel.

[8] Even Khen, Hilly Moodrick (30 October 2023). "Israel is not committing genocide in Gaza: An international legal perspective". Times of Israel.

[:2-9] "How the term "genocide" is misused in the Israel-Hamas war". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2023-12-07.

[10] "Holocaust & Genocide Scholars condemn Oct 7 Hamas Massacre". genocidewatch. Genocide Watch. 2023-10-25. Retrieved 2023-12-07.

[11] "Hamas 'Intending nothing less than a second holocaust'. Neil Fergusson". The Australian. 12 December 2023.

[12] "Hamas 'Intending nothing less than a second holocaust'. Neil Fergusson". The Australian. 12 December 2023.

[13] "Can the Hamas Oct. 7 massacre be compared to the Holocaust? - opinion". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. 2023-10-29. Retrieved 2023-12-11.

[14] "Hamas' genocidal massacre on October 7 has deep historical roots". Engelsberg ideas (in Swedish). Retrieved 2023-12-11.

[15] "Finding Common Ground Between Israelis and Palestinians". TIME. 2023-12-08. Retrieved 2023-12-11.

[16] Avraham, Rachel (22 November 2023). "Denying October 7 must be condemned worldwide". www.israelhayom.com. Retrieved 2023-12-11.

[17] Ahmed, Qanta A. (2023-11-10). "Opinion | The Scenes of Genocide I Saw in Israeli Morgues". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2023-12-11.

[18] "Son of Hamas co-founder: Death penalty for October 7 massacre terrorists". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. 2023-11-30. Retrieved 2023-12-11.

[19] "Hamas has genocidal intentions against Israel - White House". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. 2023-11-08. Retrieved 2023-12-11.

[20] Presse, AFP-Agence France. "Israel, Palestinians Accuse Each Other Of 'Genocide' At UN". www.barrons.com. Retrieved 2023-12-11.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]