Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 10	December 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. There is a consensus that the topic is likely notable, but that the article as written has major problems. In addition to the current verifiability tag, I plan to add a tag reflecting the consensus of this discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural analysis

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

Flunks all WP:GNG criteria.

This is a real thing that people do, but the evidence that it has any generally recognized social or institutional meaning is not established by the article. (The best evidence to the contrary is currently confined to the external links. Readers, however, should not be expected to synthesize primary sources.)

If you know of sources that establish notability, please share this on the talk page even if you don't have the time to integrate them into the article.

Thanks! Patrick (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per books on the subject: The Practice of Cultural Analysis, Cross-Cultural Analysis, and Cultural Analysis. Conyo14 (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the book coverage shown above. If the current article content flunks all WP:GNG criteria, that can be fixed per WP:Deletion is not cleanup, but not a valid reason for deletion. Left guide (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nom: Thanks @Shellwood for finding those sources. Two of them, though, look like works of sociology, and one of them looks like a cultural studies anthology. Maybe, instead of deletion, I should have proposed a merge into Culture, where various disciplinary approaches are treated in different sections in a way that I would expect to be much more useful to readers. (An analogy: bread making is a topic on which there is a large literature, but the page is just a redirect to Bread.)

So, in response to Conyo14, my objection is not that we simply haven't taken the time to provide good references, but that the topic itself is not encyclopedic, merely a descriptive phrase for a variety of activities more properly treated under other headings.

Does this make sense? If the nomination is misguided, I will withdraw it. --Patrick (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're arguing for WP:NOTDICTIONARY, you may still continue with the nomination. However, as cultural analysis appears to be an educational resource via the books I've given, I argue the article's structure could be rewritten to reflect that. So, with that said, your original nom is confusing in its current state as I have provided sources that proves it passes WP:GNG. Conyo14 (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose (1) of WP:NOTDICTIONARY might apply. More relevant, though, is probably WP:COMMONNAME. The first part of the article is about cultural anthropology and the sociology of culture, which sometimes overlap. The second part describes cultural studies, which sometimes includes findings from the former disciplines, but is generally more interested in the interpretation of texts.

If there is some context in which these research areas are regularly lumped together under the heading of "cultural analysis", evidence of this would entirely allay my concern. If not, there's at least a case to be made that the article itself is WP:SYNTH.

Thanks for your attention to this nomination. Patrick (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've gleaned, there is a huge overlap with "cultural studies" (unfortunately, that article is also a mess, making any merge/integration complicated). TucanHolmes (talk) 09:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this article appears to have been created by a sociologist here to advertise what would normally by considered a work in the humanistic interdisciplinary field of cultural studies, Girl Heroes.

I don't know what there even is to merge—although I certainly don't oppose it if someone else sees something. Right now the only source for the article is a promotional piece from a university website. It probably passes as an RS based on the CV of the author, but it's not a great look. Patrick (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided. TNT may be merited though. Andre🚐 03:01, 13 December 2024 (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. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 22:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karnataka Police

AfDs for this article:

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

Full of unreferenced sections and fluff. 14 years ago this was a speedy keep given that the police department was for a state of 60+ million, but this is 2024 and figured it should have a second look. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given its presumed notability, this may be more a case of massive cleanup as opposed deletion. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's correctly tagged as requiring more references and needs work, but that in itself doesn't make it a candidate for deletion. It concentrates on organisation and would benefit from expansion. There's likely material available on the force's history and achievements/controversies that could be included as in Uttar Pradesh Police. A difficulty is that sources may be in the Kannada language and not easily found. Rupples (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In general, Karnataka police has got multiple secondary references in news (not listing them here), which is unsurprising given their nature of operations which gives them coverage in multiple cases. However, can those cases or news coverage alone give them reliable notability.

I would imagine a wikipedia page of law enforcement agency to not be encyclopedic index of cases they handled. Which is why i tried to research more on what constitutes notability in this particular context and found Notability law enforcement agency but its just a draft policy. Something like ^[1] or ^[2] are probably more suited to give this page its own distinction. Nisingh.8 (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Additional source but with limited access: A chapter of 16 pages headed "Accountability in the Karnataka State Police in India" [1] Rupples (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC) and another "Evaluation of quality of police service: a study of Karnataka state"[2] and a publication "A Mirror to the Police: A Bottom up Assessment of the Karnataka Police" [3] Rupples (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2024 (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 Amiga software. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 22:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AmiExpress

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

Fails WP: GNG. I cannot find sources to establish notability. None of the sources that are currently in the article appear reliable. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 27 November 2024 (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 23:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had a search through contemporary magazines on archive.org and WRH. There are certainly multiple reliable sources for the fact that AmiExpress was a very popular BBS system in the early 90s, especially in Europe (e.g. Amiga Concept 1995-07), and several articles from 1992/3 about its (lack of) defenses against viruses. I would really have liked to find in-depth reviews or comparisons, though. Adam Sampson (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

bbsdocumentary says it's an evolved clone of PCBoard, could be a merge target. IgelRM (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Once I get home, I will look into my magazine collection/database, maybe there is some hidden review of this software. Searching on archive.org is tricky, because there are too many false positives (shareware listings). Pavlor (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attendum: No useable sources found so far (searching in database listings of articles in several Amiga magazines). Amiga BBS software was probably niche even in the 80/90s (however, I found reviews of other BBS applications). An AtD could be a redirect to to the "Amiga software" article (the article subject is mentioned there and short news from amiga-news.de about open-sourcing could be used as a reference), but this one is full of its own issues. Pavlor (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm fine with a merge to Amiga software or PCBoard, as suggested above. No preference between the two. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 22:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richárd Csepregi

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

HLSZ has him down for one professional season followed by several at semi-pro/amateur level. My own Hungarian searches yield no significant coverage for WP:SPORTBASIC. The best that I could find was a brief injury report in Nemzeti Sport. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nemzeti Sport has 2 more very brief articles on Csepregi, neither of which explore him in detail. [4] [5]. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 36 apps for Ferencváros, arguably the biggest club in Hungary, suggests there should be offline sources out there... Giant Snowman 21:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20 of those were in the second tier, which probably weakens things a bit. Still, we would expect something about him in newspapers. Nemzeti Archívum doesn't seem to have anything about him between 2005 and 2007. Hungaricana has some hits in reliable newspapers. Fradi is not independent (his club's own newspaper) and is only an image caption. Új Néplap is only an image caption and this only mentions him in passing. Heves Megyei Hírlap is also only a passing mention. Perhaps this could be moved to draft space until one source complying with WP:SPORTBASIC #5 is found? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it very hard to search that Hungarian website - there's certainly nothing on him in my generic web searches, but that website is saying "Csepregi Richárd" brings up no hits whatsoever, which is clearly false. I haven't found any American-style feature stories on him, though, which is generally what people want nowadays. My sense is he's notable, we just need to prove it somehow. SportingFlyer T·C 06:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:SPORTBASIC#5 says Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. My interpretation is that this is a requirement rather than a preference. Has anyone found at least one source that shows significant coverage? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're looking for the whole GNG instead, multiple significant coverage are usually used. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's usually at least two for GNG. As nothing has been found, I suggest we draftify or delete. Giant Snowman 13:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with either a soft delete or draftify here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ‎ keep. I have taken into account that this is a WP:BLP but there is nothing objectionable in what is currently a short article. In the latter part of the discussion, sources have been provided that suggest notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Félix de Bedout

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

BLP of a television personality, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for television personalities. No sigcov, no evidence of notability, insufficient sourcing since its creation. Jinnllee90 (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find stories about this person changing networks. What's used in the article isn't enough to show RS, nor are the sources in the ES wiki article, only profile pages on what appear to be broadcast network websites. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Colombia. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CU note nominator blocked as a checkuser confirmed sock.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't have time to add this in right now, but this article needs someone who can fish up the Colombian sourcing it needs. Here's a start: [6] (lengthy interview and profile) and [7] (includes a career stop not included in this article yet). He seems to be one of the principal radio and TV news presenters in the country. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sammi Brie, and also procedural, because there’s been a lot of SPAs and Socks nominating Mexican and Colombian articles that have lots of potential Spanish-language citations on Google. It’s not a coincidence about where these SPAs and Socks are coming from. Bearian (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just putting this one out there. I suspect strongly that someone or something from South/South-West Asia is targeting pro-Israeli and/or pro-Catholic persons. Bearian (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wicht Club

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

All of the 3 listed sources in this article are no longer working. I was not able to find anything online about Wicht Club, its definitely not notable organisation. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is one listed source with a link that no longer works, but the other two are not linked so it isn't clear how they can be "no longer working." I do find references to the club in various books: Walter B Cannon (source 2), The Psychiatric Persuasion, and mentions in this, this. Also, Harvard has digitized an archive of the Wicht club from 1904-1911, and I added that link to the article. Lamona (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Referenced, evidently early-career support for scientists at Harvard in first decade of 20th century. — Rgdboer (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: does present a valid Reference of its existence, if too short of an article either label as a stub, or merge to the article Harvard College social clubs perhaps? As this seems to be within its relevance. And its actual existence is part of the university's history. Villkomoses (talk) 07:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of counties of New Brunswick. I'm not sure what a "speedy redirect" is but I've closed this as a Redirect to the article mentioned by the nominator. I assume this is the target article that was intended by the participants. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of shiretowns in New Brunswick

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

Unnecessary list. If somebody wants to find the shiretown of every county, they are all already included in List of counties of New Brunswick. B3251_(talk) 20:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Speedy redirect Obviously unnecessary duplicate. Reywas92^Talk 20:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect, clearly covered by List of counties of New Brunswick. I would think a bold redirect could have been done before taking this to AFD (assuming there is not something obvious I am missing). Esolo5002 (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Object. perhaps not yet belonging in namespace, each in the list have distinct evolutions since relevancy to be fleshed out. PonapsqisHous (talk) 04:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Speedy redirect Unnecessary duplication. I think only two of them changed in the entire history of the province; a simple paragraph could describe their functions and history. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tempo (EP)

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

Yet another Turkish music article which was tagged uncited years ago and is also uncited on trwiki Chidgk1 (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Created April 2007, still no references in December 2024. I think that there has been much than enough time to provide evidence that it's notable. Athel cb (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2024 (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 By Any Means Necessary (Babylon 5). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By Any Means Necessary (Babylon 5 Episode)

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

Another version already exists hidden in the page history of By Any Means Necessary (Babylon 5), which was BLARed in 2019. Both titles should be merged if kept. CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgeureka: pinging the editor who performed the BLAR. CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reviews by Reactor, The A.V. Club, and by a ECW Press-published book A Dream Given Form: [8], [9], [10] --Mika1h (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Keep I have dead tree sources for this episode, too. Most B5 episodes should be un-BLARed because the reception, etc. coverage exists... I just don't have time to do it. Jclemens (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Absolutely correct, all B5 episodes are definitely notable with at least four independent reliable review sources (Kaiser (AV Club), Rosner (Multiversity Comics), Jane Killick (hard copy only), Guffey and Koontz (on Kindle). I've un-BLARed the older stub for consistency of article naming :) :) Fh1 (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Jclemens. This subject is definitely notable, but the original article title should take priority here. However, AFD isn't a creation process. Recreating the page should be handled editorially instead of through AFD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]

On second thought, as a merge is necessary anyway, I wouldn't be opposed to that outcome if it should be determined to recreate the article to incorporate the merged content. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if not merged-and-kept, then merged to the proper title and re-redirected would be the next most preferable outcome. Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to By Any Means Necessary (Babylon 5) – reviews from Mika1h are sufficient to support a standalone episode article, but the current title is incorrect. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Babylon 5 episodes. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:OR. I'm not opposed to a stand-alone article if it complies with WP policies. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we simply redirect it to the article list, we then have two BLAR'ed articles on the same topic, By Any Means Necessary (Babylon 5 Episode) and By Any Means Necessary (Babylon 5). I can't see why that would ever be a good idea. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've un-BLARed the older stub for consistency of article naming :) :) Fh1 (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2024 (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. Withdrawn by nom without opposition. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Istanbul mayoral election

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

The article says the election was notable but does not have any cites to show notability. The single cite on the Turkish article shows the results but does not show notability. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We don't need citations to know that the election of the mayor of the largest city in Europe is notable. If the nominator is so bothered by the lack of citations, he could have done a quick Google search and added citations instead of wasting the community's time with this AfD. Obi2canibe (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Turkish is not my native language and I don’t know whether the mayor at that time had much political power compared to the central government. I would guess they had much less power than, say, the London mayor. So the election is not obviously notable. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: No sign of a WP:BEFORE from the nominator. The subject is obviously notable. [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheJoyfulTentmaker As a native speaker you would know better than me which of those cites supports the statement “The closely fought contest was noticeable in that it helped launch the national political career of Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu,” so if you can add one or two after that comma I will withdraw this deletion suggestion Chidgk1 (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I hereby WITHDRAW this deletion request Chidgk1 (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's very important to contain the growth of articles about mayoral elections in various cities. However this had 7 million votes cast, more than double the votes cast in parliamentary elections of certain European countries. Also, per above. Geschichte (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have a cow

AfDs for this article:

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

Numerous variants of this title redirect to Bart Simpson (e.g. Have a cow), where it is a well-known catchphrase of him. The other page here, about an episode of an unrelated television series, has an ambox stating it might not be notable enough for an article (and is the only non-crossover episode of that series to have an article).

Therefore, I think Bart is probably the primary topic for this redirect and this disambiguation could be made into a redirect to that page. Xeroctic (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Disambiguations. Xeroctic (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. As long as Don't_Have_a_Cow_(That's_So_Raven) exists, it and Bart Simpson both have an equally valid argument for being the primary topic target, as such a disambiguation page seems appropriate. I think the AFD should be for the article, then changing this to a redirect to Bart Simpson would happen as a matter of course. JeffUK 17:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for rationale above. Wiktionary-have a cow has existed for almost a decade, so I think this could be considered a permanent part of the current lexicon. — Maile (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2024 (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. Sandstein 15:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colombia–Latvia relations

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

Most of this article is based on primary sources. The only independent source is https://www.baltictimes.com/latvia_in_political_consultations_with_colombia_agrees_to_strengthen_cooperation/ . The relations lack aspects that typically make notable relations like resident embassies, significant trade, agreements and state visits. LibStar (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Latvia, and Colombia. LibStar (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There does not appear to be significant coverage of this topic in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Yilloslime (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2024 (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. Sandstein 15:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Crawley

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

WP:BLP of a technology writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for writers. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists, and have to pass certain concrete benchmarks of significance (noteworthy awards, third-party attention by critics and reviewers, evidence of their work having had a verifiable impact on the field they write about, etc.) supported by third-party reliable sources independent of themselves -- but the only notability claim in evidence here is that she exists, and the article is referenced almost entirely to primary sources (staff profiles, directory entries, her own writing metaverifying its own existence, podcast interviews, etc.) that are not support for notability, with just one footnote (#10, "Silicon Republic") that represents an independent source writing about her. And while it's questionable as to whether even that counts as a WP:GNG-worthy source at all, one hit of RS coverage isn't enough all by itself even if we do give it the benefit of the doubt.
It also warrants note that the article has been tagged for suspected WP:AUTOBIO editing by the subject herself.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Technology, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Opinion pieces [16], don't help show notability. Might have a pass at AUTHOR if we can find book reviews. Oaktree b (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No help with AUTHOR notability, this was the only sort of a review [17] and she's only written a chapter for the book. No book reviews, no articles that aren't written by the subject. I don't see a notability pass here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2024 (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. WP:NEXIST is not a valid argument in this case: It provides that "notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". But even if not cited in the article, such sources must exist, and to demonstrate that, they must be cited in the AfD. Since nobody has managed to do so in two weeks, we must assume that they do not exist or, what amounts to the same thing for our purposes, are unavailable to editors. The "keep" opinions must therefore be disregarded. Sandstein 15:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sitakunda massacre

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

The article did not meet the criteria for WP:N(E). Both sources provide limited information about the incident. One source even states: চন্দ্রনাথের মেলায় কী ঘটিয়াছে ১৯৫০ সালে, সেখানকার তীর্থযাত্রীদের কী নৃশংস পরিণতি হইয়াছে, সে কাহিনীর সঠিক বৃত্তান্ত আজো অজ্ঞাত। (What happened at the Chandranath Fair in 1950, and what brutal fate befell the pilgrims there—the exact details of the story remain unknown.) [Source: Sinha, Dinesh Chandra, ed. (2012). ১৯৫০: রক্তরঞ্জিত ঢাকা বরিশাল এবং [1950: Bloodstained Dhaka Barisal and more] (in Bengali). Kolkata: Codex. p. 71.]

During a Google search, I came across some social media posts, but all of them were either copied directly from Wikipedia or linked back to it. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 11:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Bangladesh. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 11:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possible delete, it certainly looks weakly sourced. On the other hand, the 2 sources agree that a violent event took place; the social media sources add nothing but are not reason for deletion in themselves. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - while no doubt this horrible crime occurred, it still does not have significant coverage: 3 pages in 2 sources is passing. I’m open to suggestions for a redirect or merge. Ping me. Bearian (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST offline sources particurly in Bengali language as this incident deals with the pre internet era in 1950 and as noted above by Bearain that this horrible crime occurred.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per reasons stated by Pharaoh of the Wizards, I am sure eventually more sources will be found when more research is carried out on this topic. --Dynamo128 (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strength Sports Australia

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

Doesn't seem to be any good third party sourcing for this - and it 's also a COI edit mess Golikom (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been written from a bias point of view. I have tried to correct it by

1. Attempting to remove information that is not proven (eg: the statement that said that the structure of the board is unclear, and the qualification process is unclear).

2. Reworded statements made from the APU (eg the statement about us leaving the ipf)

3. Included details about what SSA has recently done, including Kettlebell events.

4. Made a statement regarding its stance on drugs.

5. Remove irrelevant information about the position of World Drug Free Powerlifting Federation and being Signatory (it is irrelevant).

6. Noted that we were the 3rd nation that has left the IPF in recent years. USAPL and Powerlifting Australia being the other 2.

7. Added Strength Sports Australia's first competitions (it is now SSA, so very relevant)

8. Our international competitions are now with WDFPF, as it is now an SSA page, IPF is not our international body.

9. Only include world records if they are held while under APU or SSA.

Those changes are reasonable, and no biased.

As this page is not going to be managed without releasing the issues among the sport as a whole, yes it should be closed. Gorani!007 (talk) 09:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)— Gorani!007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: Sources that are present in the article do not establish notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT, and WP:NORG. - GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Golikom has removed parts due to not being sourced. However, this is not consistent with what I have seen on other pages. For example, Please go to Australian Powerlifting Alliance. Remove the links that are applied on Australian Powerlifting Alliance to their company webpage. They referenced from a non-3rd party on reference 4, 5, 6, 7 and 14.

The NRL (National Rugby League) page has references to its own webpage for news.

Golikom has advised that he has no conflict of interest and no relationship with any other Powerlifting organisation. In pursuit of fairness, I ask that Golikom address the Australian Powerlifting Alliance and NRL page with the same assertiveness as he did with our page. Gorani!007 (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)— Gorani!007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete no evidence this passes WP:GNG, as the sources here are not independent, significant coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Doboj and Gradačac offensive (1994)

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

This fighting is covered in two small paragraphs that cover not even a third of one page of the source, a comprehensive history of the Balkan wars of the 90s. I have removed all the non-reliable sources and unsupported material and do not consider that what is left meets the SIGCOV bar. Don't be misled by the mention of "corps", these were lucky if they were brigade-sized formations at the best of times. The fact that a principal source on these wars doesn't provide numbers of troops involved, commanders names or casualty figures is another indication the subject just isn't notable. Perhaps if presented along with all the battles in northeastern Bosnia between August and November, but not at this small scale. Yet another of these recently created articles on individually non-notable actions of this war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Yet another poorly sourced stub by its creator. Mztourist (talk) 06:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Author appears to be against deletion, so let's get a stronger consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks SIGCOV. Intothat darkness 14:45, 11 December 2024 (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. Sandstein 12:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacek Falkowski

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

His professional career lasted between 29 and 264 minutes and he disappeared in 2016. Regarding secondary sources, all I found were transfer announcements like this one. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Poland. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BLP and WP:GNG. Nothing significant to be found about the person. Garudam ^Talk! 12:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is poor. Pl stat site has a bit more info and links to some news about him [18] although many seem to be pretty much press releases. He never scored a goal, it seems, although he was on the his team when it won the Polish Cup, which may or may not count for something. I am not motivated to AfD at pl wiki because I expect sport fans there will just shout notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "lasted between 29 and 264 minutes" is a very weird and also misleading phrasing. Probably did not win the Polish Cup, though, as he did not play any cup matches (ever) for Jagiellonia, and on the day of the cup final he played for Znicz Pruszków against Warta Poznań. Geschichte (talk) 05:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, for what it's worth, the I liga is fully professional as well so his professional career actually lasted for 1897 minutes at least, if Soccerway is to be believed. This is probably a similar case to Richárd Csepregi where his career would likely indicate that he has some significant coverage but proving it is another matter. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I created this article in 2007 under the deprecated NSPORTS guideline (before I realized SIGCOV was required). While the nominator is mistaken to rely on soccerway.com to characterize his playing career (which misses the 2007–08 Ekstraklasa season where Falkowski made 17 appearances for Jagiellonia), it is correct to say it was non-notable because I can only find routine coverage in online Polish-language sources (match reports, injury and transfer announcements). I would have expected better online coverage from 2007 and 2008, or at least following the end of his Jagiellonia career in 2010, but I'm not seeing anything that is SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For match reports, as long as those only focus on a specific footballer and describes them in significant detail (e.g. "[Footballer] was happy after [Club] debut as a tribute to [his/her] lost family member ..."), that might be fine. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 16:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but what I found were brief mentions such as being named in the starting XI or making a substitute's appearance. I didn't see anything other than routine coverage. Jogurney (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per all above. Svartner (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2024 (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. WP:SNOW. Randykitty (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manya Pathak

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

Non-notable subject created by a blocked user. I have removed a lot of unsourced material, poorly sourced puffery, and unnecessary details. I have verified all the sources, but the notability of the subject remains uncertain. Zuck28 (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Television, Business, and India. Zuck28 (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BLP. Sources couldn't help in establishing notability Garudam ^Talk! 12:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. a non notable actress. Lack of independent and reliable sources. TheWikiholic (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR as sources in the article is dominated by download websites. Mekomo (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Web Desk post [19], doesn't seem to show much for notability otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appearing in one TV show as a supporting cast member and in fewer than a dozen music videos is barely a career, much less a notable one. It's a side gig. Bearian (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2024 (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. Sandstein 12:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seita Murai

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. No achievements in sport. Source assessment:

primary source
very short, not in-depth, WP:ROUTINE
primary source
WP:ROUTINE, 50% quote (primary source).
not really coverage, it's a list of transfers.
database.
Geschichte (talk) 10:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Japan, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2024 (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. A possible merge can be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 10:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tanori's Raid

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

Fails WP:MILNG. Most of the sources fall under WP:PRIMARY & WP:AGE MATTERS, maybe merging this event in Refugio Tánori could have been better but a standalone article is not warranted for this. Garudam ^Talk! 10:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, France, Latin America, Mexico, United States of America, Arizona, and North America. Garudam ^Talk! 10:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge relevant information to the article suggested by nom. Intothat darkness 13:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another inappropriate close paraphrase of the source, which does not even present this as a specific notable event needing its own page rather than part of a longer narrative. Don't merge the close paraphrase. Reywas92^Talk 15:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Stating that the article fails WP:MILNG because of WP:AGE MATTERS without actually explaining why the old sources are inaccurate and unreliable is not a good argument. WP:AGE MATTERS states "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. In particular, newer sources are generally preferred in medicine. This reliable source policy tells us that we should look for sources which take into account new information/discoveries/etc not that we should engage in deletion of articles just because the secondary sources are old. TarnishedPath^talk 11:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly enough sourcing, especially about a minor event from that long ago, to pass WP:GNG. The nom's rationale's of PRIMARY and AGE MATTERs appear to be misplaced. There does not appear to be a single primary source, let alone a majority of the article being based on them. The major source is an except from the book Lives of the California Lancers, The First Battalion of Native California Cavalry, 1863-1866, which was actually honored at the 2016 International Latino Book Awards. And I agree with TarnishedPath's assessment of the AGE MATTERS claim.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And what other RS cover this event? The source you cite (an expanded thesis) deals with the specific unit involved in the incident so of course it's going to be covered (leaving aside the many issues with close paraphrasing found in these articles...I've been correcting many of them over the past few months). But wider coverage is needed to establish independent notability, and I just haven't seen that here. Intothat darkness 17:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This source could be good to expand 1st California Cavalry Battalion with, but I don't really see the basis for a standalone article here when the only other sources are contemporaneous news reports. Refugio Tánori would make a good merge target as well. Reywas92^Talk 22:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. None of the Keep arguments thus far have actually addressed the notability of this event in terms of a standalone article. And it's worth noting the user who created this has a pattern of either redlinking "battles" relating to California Civil War units or creating dubious standalone articles based on those events. Very few of them are notable on their own and could easily remain within the unit article or another parent article (as you suggest with Tanori) Intothat darkness 01:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm sorry, I am simply not seeing any policy which says that contemporaneous sources of historical events are not reliable and/or do not count towards notability. Indeed, I can find no more recent sources which invalidates the historicity of the contemporaneous articles, which, if I had would definitely weigh on the value of the older sources. Therefore, I feel that the one major source used, along with the fact that it is covered in the History of Arizona, written by the state historian of Arizona, as well as several contemporaneous more than qualifies the article as meeting GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that was a policy, that contemporaneous news media doesn't contribute to notability, Wikipedia would be much smaller than it is. Personally I think the bar for inclusion is too low in Wikipedia, but the arguments presented above by other editors that somehow age, in and of itself, makes sources unreliable is not found anywhere in WP:PAG. TarnishedPath^talk 00:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Onel5969's and my arguments above. TarnishedPath^talk 00:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In concurrence with Onel5969 and TarnishedPath, keep as it passes WP:GNG. Historian Andrew E. Masich (2017) has also covered the raid [20], both utilizing Brinckerhoff (1999) and Cremony's "How and Why We Took Santa Cruz". XxTechnicianxX (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2024 (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. Randykitty (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skirmish at Grass Valley

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

Fails WP:MILNG. Most of the sources fall under WP:PRIMARY & WP:AGE MATTERS. Nothing significant or even relevant context found in the Bancroft. Garudam ^Talk! 09:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, United States of America, Arizona, California, and North America. Garudam ^Talk! 09:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with other articles, much of this information is already in the related unit articles. If it should actually be there is another question, as this event isn't especially notable on its own. Intothat darkness 13:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is one of the few battles the Native California Battalion took part in and the most violent episodes between California Volunteers and secessionist like the La Paz incident. It's also one of the few battles were Mexicans took part in. The battle is the only to take place in California during the Civil War, unlike the other battles that include Volunteers fighting the Native Americans. Tablelegs6 (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not widely covered, which is part of what determines notability. Bancroft is an old source (and was discussed above), and since Prezelski's book is essentially the published version of his doctoral thesis covering the unit in question it's not surprising he'd mention it. The action isn't covered anyplace else. Google Scholar returns exactly zero hits, as does Google Books when you put the created title of the action in quotes. Intothat darkness 12:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At least this constructed title isn't bolded in the lead, but there's no indication this event is notable enough to warrant an article when there is no modern historical coverage as a significant event, only contemporary news. Reywas92^Talk 15:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah its on page 51 of Californio Lancers: The 1st Battalion of Native Cavalry in the Far West, 1863–1866 By Tom Prezelski Tablelegs6 (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its on page 313 of Bancroft: vol. 7 Tablelegs6 (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Stating that the article fails WP:MILNG because of WP:AGE MATTERS without actually explaining why the old sources are inaccurate and unreliable is not a good argument. WP:AGE MATTERS states "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. In particular, newer sources are generally preferred in medicine. This reliable source policy tells us that we should look for sources which take into account new information/discoveries/etc not that we should engage in deletion of articles just because the secondary sources are old. TarnishedPath^talk 11:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But notability is also based on broader coverage, which this incident lacks. Intothat darkness 17:24, 15 December 2024 (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. Randykitty (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schloss Ritzebüttel

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

No source to establish notability per GNG. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 09:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 09:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the corresponding article on the German Wikipedia has several very good sources demonstrating notability (as well as a few iffy ones). Unfortunately they're cited as general referencing rather than specific citations (this is typical for German WP), which makes it hard to carry them over here to back up individual statements, and they're in book form. But they demonstrate the existence of sources, and we can't delete just because we haven't read sources that we definitely know exist. Elemimele (talk) 10:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elemimele. Mccapra (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can anyone confirm whether or not the castle is a listed building? I haven't been able to find an official list. Rupples (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2024 (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. Given the sources added to the article over this AFD discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Paterson

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

Fails GNG & SiGCOVERAGE. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 09:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wine, Bibliographies, and Scotland. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 09:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hints of notability [21], but that's about all I could find. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I remembered seeing him a few times in the news over the years so had a deeper look. There were quite a few references naming him across Scottish but also international media. I've made an attempt to rescue the article using those sources, edit it, add some 20+ references. I think it now meets notability criteria. Coldupnorth (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have been keeping this open on my computer wondering what to do with it, but User:Coldupnorth has now done that. Thanks and well done. Bduke (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2024 (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!} 09:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Hayden

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not won any tournament. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A google search for Rhys Hayden birmingham open shows he won it in september this year (dartsplanet.tv) but it looks fairly minor and I couldn't find anything else to help.Canary757 (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2024 (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!} 09:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Robinson (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely based on primary sources. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a few lines in theboltonnews re competition win vs Dudbridge but no significant coverage.Canary757 (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2024 (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. and then Redirect to Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) season 18. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tajinder Bagga

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

This subject fails WP:NPOL , Bagga has never been elected to any legislative body. Additionally he also fails WP:NBIO as being a mere national secretary of a political party's youth wing does not make one notable. The sources cited here also do not provide WP:SIGCOV and those that do fall under the purview of WP:NEWSORGINDIA as undisclosed press releases because they do not identify an individual author/reporter and have only generic bylines with promotional tone or are puff pieces. [22][23]. - Ratnahastin (talk) 09:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. - Ratnahastin (talk) 09:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject clearly fails WP:NPOL. Currently, the Subject is a contestant on Bigg Boss 18, but all the news coverage is solely related to their participation in the show. As the nominator rightly pointed out, the coverage primarily comes from WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources. Hence, I don't believe the subject satisfies WP:GNG either. Baqi:) (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BLP. Cited with poor sources that does not meet with the guidelines. Garudam ^Talk! 13:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nomination. Zuck28 (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete Subject was a candidate but never elected to any political post. This is yet another case of WP:TOOSOON. Maybe in the future they can be elected into a position, I see they have some interesting profile too. Cases of kidnap and other atrocities unfortunately all these are not enough to make him notable to own an article right now. Tesleemah (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I agree that this subject fails WP:POL and WP:BIO. WP:SIGCOV is also in question due to WP:NEWSORGINDIA. As stated by Tesleemah, this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there seem to be some useful sources in the article about his arrest and participation in a reality show. Though without bylines, the headlines of some of the sources do not suggest being promotional pieces. Mekomo (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I started this article and since creation it has become longer than the ones in Hindi and Tamil. The edit by User:DreamRimmer suggested to me that the subject was notable for multiple events so is there a fundamental difference by language wiki? If notability is different for the English wiki the link should redirect to Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) season 18 instead. Moondragon21 (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too soon. Pure conjecture. Bearian (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Being a house mate in Bigg Boss Season 18 and a politician who just fought but not elected does not qualify Notability guidelines especially WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Taabii (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is sufficient coverage to pass SIGCOV. Deccan Herald has 22 articles about Bagga, all unrelated to the reality show, see [24]. Take for example this article from 2022 ("Accustomed to being around controversy, Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga has again made it to the headlines after getting three states involved in his arrest"). See also more recent coverage in Hindustan Times, Indian Express, India Today, DNA India, as well as older coverage in The Hindu, The Hindu, again, Outlook, The Tribune, The Telegraph, Firstpost, etc etc. And this is without dwelving into non-English media outlets. Regardless of what one think regarding of the individual, it is clear he is a public figure from multiple events and controversies over a number of years. --Soman (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Nichols

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

Doesn't meet the notability criteria for a biography/entertainer due to the lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources / WP:BASIC. The article is based on primary or unreliable sources. Frost 12:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Figured this would end up at AfD. When I was making the article, there definitely wasn't much there in the way of sources despite the channel having 10+ million subscribers. I'll save a draft of this article in my userspace in the event he becomes more notable. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Alaska. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Do not meet inclusion criteria. There are no sources out there to show his notability and sources in the article do not prove his eligibility either. Mekomo (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP without a single reliable source, it doesn't even pass WP:V. Bearian (talk) 03:32, 13 December 2024 (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 Creature#Music. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creature (song)

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

WP:NSONG: "a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. A song or single (that has placement on a national music chart) may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful." This song has a placement on a national music chart but there isn't any significant coverage for it and the article is unlikely to grow beyond stub-class. Also, much of the content isn't about the song itself, e.g. the Background section, and much of the other content is based on primary sources. Attempts to redirect the page were reverted. I recommend deleting or redirecting to Creature#Music. Frost 10:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Frost 10:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frost: Looking at the revision history, I don't see this page being redirected (so I also don't see the redirection being contested). Am I missing something? Toadspike [Talk] 10:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhow, I agree that this should be redirected to Creature#Music, and Creature (KSI song) should be redirected to Space (KSI EP). Toadspike [Talk] 10:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike not recently but it was redirected four times in 2020 ([25][26][27][28]) with the same author recreating the article after each time. Frost 19:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. In the interest of fairness I will ping @Timwikisidemen, in case they would like to explain why they restored this article four times. Toadspike [Talk] 08:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not the best article but it is still quite notable. This0k (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"the article is unlikely to grow beyond stub-class." To be fair, the article has already grown beyond stub-class. RachelTensions (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm wrong in that regard, seeing the excessive quotations and thought a reassessment could find it to be a stub. Still, there's the issue of coverage. Frost 02:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speed Niggs

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

Only found sources in German-language zines which are likely unreliable. Opening this rather than a PROD on the possibility that someone with access to a German-specific archive could find more on this band than I did, but seeing as all the sources I saw were already German I have my doubts. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IDreamBooks

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. This article was previously nominated and reached no consensus. There has been no significant improvements to the article since. While there are indeed sources, coverage appears to be routine/centered on company launch and are not independent of subject (include contributions from company founders). Analysis by @HighKing: shows the sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH Imcdc Contact 08:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Websites, United States of America, and California. Imcdc Contact 08:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and I fail to find any sources providing WP:SIGCOV. Seems unlikely this article will grow from a stub or get more sources in the future. Beachweak (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find a date for when this company folded, but based on blog posts and other social media it seems to have become defunct within a few years. I can't find much beyond the announcements of its beginning - nothing about what impact it might have had while it existed. This is enough for me to consider it a "flash in the pan" and not notable. Lamona (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Existing sources are sufficient. HuffPost is a reliable source for non-political content per WP: RS, and the Crikey article is written by Bethanie Blanchard, a person who's spent a large portion of their career in the media industry and has extensive freelance writing experience. (cite). Both of these articles give in-depth coverage (i.e. more than a brief mention) and do not primarily consist of content written by company employees or executives. WP: ORGCRIT requires that sources provide "an overview, description, ... or evaluation of the product." I do not have a sufficient explanation for why these two sources do not meet that bar, even after reading and rereading the confusing explanations of the previous AfD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Publishers Weekly and Huffington Post references in the article each provide the needed WP:CORPDEPTH to meet the WP:NCORP, IMO. Let'srun (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To reiterate what @HighKing: has stated regarding the huffington post article. The first couple of paragraphs generically describe "the problem" so not really about the subject. The third paragraph is a company description that looks like a boilerplate description. See 1 which even has a comparison to Rotten Tomatoes. And then there are quotes by the co-founders. So what remains doesn't seem to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. - Imcdc Contact 04:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~changed article to meet NWEB guidelines This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Discussion appears to center on whether the HuffPost and the Publishers Weekly articles meet the criteria, so lets take a look at these.

This Publishers Weekly article from April 19th 2013 is about the partnership between Sony and the company. This is the blog post from the company from April 18th 2013. Here's another Blog post from GoodRead from April 17th which duplicates the information in the Publishers Weekly article. Here's another article from Books & Review, written by a "Staff Reporter" on April 20th which uses *exactly* the same text text as found in Publishers Weekly. There are lots of other similar reviews but they all share the same information in common, none are "Independent Content" which is a requirement to meet the criteria. Fails WP:ORGIND.
This Huff Post article is claimed as meeting the criteria (above) because it is "a reliable source". Being a reliable source forms only one part of the GNG/NCORP criteria to be met. The other (and more crucial) parts are than it must be in-depth *about* the *company* and that it must be independent *content*. This article is an advertorial, relying entirely on information about the site provided by the company itself and is promotional. Don't just take my word for it - this article on Tyler Shores describes the article as "an interview". Another "big red flag" is that there is no author/journalist attributed to this post. Nor was there one attributed in the original post in 2012. Based on all that, it fails WP:ORGIND.
Last article mentioned was this Crikey article is from the same date as the original Huff Post advertorial and both those articles are practically identical in content, both trying to "explain" the website, both referencing Rotten Tomatoes, both referencing "50 shades of Grey", both comparing to GoodReads, both listing all of the "big six" publishers. All indications that they're using content provided to them. But this fails on a more fundamental note. This article is a blog post (the URL is blogs.crikey.com) and blogs fail WP:RS for the most part. So fails WP:RS and WP:ORGIND.

I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. All the articles I can find are advertorials for the most part. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the website's front page (as shown in the HuffPost article), I think it's pretty natural to describe the website as "Rotten Tomatoes for books". Reviews are crowdsourced and the website displays the percentage of users who rated a book favorably. It's also common for startups to be described as "<existing product> for <new vertical>". The HuffPost article says that they interviewed an executive, but that is only a short portion of the article. I'm not convinced that these are advertorials, and I don't think I will be unless you somehow obtain conclusive proof that money changed hands as a result of the article being published. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Rippon, Rachel (2015). "Watching the Watchmen: The integrity of reviews in digital self-publishing" (PDF). Minding The Gap: Writing Across Thresholds And Fault Lines Papers – The Refereed Proceedings Of The 19th Conference Of The Australasian Association Of Writing. Wellington: Australasian Association of Writing Programs. ISBN 978-0-9807573-8-5. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  The review notes: "Finally, iDreambooks is a database that integrates self-published books alongside traditionally published ones and has both critic reviews and user reviews displayed on a book’s page. ... For the author, however, while iDreambooks is an excellent resource for readers, it does little to help authors garner reviews. Nevertheless, books who do manage to receive critic reviews – particularly from reputable review sites such as Kirkus or Publishers Weekly – are far more visible on the site than books with low or no critic reviews. In this regard, therefore, iDreambooks maintains ‘quality control’ by allowing books with a higher degree of critic analysis to become more visible."
2. Quill, Greg (2012-07-16). "idreambooks.com a cool tool for readers in need of credible reviews". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  The article notes: "A couple of young Canadian web specialists have come up with a useful tool that will help you select good books to read, using the curated reviews of mainstream literary critics. Taking their cues from Rotten Tomatoes, the popular website that aggregates the work of professional movie reviewers around the world, Sarnia native Rahul Simha and his tech-savvy buddies, Canadian Vish Chapala and American Mohit Aggarwal, have built a website, idreambooks.com, that collects, aggregates and links the published works of professional book reviewers. ... Using automated software programs and manual techniques, the three founders have managed to encapsulate and link to reviews of more than 1,000 books from publications, movie websites and blogs all over the world, including Canada’s major newspapers and magazines, the Star among them. They have aggregated the opinions into “must read” and “don’t read” categories, signalled by smiling blue cloud and frowning grey cloud symbols beneath the book cover illustrations, along with the percentage of favourable reviews."
3. Kannan, Indira (2013-06-20). "iDreamBooks: Reading between the lines: The Silicon Valley start-up spotted an opportunity in aggregating book reviews, but accurate sentiment analysis remains a challenge". Business Standard. Archived from the original on 2014-04-26. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  The article notes: "Last year, the three friends started iDreamBooks. The website, www.idreambooks.com, aggregates book reviews from major publications such as The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and a number of other media platforms around the world, and assigns ratings to books based on the reviews. The service is modelled on www.rottentomatoes.com, a well known website that provides a similar service to moviegoers, aggregating film reviews. ... The project started with a couple of thousand titles; now, it covers about 100,000 titles. While critics' reviews are displayed for most books, ratings are available only for about 2,000. A search for Dan Brown's long-awaited thriller Inferno, for instance, reveals only one review and no critic rating, though it was widely reviewed and one of the biggest publications this year."
4. Kalder, Daniel (2012-07-13). "iDreambooks Promises "Rotten Tomatoes-like" Site for Books". Publishing Perspectives. Frankfurter Buchmesse. Archived from the original on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  The article notes: "iDreambooks has developed rapidly. Simha has been “playing around with the idea” since February, and developing it seriously since the end of March. There are three founders and four contractors on staff; Simha and one of his co-founders are engineers by training, but know how to write code. Currently they are adding new content to the site every day to make it as comprehensive as possible. Of course, others have announced similar intentions over the years, including Kirkus Reviews, which abandoned the project."
5. Grant, Rebecca (2012-07-13). "idreambooks offers credible recommendations for book lovers". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  The article notes: "idreambooks.com launched this week in an effort to help people read less rubbish. The site aggregates literary reviews from publications like the NYTimes and Washington Post and recommends books that were given a positive rating by 70% of critics. Plenty of book review sites out there collect user reviews and base recommendations off that criteria. idreambooks sticks solely to the professionals, so only books with critical endorsement are promoted."
6. "iDreamBooks Review Site: Rotten Tomatoes For Books?". HuffPost. 2012-07-13. Archived from the original on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  The article notes: "iDreamBooks, a site openly inspired by Rotten Tomatoes, has created a system that aims to aggregate and streamline book reviews, giving new releases from the big six publishers (Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin, Random House, and Simon & Schuster) a percentage rating. Like its popular film equivalent, the iDreamBooks team decides whether a certain review is positive or negative using both automated and manual techniques, and compiles the ratings to determine a book's critical merit."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow iDreamBooks to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response Not one of these contains in-depth independent content about the company, just stuff regurgitated from the website and from PR packs. A couple of sentences does not meet CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Also most of those articles rely entirely on interviews from the founders or information provided by the company, which is obvious if you read the article rather than the individual sentences isolated above. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As shown in the quotes I've provided, the sources contain sufficient independent reporting and analysis to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources. Cunard (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In order to ascertain whether an article contains sufficient "Independent Content" or whether it is based almost entirely on quotes/interviews or other sourcing from the company, you need to look at the entire article. It is not unusual for an article to summarise the interview in the lede, but that doesn't make it "Independent Content". Cherry picking individual sentences from the article in the manner you have done is either intentionally misleading or demonstrates a lack of understanding of what our guidelines require. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard, seems in depth and from a variety of sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PARAKANYAA, which ones appear to contain in-depth "Independent Content" to you? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Minding the Gap is good, containing a decent amount of critical analysis of the platform from a scholarly work. The Business Standard piece is also fine on that front. The other 2012 era ones are IMO all functionally one source since they came out at the same time, but in combination they have some useful pieces. Together that's enough for me. And I do not think your assessment of relying wholly on interviews or "just regurgitated from the website" is accurate.

Your bar for company notability is very high, higher than already the high NCORP. Quite frankly you say this a lot, I don't think I've ever seen you vote keep on a company at AfD. And that's fine, you're very often right, but I do not necessarily agree with your assessment of the pieces in this case or every case.

Also, WP:NWEB is a more appropriate guideline for this article IMO than NCORP, as website, under which this would also pass. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is not really related to the this current afd but one of my articles Cowin Capital was nominated for deletion by a now blocked account before. The decision was to keep it. One of the main reasons was because Cunard provided more sources just like now BUT HighKing actually agreed with him and voted keep. It does show both of them can agree to keep an article even if it probably is not common. Imcdc Contact 01:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response The reference "Minding the Gap" is a paper submitted by a student for an unknown course. We don't know the context, but it is not a reliable source. You say it is "scholarly" - it has not been cited anywhere. The Business Standard piece relies entirely on information provided by the website (hence the references in the first few paragraphs to Rotten Tomatoes) and to an interview with the founders, Simha, as noted at the beginning of paragraph 3 and as is obvious by the number of direct quotes in the article. That said, your point about NWEB is valid if the article was to focus on that aspect and not on the company/founders/etc. Finally, my "bar" for notability is precisely what is contained in NCORP, nothing more or less. Others might go on their own opinion or what the like or dislike, but if you want to stick to arguing guidelines and you can point to any paragraphs in any article which contain in-depth "Independent Content" (as defined in our guidelines) then I'll happily change my !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rippon 2015 is a paper that was part of the "Refereed Proceedings Of The 19th Conference Of The Australasian Association Of Writing Programs". This about page notes, "The Australasian Association of Writing Programs was established in 1996, with its first conference, a gathering of teachers and students of creative and professional writing, held at the University of Technology, Sydney and organised by Graham Williams and Dr Jan Hutchinson." I consider this source to be sufficiently reliable to contribute to notability. Cunard (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: iDreamBooks's lead says, "iDreamBooks.com was a book "discoverability" website, structured as a book review aggregator." iDreamBooks is a website. PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs) made a good point above that iDreamBooks passes Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria. Cunard (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've changed the article so that it is focused on the website. I've removed future/forward statements about the company's intentions and funding and I'm happy that it meets NWEB in this format. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:30, 16 December 2024 (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. A discussion on a merger can continue editorially Star Mississippi 04:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norkam Secondary School

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

Nonnotable school --Altenmann >talk 07:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see 3 reliable sources (1. BC government, 2. IB, and 8. sports), although whether those are significant coverage is debatable. Please convince me one way or the other. Bearian (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - found a couple of sources covering this school. Here's a couple of examples:

Dress code controversy at school in 2021 - 1 2 3 from CityNews Vancouver
Coverage of a club within the school in 2017 from The Vancouver Sun
Coverage of the introduction of "TV-Teaching" at the school from 1965 (published in the St. Catharines Standard, notably not in British Columbia, thanks to The Canadian Press newswire) (not entirely sure this meets WP:SIGCOV

Other sources include:

[BC gov't school website]
Kamloops This Week stories - will add here later, if needed

Thanks. Staraction (talk | contribs) 08:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Dressing controversy hardly increases notability. student's club - local news., TV teaching is a piece of trivia, etc. --Altenmann >talk 17:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Altenmann, the usual thing to do with a non-notable school is to merge or redirect it to the city/location (e.g., Kamloops#Education) or the government agency (e.g., School District 73 Kamloops/Thompson). Why did you decide that this needs to be completely deleted instead? WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of this "usual thing" about merge/redirect, I am not editing schools, I have no recollection how this one caught my eye. Redirecting looks reasonable to me. --Altenmann >talk 17:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is one excellent source (Coleman & Love, 2004), which has a portrait of a principal, Hoberly Hove, under heading "Succeeding with Diversity". The piece discusses the school at length from pages 59-66. We need multiple sources, but this is very definitely one. I am !voting keep, because I believe more sources are likely, but would suggest that until more are demonstrated, there is an IAR aspect to this !vote.

Coleman, Peter; Love, Nancy (2004). Principal Portraits 2. Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education (SAEE). ISBN 978-0-9734046-5-4.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

(this comment is from User:Sirfurboy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Oops yes. Sorry. I have added a signature now. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:11, 13 December 2024 (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!} 05:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OCEAN Design Research Association

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

Tagged as COI for 15 years. Wikipedia is not a permanent webhost for COI content. BD2412 T 01:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 01:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Business, and Norway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Speedy keep~~ with WP:NPASR. A valid deletion rationale has not been offered. No evidence of a BEFORE, and no evidence is provided that COI cannot be addressed editorially. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Dclemens1971: with all due respect, I would assert that the fact that the COI has apparently not been addressed for fifteen years is evidence enough that it can not be addressed. I welcome any editor to prove my wrong by so doing. I would offer as an alternative draftifying this article, pending cleanup. BD2412 T 04:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone would object if this were stubified. I'm just not going to do the legwork of deciding whether to !vote "delete" or "keep" in a deletion discussion when the nominator has not offered a valid rationale. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WEBHOST is a valid rationale. If the content is COI, then we are being used as a hosting service by the conflicted party. BD2412 T 17:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WEBHOST's terms apply to userspace. It's not a catchall policy for content in article space; if it were, every AfD nomination could just say "Wikipedia's not supposed to be a webhost for ____" and leave it at that. And WP:COIEDIT is not prohibited, although it's obviously strongly discouraged. In this case, the page creator's conflict is openly disclosed. There's an editorial case for combing through the page for conflicted content, but the presence of COI alone is not a reason to delete a whole page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dclemens1971: It appears that the discussion participants below have performed the review that you're looking for. BD2412 T 15:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll strike my !vote since it's been mooted, but that doesn't excuse nominating without evidence of a WP:BEFORE or a valid rationale. A nominator should not rely upon participants in a discussion to do the work of a nominator. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Note:COI is not a deletion rationale.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete self-promotion/advert. No independent confirmation of notability. --Altenmann >talk 07:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything about this organization that was not authored or co-authored by Michael Hensel, one of the founders and the main contributor to this article. One other name appears as Defne Sunguroğlu Hensel, and given that the organization's web page is in what I am guessing is Indonesian (?), I assume this is a family member. Lamona (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zero coverage of this Association that I can find. Feels like a PROMO that's lingered around for far too long. 15 years is more than enough time for sourcing to be added; that it's not been done in that time tells me this isn't likely to have any and can safely be deleted. The fact that the COI isn't being contested by anyone involved with the Association would also seem to indicate this isn't an ongoing concern. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2024 (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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robotics Design Inc.

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

Tagged as COI for 15 years. Wikipedia is not a permanent webhost for COI content. BD2412 T 01:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 01:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - old edit -COI hasn't been discussed on the talk page, as the COI box suggests should happen. Late edit - it has been discussed as I hadn't looked in the archives. Almost all of the refs are self referential, and as discussed in the archive the trade mag article is just a rehash of the company's PR. 21:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep with WP:NPASR. No valid deletion rationale has been offered, nor has evidence of a WP:BEFORE been provided. There is no reason provided why any COI that may be present cannot be addressed editorially. The WP:WEBHOST policy primarily applies to userspace and is thus not a rationale for deletion, and WP:COIEDIT is not a reason for deletion since such edits are not prohibited (just strongly discouraged). I would encourage the nominator to renominate with a valid rationale and evidence of a BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Ref. 2 is significant, independent coverage. I'm having a hard time finding more but I assume more must be out there since the company has won some innovation awards. If kept, the article needs to be radically chopped, since it's almost all sourced to press releases and passing mentions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. This was a blatant advert from the first and despite a lot of toning down and cleaning, still is. Plus it lacks the sort of coverage that is good for WP:NCORP. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with above; this entire article, at least as an outsider, reads like an advertisement. I find it hard to believe it passes WP:ORGCRIT; even if one source contains significant independent coverage, ORGCRIT requires multiple. To me it doesn't seem like it could be significantly improved even in the future. Beachweak (talk) 09:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but I could also go the other way. I removed a lot of the non-independent sources and much of the "products" area. There are still two sections that are un-sourced (History and Robot manipulators). The main thing in favor of this article is the development of Bixi, which appears to be significant. However, the links here re Bixi do not mention Robotics Design. I found one newspaper article with a mention that attributes this company to Bixi, and a few other very brief mentions. Since this is a Canadian company perhaps someone has better access to Canadian sources (which you would think we would find alongside the US ones, but that doesn't seem to be the case.) The other products have some decent sources. Lamona (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, unsourced content in corporate COI articles should be exterminated without mercy. I have removed all (tagged) unsourced content accordingly. Toadspike [Talk] 08:23, 18 December 2024 (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!} 05:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sulphur Springs

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

"Battle of Sulphur Springs" is a made-up title not used by the source. The entire article is a WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE of the one accessible link; the other primary news source is simply copied from the first source and certainly not actually consulted for writing this. Notability is not established for this event to justify a standalone article. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Battle of City of Rocks. Reywas92^Talk 05:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Arizona. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Full of OR mess. Garudam ^Talk! 09:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Intothat darkness 12:36, 11 December 2024 (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!} 05:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Affair

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

"Magdalena Affair" is a hallucinatory title not used by sources/historians. The entire article is a WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE of the one accessible link; the other two primary news sources are simply copied from the first source and certainly not actually consulted for writing this. Notability is not established for this event to justify a standalone article. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Battle of City of Rocks. Reywas92^Talk 05:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yet another OR mess from the initial contributor of article. Fails WP:MILNG and WP:SIGCOV Garudam ^Talk! 09:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Much of the information is also repeated (almost verbatim) in unit articles related to this one. Intothat darkness 12:38, 11 December 2024 (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. Star Mississippi 04:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Vlastellis

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

This article has been reliant on only one source since 2009, and a Google search only shows WP:UGC sites User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 05:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 05:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shalabam

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No reliable reviews from Rediff.com and Sify.com [29]. The only 2 reliable sources are passing mentions. DareshMohan (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. -Mushy Yank. 09:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Malayalam films of 2008, a standard solution for articles about released films when cast is notable, content verifiable and the director and writer have no page. Preserves history and can be reverted if sources are found. Thanks (NB- the film is listed there).-Mushy Yank. 10:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank The writer do have an article, Madampu Kunjukuttan. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 11:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! Then redirect to that page might be the best option if Redirect is the past chosen. But as you say below, the page might meet NFIC as being an important part in the career of a notable figure who has played a major part in the production. So Keep! -Mushy Yank. 13:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing in Google search result to show that this passes WP:NFILM. The two sources in the article gave just single mentions each and with nothing in search result, there is nothing to sustain it. Mekomo (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Malayalam films of 2008, as quoted by Mushy Yank...Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sudheesh#2000s. Lots of evidence that the film exists. The other page List of Malayalam films of 2008 is poor with no sources and that is why redirect to actor's page is more better (imo). RangersRus (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added some refernce links. I don't know whether the notability pass. The Film exists. Had a theater run. Streaming in multiple online platforms now. That is all. --Ranjithsiji (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a consensus to Redirect but two different target articles bring proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There still has to be a decision between two suggested Redirect target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As discussed in many recent AfDs, infomercials have taken over previously responsible media there, so sourcing about a current film in India often just verifies its existence, but does not constitute significant coverage. When this crossover into digital informational dreck occurred was in the 2020s, after this film was released. Bearian (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: source 3 and 4 are unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES and source 1 and 2 have no significant coverage and no multiple reviews. RangersRus (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is but not was true. Indian sources in the past were good. This film was released in 2008. Arguably the Indian media deprecated in the 2010s. Bearian (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC) It’s the Sorites paradox: at which point in time did their media go from being normal to garbage? It’s an arbitrary point. Bearian (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found this video link via Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, about the deprecation of Indian journalism 9 to 10 years ago. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We still do not have a consensus on an outcome or the most appropriate Redirect target article if that is the option chosen.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayanthkumar123: Are you ok with changing your Redirect to Sudheesh#2000s instead of List of Malayalam films of 2008 that is poor with no sources? RangersRus (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As there are no significant sources, I am ok with the redirect of the page to Sudheesh#2000s. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Given that the writer of this film, Madampu Kunjukuttan, is a National Award winning Best Screenplay Writer, and the film has been listed among (the writer's) popular, award-winning movies by TOI, as well as the notable cast members being prominent figures in Malayalam cinema, it is reasonable to believe that media coverage of this 2008 film was more reliable and received substantial offline attention at the time. I believe this movie can be considered notable in some respects, even though it doesn't quite measure up to the current WP:NFILM.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 11:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moments to Remember (XM Satellite Radio show)

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

Article about a radio program, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for radio programs. As always, radio programs are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they existed -- they need to show that they pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them in sources independent of themselves. But this cites no coverage about the show at all, and instead is referenced entirely to the host's own self-published uploads of old episodes of the show to YouTube, which is not an independent or notability-building source.
Simply existing is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt the show from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dixon, Greene County, Indiana

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

Another rail spot (the GNIS location is wrong: older topos show it quite a bit east) now in the middle of several substantial industrial/utility/warehousing sites but no town. Mangoe (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there is a Dixon Cemetery a mile or so east, there was never anything at this location more than a rail crossing and a building or two. Also, the location labeled "Dixon" on the map moved due west between 2010 and 2013: [30], strongly suggesting someone made a typo in a database somewhere; not something you would expect to go uncorrected if this were a significant place.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus that this article might cross the boundary into WP:FRINGE and it should be removed from main space of the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Rope Hypothesis

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

Page of original research constructed to appear like sourced material. Most sections start with a paragraph of standard science with reputable sources. After this comes completely original work without sources, all based upon the book on the topic by Bill Gaede (without ever stating that). To the non scientist this combination could appear to be reputable encyclopedic content. I view this as deliberately deceptive. I view it as close to WP:G3 since it has been constructed to use established science as if it supports the rest of the page. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best this might be a didactic tool; it is obviously not framed as a physical theory. But we would need an entirely different article for rope as a prop in physics education, and while searching found some material on analyzing jumpropes, tightropes, or waves on physical ropes, none of it concerned gravitation and electromagnetism, the topics of this article. So neither the references in the article nor references found in searching support WP:GNG for this article and this title. And while there may be some pedagogical value to this analogy, the idea that the shape of DNA has some non-coincidental relation to the fundamental forces of the universe comes off as pure WP:FRINGE. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sourced claims about this theory in the article. The theory exists (see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272630187_Light_The_Rope_Hypothesis if you want to read it), people have discussed it (and some claim to have debunked it), and it might be possible to create an article about it, but this isn't it. As Ldm1954 points out, this is sourced material about science, with an unsourced original theory tacked on. At best, this is WP:TNT Meters (talk) 06:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this sort of stuff needs to be super-well cited, and placed in context, or it's just using WP as an advertising space for fringe ideas. I have to agree with Ldm1954 that we're straying into deceptive territory. Not good. Elemimele (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nom's reasoning is spot-on. This is, at best, deceptively-sourced WP:FRINGE material and at worst made-up OR. If secondary sources ever discuss Gaede's theory then we can have an article, but this is a mess. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a crankish melange of different things that have mentioned ropes and/or helices. It's basically free association of words, decorated with footnotes. In addition to all the above points, I'll note that reference 3 is to the International Journal of Applied Physics and Mathematics, which is published by International Academy Publishing, a predatory outfit. XOR'easter (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is about a technique to TEACH light and gravity (i.e., the Theory of Everything -- TOE) in the classroom as the article clearly states. A rope can be used to simulate many aspects of light and gravity. The nominator is objecting on the basis that it is a THEORY that challenges their personal BELIEFS... the theories they believe in. The article is offending their OPINIONS about the mediator of light and gravity that they studied in college: particles and transverse waves. If we simulate with a rope, this summarily debunks in their minds the notion that light is mediated by particles. Coveysuitsy (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . This is the first time I write in the Wikipedia. My field is in Computer Science, but I was always interested in physics and math. I am appalled to read the justifications for why this article should be deleted. Of course it should be kept. The objections incongruously arise from treating this article as proposing a new theory. It would appear the editors are a bit overzealous. This article is not about a theory of physics. The article is about education and about educators using a prop as a didactic tool. If editors like the foregoing decided what articles are included or rejected in Wikipedia, it makes me wonder how many articles have been kept from the public eye in the past. What I learned from this article is that the educators will not be able to teach students with a visual tool that mimics some of the verified properties of light. Publicizing the article under ‘tightropes’ and jumpropes’ as one editor suggested, seems to hide it from individuals who will benefit from it the most: the educators. It is not physicists, but the educators who should be reviewing this Wikipedia article. It goes without mentioning that the article is also well supported by published papers. CPsc1972 (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article literally switches from talking about a didactic tool to a Theory of everything in the second sentence. XOR'easter (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's another one of Bill Gaede's attempts of pushing his WP:FRINGE theory to broader masses and giving them unjust credibility. And once again we see the same type of obvious astroturfing in the discussions. If anyone wants to write a properly cited article that puts the theory into a scientific context, be my guest. This article is certainly not it. Oniichansugoi (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bettina Valdorf

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

There is no evidence of WP:SIGCOV and after doing a search I could find any additional of coverage in reliable sources. I did find some passing mentions, but nothing in-depth or evidence to prove notability. Grahaml35 (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Germany. Skynxnex (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - For winning a bronze in the ISSF World Cup [31] , [32] Ayokakesy2023 (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Independent coverage is what we need, and I believe I found some bits at [33] [34] [35] Geschichte (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NBASIC.dsrprj (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncharted (EP)

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

A contested redirection. The restoring editor claimed that "plenty of coverage exists", but I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing mentions that the EP was released and coverage of the singles released from it, but no in-depth coverage in news articles and more importantly, no reviews from noteworthy sources. While I acknowledge that the release is recent, it also did not chart on any US Billboard charts this week and what it did achieve in the UK chart-wise is fairly insubstantial. Ss112 01:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: WP:NALBUM notes that an album may be notable when it is the "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works". The reviews from Kerrang! and Distorted Sound Magazine should suffice for this, given that both are deemed reliable per WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES. While I can't seem to find any other sources at the moment, and while it is true that none of the other album notability criteria currently apply to this EP, I believe it's still enough for a presumption of notability. Leafy46 (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Leafy46: Ah, those have been added since I nominated the article. I agree that the notability is looking better from those alone. Ss112 09:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since being nominated the EP has been subject to "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works" per WP:NALBUM. Because of this, I would say it passes WP:GNG as well and should be kept. Beachweak (talk) 09:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability has now been demonstrated. I found a third source, too: [36]. -3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. EPs are often deleted at AfD, not because they're inherently bad or not notable, but because they often don't get significant coverage. This one was been shown to be the notable minority. Bearian (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2024 (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 Estádio D. Afonso Henriques. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Estádio D. Afonso Henriques (1965)

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

This is a smaller article that addresses the stadium in some ways in the same way as the other article of the same name. It is, in a way, a copy of the Estádio D. Afonso Henriques, since it was created later, only it wasn't developed further because of the latter's existence. Please pay attention to the facts and references provided in the discussion. 44 Gabriel (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – The relevant content about the old stadium, and redirect to Estádio D. Afonso Henriques. Svartner (talk) 09:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Deleting and redirecting without the transfer of information are stupid moves… V.B.Speranza (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if there is anything to merge. SportingFlyer T·C 06:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I want to confirm, is Estádio D. Afonso Henriques the preferred Merge target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: you are correct, this appears to be an article about the stadium before it was renovated, but it is the same stadium. SportingFlyer T·C 03:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Estádio D. Afonso Henriques. The 1965 stadium is part of the same venue, and there doesn't seem to be enough unique content for a separate article. The pre-renovation information can be integrated into the merge target, and then this would be redirected there. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 12:04, 11 December 2024 (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 Costa Rica–United Kingdom relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Costa Rica, London

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources present do not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, United Kingdom, and Costa Rica. AusLondonder (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge somewhere appropriate. Not seeing any urgent need to delete this? The sources seem adequate to support the content provided. If the intention is to question the encyclopedia's coverage of all the many missions/embassies, it would seem sensible to start an RfC to discuss how best to cover this topic, rather than picking individual articles off one by one by prod or AfDs that are unlikely to be well attended. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re it would seem sensible to start an RfC to discuss how best to cover this topic, rather than picking individual articles off one by one by prod or AfDs that are unlikely to be well attended Over the past few months there have been a succession of individual PRODs and AfDs of articles about embassies and consulates in London, not a single one has ended in delete (most have been redirected to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London, a target that is on my list to improve), a couple have been kept and some merged or redirected to other targets. Despite the very clear consensus that deletion is not desired by the community they have continued to nominate at PROD and AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did eventually find that useful list; could a column for extra information be added there? It seems to me to be useful and interesting that the Costa Rican embassy converted relatively recently from a "mission", which is supported by a reliable Times source. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a column for that is on my list. Leave a note on the talk page with ideas for improvement so I remember them when I get to it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the intention is to question the encyclopedia's coverage of all the many missions/embassies, it would seem sensible to start an RfC to discuss how best to cover this topic, rather than picking individual articles off one by one by prod or AfDs that are unlikely to be well attended There have been many, many AfDs for diplomatic missions over several years and very few have been kept. AfD is clearly the appropriate place for each individual diplomatic mission to be assessed on notability. Not sure what's controversial here. AusLondonder (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Over the past few months there have been a succession of individual PRODs and AfDs of articles about embassies and consulates in London There have been many AfDs over several years for individual diplomatic missions globally, not just "in London". You may only be interested in missions in London but that's simply a mischaracterisation. You are also inaccurate in suggesting none have been deleted. Despite the very clear consensus that deletion is not desired by the community they have continued to nominate at PROD and AfD AfD is an appropriate venue to decide a potential merge/redirect. AusLondonder (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is fine, prod not so much, imo. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes some embassy articles have been deleted. So it is false to say very clear consensus that deletion is not desired by the community. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources 3-10 confirm former ambassadors and are not about the embassy itself. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LibStar Genuine question, where exactly in WP:ORG do you consider this falls? Espresso Addict (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only sources 1 and 2 are about the actual embassy. Source 1 is a database list. LibStar (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was that intended to be in response to my question? Not seeing how it answers it. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." The sources do not meet that. There will be no further response. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict: I'm not sure what your question is. Are you suggesting WP:NORG doesn't apply? AusLondonder (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was attempting to clarify exactly which part of ORG was held to apply -- eg the standards for companies are entirely different from those for non-profits, but there's no specific guidance for embassies. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. If the embassy does not have stand-alone notability then the encyclopaedic content should be merged somewhere. Straight deletion will not benefit the project. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commment. Normally we would merge this kind of article into a foreign relations page at Costa Rica–United Kingdom relations. However, that article has not yet been created. It probably should be. Perhaps a move to Costa Rica–United Kingdom relations? Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion is trending toward a merge, but without a clearly defined article to merge it into, that makes it kinda tough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another relist for a merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Without a Merge target article identified, it looks like this AFD is likely to close as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment Normally we merge NN embassies and consulates to the corresponding bilateral relations article, which in this case would be Costa Rica–United Kingdom relations. As you can see, that article doesn't exist yet. Potentially this article could be moved there and rewritten to reflect the broader topic. There is a British embassy in San José, Costa Rica, though it has no article, so there is likely enough to make a basic article. Mangoe (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Costa Rica–United Kingdom relations, which has now been created. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Costa Rica–United Kingdom relations per above. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shift Technologies (software company)

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

None of the given sources are either reliable or give significant enough coverage to meet WP:NCORP. Cutlass ^Ciera 01:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Software, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: puff piece that fails Wikipedia:Ncorp. Themoonisacheese (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Keep if Features and maybe Browser section get removed. 808WikiWarrior (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Browser section seems relevant to what the company does, but agree the Features section may not align with an article about the company. Missywdigital (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP based on what's currently in the article and what I could find online. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NCORP not met, maybe WP:TOOSOON, maybe never, in either case, not now. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:39, 17 December 2024 (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. Editors can discuss a possible article page move on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bank charge

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

A dictionary definition with only one source, discussing a particular controversy apparently already covered at Overdraft fee. The general topic of all charges made by banks its better at Bank or Overdraft fee; a general discussion of all fees possibly charged by banks would be a discussing of the economic model of banking, which would be better at Bank. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bank and/or Fee. Although, I'm somewhat astonished that this article doesn't exist, but from looking, it seems like it was drastically reduced in article size due to OR[37]. The related topic of Bank fee redirects to a small section on Fee, but could equally fit over at Bank. TiggerJay (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say Fee now that you suggest it. This mostly works as a sort of summary of the articles on individual fees -- it works as a few paragraphs in the Fee article, assuming citations can be found. Mrfoogles (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Business. Skynxnex (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, possibly rename Bank fees. These fees are regulated and sometimes controversial. See for example the Roosevelt Institute article The Business of Bank Fees, How to Avoid Bank Fees (American Bankers Association), Bank Fees: Federal Banking Regulators Could Better Ensure That Consumers Have Required Disclosure Documents Prior to Opening Checking or Savings Accounts (Government Accountability Office), Bank Fees in Australia (Reserve Bank of Australia). Clarityfiend (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to Bank fees. I pay them monthly to my bank. Bearian (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and move) per the above. In addition to reports on the consumer-side effects, there is also some interesting research less focused on the consumer, such as DeYoung, Robert; Rice, Tara N. (2004). "How do banks make money? the fallacies of fee income". Economic Perspectives. 28 (4). Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago: 34–51. and Tennant, David; Sutherland, Richard (2014-09-10). "What types of banks profit most from fees charged? A cross-country examination of bank-specific and country-level determinants". Journal of Banking & Finance. 49: 178–190. doi:10.1016/j.jbankfin.2014.08.023. I believe there are sufficient published sources that this article certainly could have the potential expand beyond the dictionary definition it is right now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayur Chauhan

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

Subject was twice declined in AfC and also fails NACTOR, as the subject has not had significant roles in notable films or shows. There is no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources apart from the WP:OR added by User:Saurang Vara who denies any COI despite being familiar with the subject's personal information. The subject's role in Chhello Divas does not appear to be significant and none of the other films have substantial content to be considered when evaluating Mayur Chauhan according to NACTOR. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, India, and Gujarat. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say his 3 roles in productions that have a page on this WP are not significant? And why should Karsandas Pay & Use be considered non-notable? I found some coverage about Saiyar Mori Re too. He seems to meet WP:NACTOR, -Mushy Yank. 13:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The mentioned films do not meet WP:NFOE/ WP:NFILM. Karsandas Pay & Use has two reviews, one from TOI with an unknown critic and another from an unknown website. Saiyar Mori Re has no reception section and Samandar (film) has two local reviews! From a WP:BEFORE search, none of these films have been distributed outside Gujarat. Just because these films have articles on Wikipedia does not mean they are notable in the first place to be used as evaluation criteria for Mayur Chauhan. Either way, there is zero coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a critic writes for a national publication such as Times of India he is considered nationally known as per discussions at WP:NFILM Atlantic306 (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discusisons on What is a "nationally-known critic"? and "Nationally-known critic" as it relates to films of India aren't closed and there is no consensus either. Let me know if I have missed any archived discussions. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions are ended and there is a clear consensus Atlantic306 (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For argument's sake, even if the not-yet-closed discussion is considered as consensus for what you have claimed, there is still only one review in a national publication. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The subject has relatively moderate significant coverage for his films Saiyar Mori Re, Samandar (film), and Karsandas Pay and Use. As the lead actor in all these projects, the combined coverage is sufficient to pass WP:ACTOR.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the coverage though? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: i dont think the subject passes WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Lead (ergo significant) roles in at least two notable productions have him meet WP:NACTOR imv. -Mushy Yank. 13:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject is likely to have worked in multiple movies but the lead role is uncertain and significant coverage in independent reliable sources is not available. Zuck28 (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sorry but the fact that he had at least 3 lead roleS is absolutely not "uncertain”. -Mushy Yank. 03:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting this article would remove recognition of an individual who has played a role in the growth of regional cinema. Efforts should be made to improve the article with verifiable sources rather than deleting it. Regional actors often have a lasting impact that may not always be widely covered by mainstream media, but this should not disqualify their inclusion on Wikipedia. Saurang Vara (talk) 05:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ibar-Lepenac attack

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

Looks like a classic textbook case of WP:NOTNEWS. While this event has made headlines recently, there weren't any casualties or injuries and the canal has been repaired. Most of the article is about "reactions" from other countries. Seems more apt for a one or two sentence mention in other articles, such as North Kosovo crisis (2022–2024) than an article of its own. Griboski (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Kosovo. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)1[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Griboski (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose: The argument that this event, declared a terrorist attack, is not notable overlooks the critical damage it caused to vital infrastructure, which provides essential water to multiple municipalities and supports energy production in Kosovo. The incident has had significant national security implications and is not merely a local crime, but part of a larger regional struggle. Additionally, it has garnered extensive media coverage both in Kosovo and internationally, which further underscores its notability. It has been widely reported by major international outlets, with considerable attention from the EU and other key actors. As investigation continues, the article can be updated and expanded, and contributions from editors are encouraged as new information becomes available. Iaof2017 (talk) 12:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly believe the article on the North Kosovo crisis (2022-2024) should not have been capped at the year 2024 and I view it as arbitrary. The continual escalation that started in 2022 has not seen an end. I agree that this article does not contain enough relevant information to stand on its own and should be deleted. However, the canal incident cannot be ignored entirely, it should be added to the aforementioned article on the North Kosovo crisis. Аккумулятор (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:EVENT: Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below). The event has been discussed by many sources beyond the early news cycle and it will continue to be relevant because of its consequences.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support It's not particularly significant. Labeling an event as a "terrorist attack" doesn't necessarily make it so, it can also reflect a particular political viewpoint. That said, this article should be deleted and its content merged into other existing articles. A variety of perspectives and nuances, which would align with NPOV principles, are currently absent. — Sadko (words are wind) 23:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The incident was recognised as a terrorist attack by both the Kosovan authorities and international actors, not just based on political views. Again for you, it targeted important infrastructure with the intent to cause fear and disruption, which fits the definition of terrorism. It wasn't just a label, it was a deliberate act with serious security and regional consequences. So please stop trying to downplay it, your argument simply doesn't hold up!! Iaof2017 (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Just because there were no casualties doesnt mean that a subject with this amount of importance shouldnt have its own article, similarly to the Battle of Lojane which had no casualties but still has its own article as it was an important event. Peja mapping (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - only because you have a redirect to Ibar-Lepenac canal explosion linked above, not the article itself. I don't think you want to delete the redirect and leave the article standing. — Maile (talk) 03:28, 11 December 2024 (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 Database. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Online database

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

Almost all sources for this article are from the 1990s, which is appropriate because this subject became a thing people talked about around that time, and stopped being a thing people talked about some time thereafter (now we would just talk about a database). This wouldn't be fatal if the article was about the emergence of online databases, but it isn't. It's a WP:DICDEF about online databases and cloud databases, with some other stuff thrown in. This article has almost no chance of ever being more. Vadder (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Vadder (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to database. This article seems unnecessary and the database article already talks about online databases. Perhaps some of the content could be usable in the main article, but I couldn't say for certain. I don't think this specific case is WP:NOTABLE enough to warrant its own article. Beachweak (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looks like a 90s computer thing article that got recently updated with a cloud software bit. Nothing worth saving. Oaktree b (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Or redirect as suggested above, I'm not that fussed either way. Oaktree b (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to database I don't see an ounce of difference between "Online database" and "database" User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 05:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Database. Databases do not have to be online, but that's the only difference, and it's not a notable difference. Meters (talk) 06:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or possibly merge to database, as per above. I don't actually see a section/paragraph discussing them in that article, but I don't think it really matters. Ships & Space_(Edits) 23:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. The article is capable of being expanded beyond a definition. WP:NOTDICTIONARY says "articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content", not deleted or merged or redirected. Most databases are not online, and online databases have their own features and their own history. Arguing that this article should be merged into Database is like arguing that Laptop should be merged into Computer, even though they are not actually the same topic. We don't merge notable subtopics. James500 (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - as I read this, my ancient Gen X elbows, knees, and shoulders ache. Kids these days! Bah humbug! Bearian (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC) Merge as per the whippersnappers. It's 11:00 pm. Time for gramps to go to bed. Bearian (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Database: The only Keep vote here doesn't actually explain why online databases are a notable subtopic of databases. I would need to see sources with quotations that discuss the distinction, which we don't have. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2024 (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] ttps://books.google.co.in/books/about/The_Karnataka_Police_Manual.html

[2] ttps://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/bengaluru-news/infosys-foundation-grants-rs-33-crore-to-karnataka-police-to-fight-cybercrimes-101712819148518.html

[1]

[2]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia · View on Wikipedia