Datasets:

hsuvaskakoty

/

wide_analysis

like 0

List of My Bride Is a Mermaid albums: Xexerss ( talk ) 17:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan . Xexerss ( talk ) 17:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to My Bride Is a Mermaid . Note that much of what's there should be implicitly verifiable via the albums themselves. — siro χ o 20:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above. Pranesh Ravikumar ( talk ) 09:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

KPKN-LD: Could merge into KCEB as they share spectrum. Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 13:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 13:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with KCEB : like most 2010s-launched DTV America/HC2/Innovate LPTVs, there's no significant coverage that could allow for standalone notability (nor anything that could lead to same), but being the channel-sharing host for the (older and slightly longer-established) KCEB makes this merger a logical alternative to deletion . This article is another technical survivor of a bulk nomination from last year ; even then, an eventual redirect to KCEB was proposed (the bulk nomination ultimately failed to attain any consensus, in no small part because the circumstances surrounding each article were not as 100%-identical as they might seem on the surface). WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : per above. Fails GNG, but there is enough primary to source a brief mention in the target. // Timothy :: talk 06:13, 29 January 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.

merge

SARS-CoV-2 Eris variant: While there is news coverage, it is similar to that provided to other Omicron subvariants at this time. EoRdE6 ( Talk ) 03:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions . EoRdE6 ( Talk ) 03:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant#Subvariants . This is Paul ( talk ) 10:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per This is Paul seems appropriate. - Indefensible ( talk ) 15:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above and for ease of reading. Narky Blert ( talk ) 10:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Marth (Fire Emblem): He's a *known* character in terms of Smash and Fire Emblem, but in terms of actual commentary there's nothing I was able to find. Scholar itself also offered no useful results. WP:BEFORE just gives all indications that this is another Smash Bros. character in a long line of them with little said. Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 15:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 15:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - currently looking for sources. Seems like I've seen sources over the year about how his presence in Smash Bros helped inspire Nintendo to localize more Fire Emblem games into English language releases. So far, I've only got https://gamerant.com/fire-emblem-marths-past/ and https://www.thegamer.com/fire-emblem-engage-who-is-marth-backstory-explained/ which are pretty detailed usable sources, though usually not considered great indicators of notability on their own... Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light . He may have more mentions in Japanese, but in English he is rarely mentioned thanks to his games going unlocalized and the remakes being unpopular enough that he is mainly known for a game that isn't even a Fire Emblem one. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 16:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To be clear, what he's known for, and what region the sources come from, are irrelevant. All we need to find out is the WP:GNG is met and if there's any convincing WP:MERGEREASONs . Sergecross73 msg me 21:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - It could be worth checking the Japanese version of the article I'm sure they would have at least something. I did also find this which could be useful from a more fan focus perspective ( Siliconera ). Don't know how useful it can be, but hey it was worth a shot. Captain Galaxy 14:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've just checked, and the Japanese article has even less Reception than this version of the article. I agree it may be worth checking Japanese sources, but the article in question lacks them. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 16:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Though I haven't looked at any any translations yet, this scholar source mentions Marth quite a few times. MoonJet ( talk ) 15:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light for now. I am honestly surprised about how little there is for Marth, and I'd genuinely love to see this guy stay, but there isn't enough here for a split for now. A Legacy subsection with Marth, akin to EarthBound and Ness could be good to add given Marth has been arguably the most enduring part of that game. Regardless, if sources are found properly, ping me and I'll consider changing my vote given I'd love to have this article stay. As for the two sources acknowledged by CaptainGalaxy and MoonJet, they don't really help. The Siliconera source is basically just a popularity poll ranking, which barely contributes to notability, while the Scholar source is an overview of the Fire Emblem series, and the only mentions of Marth are in reference to the plots and appearances of the character in the games. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 16:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the game or a character list. There isn't enough here for WP:SIGCOV . This is likely a WP:NOPAGE situation, where we could have a summary paragraph of reception about all of the characters. Particularly for sources that are about the characters, with no one in particular. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 17:41, 11 February 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.

merge

O'Reilly Theatre: Since clean-up tags were added 11 years ago, there has been no improvement to the article. At best, the article should be redirected to the college article. Sionk ( talk ) 18:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre , Education , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] merge nn venue - Altenmann >talk 21:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge if any sources can be found. Might just be OR, in which case, delete . I see refs that state that shows were performed there, but they don't say much about the theatre. -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 05:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . I agree with the above. Bduke ( talk ) 07:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep- I am working on expanding the article with reliable sources. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 18:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unfortunately, you have not added any WP:Reliable sources . Only more student newspaper articles. -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 01:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Cherwell is a reliable source: the real problem is that these articles only make passing mention of the theatre as the location where the performance (which is the real subject of the articles) is occurring, rather than discussing the theatre itself. Jonathan A Jones ( talk ) 10:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Keble College as there's no independent notability of the theatre. I thought there would be something about the construction in the UK papers but I couldn't find anything on Newspapers Extended. Cheers! BBQ boffin grill me 00:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge the opening lead paragraphs to Keble College#Buildings where the theatre is mentioned under the Modern heading. No need to merge the Performances as non notable. Sources tell us only a little about the theatre or are about the plays performed there. Insufficient, independent coverage to pass the GNG. Rupples ( talk ) 22:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – enough references for WP:GNG now with updates. — Jonathan Bowen ( talk ) 16:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note – this is an award-winning project – information with references now included. — Jonathan Bowen ( talk ) 17:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article suggests the awards are for the building as a whole, not the theatre specifically. Rupples ( talk ) 17:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Center for Advanced Life Cycle Engineering: AviationFreak 💬 05:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education , Schools , and Maryland . AviationFreak 💬 05:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect after selectively merging to A. James Clark School of Engineering . This article is obviously written by the center's director if you bother to do a bit of Google search. Graywalls ( talk ) 05:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect - per above. In my mind, the alternative would be g11 speedy deletion. 4.37.252.50 ( talk ) 19:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Embassy of the Maldives, Abu Dhabi: All the sources are not independent from the subject (the Republic of Maldives and the UAE) or don't cover the subject of the embassy in depth, with most information being a content fork from Maldives–United Arab Emirates relations , to which this article could redirect. The only supplemental source I managed to dig up is this one , and it's only trivial coverage. Wikipedia is not meant to act as simple directory of embassies. Pilaz ( talk ) 14:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Maldives , and United Arab Emirates . Pilaz ( talk ) 14:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete most of the supplied sources are primary. Fails GNG. LibStar ( talk ) 23:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per nom, PRIMARY and GNG. The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 18:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Maldives–United Arab Emirates relations : some useful sources and material here, but not enough for a standalone page. Owen× ☎ 20:34, 21 April 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.

merge

Rhamu Incident: The only source cited states that around 30 Kenyan soldiers were killed in a border skirmsh, that's it. Overall this article doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG standards. I've done a WP:BEFORE check and couldn't find anything conclusive. Merge into Somali–Kenyan conflict . I've found some sources [22] [23] [24] , so I wouldn't say it didn't happen at all, despite it being difficult finding anything of value. However, it seems a far cry from the 480 Kenyan dead claimed in the article and closer to anything between 6–30, so be careful with what you merge. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , History , Military , Kenya , and Somalia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Merge. Also, please remember to sign & date your AFD nomination statements. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I see nothing here worth merging. The source is weak and the subject appears to be NN at best. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Now the article has enough references. Лисан аль-Гаиб ( talk ) 12:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Switching from Delete to Merge - The additional sources added by Лисан аль-Гаиб (thank you!) provides enough to make a solid and valuable paragraph in Somali–Kenyan conflict . I still see no significant notability to warrant a separate article. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 13:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Somali–Kenyan conflict . Per above arguments محرر البوق ( talk ) 19:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Skirmish at the Chukchi Peninsula: A misunderstanding, some shots, no casualties, that's it. A very minor episode in the Vega Expedition , not even mentioned there until you added the "see also" for it. Fram ( talk ) 13:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Russia , and Sweden . Fram ( talk ) 13:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What if it was re-named to "Stay at the chukchi peninsula" Dencoolast33 ( talk ) 14:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I prefer "Incident at the Chukchi peninsula" skirmish might exaggerate the events while "Incident" does not. Gvssy ( talk ) 14:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But the name doesn't solve the lack of notability ; the whole incident isn't even mentioned in the first source, a description of the expedition [56] . Nor is it described in the more extensive second source about the expedition [57] . I can't find it at page 10 of the third source [58] , which was the page given as the reference. It seems to appear at page 19, where one crew member describes it, while the "skirmish" is missing from the diaries of two other crew members who just say that they encountered the local people. Fram ( talk ) 14:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] According to the article, shots were fired at the Chukchis. However, page 19 of [59] suggests – to me at least – that the shot was fired (probably in the air) to restore order either while, or before, the Chukchis were aboard. In that case, it would probably not be seen a skirmish or anything alike. The citation "Nordenskiöld (1880)" leads me nowhere to confirm; is a proper skirmish described in there? If not, I'll support the removal of the article (while some information could be moved to Vega Expedition ). Imonoz ( talk ) 02:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I think it'd be entirely possible to write an encyclopdic article on the interactions/relationship between the Vega expeditions and the Chukchis who came into contact with it. There's the scholarly article by Åsa Olovsson, thirty pages focused on this topic, as well as other work. But the skirmish in itself is a very brief mention there, mentioned more or less in passing. I think there's a good foundation here, and that this article can be kept – but that it would be necessary to broaden the topic to the general relationship between the involved Swedes and Chukchis rather than this brief interaction. / Julle ( talk ) 17:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Vega Expedition . The parent article gives the relevant background information and is currently very short. Merging this information there will improve it. If the parent article expands significantly, then this can be again split to a separate article. Jähmefyysikko ( talk ) 07:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Vega Expedition. Procyon117 ( talk ) 15:22, 14 June 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.

merge

Atoli: This article also mostly build up with trivia articles/sources like passing mentions from games reviews. It has zero WP:SIGCOV . Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 14:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Shellwood ( talk ) 14:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Only good source I could find is this but . hack is not that explored when compared to other RPGs in the West so I guess there is not much else to search. Tintor2 ( talk ) 22:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Impresive scraping of mentions in passing, but fails WP:SIGCOV . It would be a shame to loose this - I recommend SOFTDELETE and merger of reception to the List of . hack characters . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of . hack characters . There does not seem to be WP:SIGCOV about this character - if there is, let me know. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 16:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or merge as WP:ATD . Does not pass WP:SIGCOV , but might have some WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs to WP:PRESERVE . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 20:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . I really like her hat, but there's just not enough. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 22:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Neutron scanner: Chidgk1 ( talk ) 17:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions . Chidgk1 ( talk ) 17:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Industrial_radiography#Non-intrusive_cargo_scanning Neutron imaging : or Merge if any of the sources here are worth keeping. Owen× ☎ 14:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC) Changed merge/redir target per comments below. Owen× ☎ 12:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Cargo scanning is just one use for neutron scanning. I've turned up 6 refs for neutron scanning applications in strain measurement, radioactive waste characterization, archaeology, tank measurements, weld evaluations, nuclear fuel fabrication. There are still more uses out there. For this reason, I recommend against redirecting to a cargo scanning section. As for merging, there's now a lot to merge. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 18:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 3 more applications I've referenced: medical, lunar dust analysis, concrete research. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are any of those sources secondary ? I see a lot of academic publications there, which certainly establish verifiability, but without SIGCOV by secondary sources, we don't have the notability we need for a standalone article on the subject. That is why I suggested a merger to a notable topic. For a section there, we don't need independent notability, just verifiability. If Non-intrusive cargo scanning isn't the best target, I'd be happy to consider others. Owen× ☎ 20:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . As I noted when I removed the PROD tag, numerous Google Scholar results indicate neutron scanners are notable. I recommend checking Google Scholar as a "WP:BEFORE" step before deleting this kind of article - it turns up stuff a normal Google Search does not. Also, I note that the article has refs. I appreciate all the many hours Chidgk1 puts every week into purging unreferenced junk from Wikipedia; this one, however, is a keeper. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator Thank you @ Jonathan de Boyne Pollard : for fixing and referencing the article. Chidgk1 ( talk ) 18:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Chidgk1 : you are free to change your mind, and strike out (not delete!) your initial nomination reasoning here. But once any editor has expressed a view other than "Keep" in an AfD, it cannot be circumvented. Please see WP:WITHDRAWN for details. I also restored your AfD notice on the article, as required. Please leave it there until this AfD is properly closed by an uninvolved editor. Thank you. Owen× ☎ 18:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah I see I did not know that - makes sense Chidgk1 ( talk ) 18:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No problem, and no harm done. Owen× ☎ 18:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Merge to Neutron imaging or Industrial radiography . I understand that neutron scanners are used not only for screening the cargo, but also in applied crystallography , and in general it is a part of neutron imaging . My very best wishes ( talk ) 16:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So would it make sense to merge this article into Neutron imaging ? Chidgk1 ( talk ) 18:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed. I agree. My very best wishes ( talk ) 01:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Orrgo: The closest things to reliable sources that I could find were two listicles. A redirect to the relevant list would be possible. ― Susmuffin Talk 15:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Comics and animation . ― Susmuffin Talk 15:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with List of monsters in Marvel Comics in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 17:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as compromise. There aren't enough independent sources but we can find an WP:ATD here. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 21:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of monsters in Marvel Comics , just listicles. Password (talk) (contribs) 02:32, 19 February 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.

merge

The Rocker: Music from the Motion Picture: Would better be merged into the movie article. Bedivere ( talk ) 16:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music . Bedivere ( talk ) 16:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom. Mach61 ( talk ) 18:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom, though be wary that the article is full of unsourced info which may be original research, and a lot of that should probably be dumped. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 18:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support merge per nom -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Horses Saratoga Style: No references, and one hit on Google News from 2013. Uhooep ( talk ) 02:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts , Animal , Events , and New York . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the arts and culture section of the Saratoga Springs article. The one primary source used here is enough for a one-line mention of the thing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as suggested. I saw them, I enjoyed it, I took the pictures. It's not worth a whole Wikipedia article. Bearian ( talk ) 21:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Saratoga, Springs and link there from CowParade#North_America where this is mentioned. Star Mississippi 02:18, 1 February 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.

merge

Rorschach (Reggie Long): Some trade sourcing came out while the publication was ongoing (Polygon, CBR, IGN, a post-2013 WP:NEWSWEEK article), but no coverage in the five years since. Other citations are primary, like directly from the source material. If the article is not deleted, it should be merged and redirected into Rorschach (character) . – Muboshgu ( talk ) 19:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If not kept , then merge into List of Doomsday Clock characters not the Rorschach (character) article, that article does not need this stuff, it's about a specific character. ★Trekker ( talk ) 20:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Notability isn't temporary. If it was notable in 2013, it's always notable. The Polygon sources and IGn Latin America are fine, the rest are good. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see this as having ever having been notable. And the graphic novel came out in 2017, not 2013. – Muboshgu ( talk ) 21:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 23:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Polygon is just an extended plot summary. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment not voting yet but I felt it good to note that this article has been proposed for merging with Rorschach (character) since May of this year. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 23:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge since the article does not estabilish notability for this version of the character. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Doomsday Clock characters - I have to agree with the nomination that the sources on this character were largely the result of comic/pop media sites reporting on/reviewing The Doomsday Clock as it was being released. There really is not much that I can find that was written after this period that goes into any analysis of the character specifically. In fact, the only articles I'm finding that mention this version of the character since The Doomsday Clock finished are largely just statements about how this version of the character was not used for later Watchmen media, such as the TV series or later comics. This leads me to agree that the only notability this version of the character had was simply the notability of The Doomsday Clock itself, and he does not pass the WP:GNG on his own merits. I also agree with StarTrekker that, as the characters only significant appearance was in The Doomsday Clock , the character list for that series is more appropriate of a target for a merger, rather than the Rorschach (character) article. Rorshacma ( talk ) 18:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to character list, per Rorshacma. I wouldn't object to a mention at the related Rorschach (character) . This doesn't have WP:SIGCOV for a separate article, but can be covered within another article (or two). Shooterwalker ( talk ) 03:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with List of Doomsday Clock characters and mention him in Rorschach (character) . Not independently notable but I see no reason not to mention him there. Industrial Insect (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Just as an FYI for the above two comments, the character is already mentioned at Rorschach (character) in the "Events of Doomsday Clock" section, so that looks to be taken care of already. Rorshacma ( talk ) 19:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge into either List of Doomsday Clock characters or Rorschach in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . If I recall correctly, @ Muboshgu : previously started a discussion about this merge on Rorschach's page. -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 01:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Arthur Ryerson: ( Per WP:SINGLEEVENT ). Page has been deleted before due to non-notability in 2006 and 2013 . One alternative would be to redirect to his wife's page , and merge much of this content there. Mason ( talk ) 21:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Illinois . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Is his wife any more notable on her own than he is? Joyous! Noise! 21:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Good question. I think so; She won a Croix de Guerre award for her wartime service [1] and seems to have toured with Herbert Hoover . [2] Mason ( talk ) 23:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect to Emily Ryerson . Arthur fails WP:SINGLEEVENT , however his wife does not because of the events mentioned in Mason's comment above. JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 00:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Emily Ryerson per nom. It's fortunate in this case that his wife has an article that the relevant content can be sent to. Otherwise, the less-than-optimal choice would have been "Redirect to Passengers of the Titanic#Passenger list ", where there is only a listing. Stony Brook babble 03:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Emily Ryerson per the above. That might entail a rename to Arthur and Emily Ryerson but then again it might not. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 02:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ [1] ^ [2] Merge to Emily Ryerson . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 10:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Chance RT-52: Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 01:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 01:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Optima Bus Corporation per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE as a premature WP:SPINOFF . Chance RT-52 is short but perhaps the important information is there. The proposed merge target is disappointingly short and needs the extra content and references that never should have been spun off in the first place. gidonb ( talk ) 13:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Preferably keep but second best is merge as per gidonb's rationale. Searched for material to add but found little of note. Suspect there's coverage offline perhaps for example, in City Transit Buses of the 20th Century - Photo Gallery by William A. Luke, Linda L. Metler (2005), The Illustrated Encyclopedia of American Trucks and Commercial Vehicles by Albert Mroz (1996), A Historical Survey of Transit Buses in the United States by Society of Automotive Engineers (1980) or in National Bus Trader periodical which says it has been serving the bus industry since 1977. Rupples ( talk ) 00:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Only fair to strike through one of the sources I suggested. Located it on JSTOR and while the company is mentioned the particular model under discussion here is not. Rupples ( talk ) 02:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Image Diffusion International: CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 22:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Anne-Marie Losique MNewnham ( talk ) 01:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually I am going to nominate her for deletion as well, after this one, together with her pornsite Dorcel TV Canada . - Altenmann >talk 02:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:08, 27 February 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.

merge

Smokescreen (Transformers): Mach61 ( talk ) 03:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Didn't we do this with the sockpuppet guy the other day? BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 08:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, but I still didn't find anything substantial from my WP:BEFORE 2605:B40:1303:900:DD62:A1B6:17A:9D75 ( talk ) 14:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What was your Before? BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 18:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And is there a reason you're interested in AfDs and won't sign up for an account? Forgive me if that sounds rude, but considering the previous nominator was blocked, renominated AfDs that didn't go their way and seemed interested in evading their block I feel it is a question worth asking. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 18:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete covered by zero RS's. InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 18:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep . this nomination is most likely by a sock of the previous nominator, and as such would fall under bad faith. Drowssap SMM ( talk ) ( contributions ) 21:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC) striking original vote per Ferret . Drowssap SMM ( talk ) ( contributions ) 22:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep . Nomination was made by the request of a WP:SPA ip at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#AfD request for Smokescreen (Transformers) (2nd nomination) . Given that the original nominator at the first AFD, Grandmaster Huon , is indefinitely blocked for WP:SOCKPUPPETRY , it is a high probability that this nomination was made as an end around a permanent block by that user. 4meter4 ( talk ) 21:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Where is the evidence that this IP is a sock of the blocked user? I mean, I'm not denying the possibility that they are a sock, but suggesting a connection between the two without evidence doesn't seem to be assuming good faith. Perhaps a CU can assist us. InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 21:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment by CU/blocking admin of Grandmaster Huon I see no connection between this IPv6 editor and Grandmaster Huon, who is not blocked for sockpuppetry but for CIR issues. No comment on the AFD itself, clearing the air on the socking allegation. -- ferret ( talk ) 22:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ DrowssapSMM and 4meter4 : Be aware that your !votes are essentially invalid as a result, and likely to be ignored by the closer. You may want to evaluate the topic and give a policy based reason for keep as a result. -- ferret ( talk ) 22:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Ferret My mistake on the sock. I mistook your mention of "multiple accounts" in the block as a sock report. I mainly commented here because I saw the note by Drowssap and agreed a nomination likely made by a blocked user shouldn't stand. 4meter4 ( talk ) 22:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ( edit conflict ) Thanks, Ferret. As I wrote in above, the allegations were made irresponsibly and without evidence. WP:DUCK is generally good advice, but this is just not assuming good faith. InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 22:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ InfiniteNexus and you are now not assuming good faith of us and are also violating WP:AGF . We are all want to keep the encyclopedia a safe place that is functioning well. Mistakes happen. Be gracious. 4meter4 ( talk ) 22:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did not imply that your action (making an accusation without evidence) was done in bad faith. I said it was irresponsible, meaning you should have done things differently. Assuming good faith doesn't mean one cannot call out another user for a poor decision, even if it was done with good intentions. To be clear, I have no doubt that you meant no malice with the accusation. InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 22:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Personally I would still like to hear from the nominator; while there is likely a reasonable explanation it is a striking coincidence and IMHO a highly unusual choice of a first edit for a passing unregistered user. That said, I am not sure my word has any weight as I have decided to take a hiatus from editing due to the recent spate of shitty nominations based on entirely Google-based BEFORE making me highly wary of sinking further time into creating content that might get taken out by driveby trolls and the usual mob of axe-grinders. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 01:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (it is also relevant I feel that the blocked first nominator made attempts to get other users to make nominations by proxy) BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 01:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BoomboxTestarossa An misunderstanding of how IPv6 works is why this has blown up. IPv6 editors frequently change IPs within (generally) a tight range assigned by their ISP. This is completely outside their control. This IPv6 editor has been editing for months and has requested other AFDs in the past. See Special:Contributions/2605:B40:1303:900::/64 . This is all one individual, across the different IPs their ISP has assigned them. This is essentially the very first step any sysop takes when reviewing an IPv6 editor. -- ferret ( talk ) 01:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning Keep . As with many of the early Transfomers toys, Bellomo's Transformers: Identification and Price Guide has SIGCOV. There's some SIGCOV in Stuart Webb's Transformation: A Personal Journey Through the British Transformers Comic Volume 2: 1987-1989. I am pretty sure this subject this will pass GNG. As is the case with many Transformers characters, there are so many incarnations through toys, comics, TV, movies, games, etc. — siro χ o 05:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As I said, has toys =/= notable; I didn't find anything for his incarnations either 2605:B40:1303:900:DD62:A1B6:17A:9D75 ( talk ) 13:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you explain what you mean by "has toys =/= notable"? — siro χ o 18:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Smokescreen has lots of toys, but that isn't enough to constitute SIGCOV 2605:B40:1303:900:DD62:A1B6:17A:9D75 ( talk ) 22:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The toys themselves aren't the SIGCOV. SIGCOV about the toys is. — siro χ o 02:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's really just reviews though, not anything substantial 2605:B40:1303:900:DD62:A1B6:17A:9D75 ( talk ) 13:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, the Identification and Price Guide contains only brief descriptions of toys 2605:B40:1303:900:DD62:A1B6:17A:9D75 ( talk ) 22:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the arguments put forth by Siroxo, or at worst merge to List of The Transformers (TV series) characters per WP:ATD . BOZ ( talk ) 02:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.239.156.253 ( talk ) 20:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's really no RS's to speak of though. 2605:B40:1303:900:DD62:A1B6:17A:9D75 ( talk ) 20:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi random IP person, as you seem to have no problem jumping in on some votes but seem to have missed a direct question, may I again ask what your Before was? I'm guessing by how vociferously you're referencing it that it's not just a Google search and it involved reliable specialist sources that not just any muppet with a browser and a search engine can find, so before I try to squeeze some actual research on the subject into a busy work week it would be handy to know which sources aren't worth checking. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 10:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I performed a search on Google, Google Books, and Google News. All I found that was, in fact, about this specific character was either from toy sites or Transformers fansites. Admittedly, I should have been more specific. 2605:B40:1303:900:B914:3BD0:A72B:38ED ( talk ) 23:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So... you've done a Google search? Yikes ... fair play for the candour at least. Will see if I can juggle some stuff around and do actual Before at some point in the next few days. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 14:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, I don't see anyone providing RS's 2605:B40:1303:900:B914:3BD0:A72B:38ED ( talk ) 14:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And I don't see good Before. We're all full of useful observations today. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 17:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ❓ If it's "per nomination" your ! vote should be "delete". InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 19:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Smokescreen doesn't appear to be notable separately from the franchise/subfranchises as a whole. Cortador ( talk ) 22:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to the list of Transformers. Article is still just a pure plot summary with no analysis/reception, and what I see above are hopefull wishes that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES . Sigh. This is pure WP:FANCRUFT . -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I appreciate your vote, but there is no List of Transformers article (perhaps for good reason) 2605:B40:1303:900:314F:5A6F:E30D:81A7 ( talk ) 00:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are List of Transformers film series cast and characters , List of Transformers comics characters , List of The Transformers (TV series) characters , and List of Beast Wars characters . InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 00:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Never mind, my apologies 2605:B40:1303:900:314F:5A6F:E30D:81A7 ( talk ) 01:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I Abstain form voting, but a suggestion that I would like to make is that perhaps someone could make a combined article with Autobots Bluestreak, Prowl, and Smokescreen since they are all the same design. Davidgoodheart ( talk ) 23:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. This AFD discussion went astray with speculation on the nominator so let's focus on notability and sources. If you are proposing a Redirect, please specify the target article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This article has no inline citations and very poor sourcing. I don't see which are RS and which aren't and I'm not going to re-write the article using the sources given. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No reliable sources, pure plot summary and WP:FANCRUFT . The arguments made are without a doubt some of the most atrocious examples of WP:But there must be sources! I've seen in the short time I've been editing here. There have been no compelling arguments made, and "your before sucks, therefore this must be notable! No I'm not providing sources, I'm too busy!" drives me absolutely batty. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't think I or anyone else said shit Before means notable, just that shit Before means shit Before. Maybe stop trying to drag AFDs into sub-fanboard fallacies to make your case, eh? FWIW I'm not crazy about my work schedule either but being a freelancer in a cost of living crisis means going through issues of Toyfare sometimes has to wait. Sorry you seem to have taken that personally. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 20:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I for one appreciate what you can do, when you can do it.  :) (I think you knew that already, though.) BOZ ( talk ) 20:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist for this trainwreck of a nomination. Before closing this as No consensus, let's give it a few more days. Maybe the eyes of a different AFD closer can see a rough consensus where I just see chaos. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of The Transformers (TV series) characters#Autobot Cars , The book Transformation: A Personal Journey Through the British Transformers Comic Volume 2: 1987-1989 seems to be the only reference that is WP:SIGCOV . Not enough to pass WP:GNG . -- Mika1h ( talk ) 15:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - After several weeks, there still not evidence of enough significant coverage in reliable sources to pass the WP:GNG . At best, it can be used as a Redirect to List of The Transformers (TV series) characters#Autobot Cars , where an entry and description of the character already exists. Rorshacma ( talk ) 18:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or delete There is a consensus that this hasn't passed the WP:SIGCOV bar for its own article. Nearly all the ! votes here describe either deletion or merger, particularly if we ignore socks and IP editors. The best compromise would be a merge per WP:ATD , allowing editors to work out the appropriate material to WP:PRESERVE (or clean-up) through the editing process. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 15:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

2017 Dera Ismail Khan bombing: No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT . Also no deaths reported so WP:NOTNEWS also applies. Also oppose merging with any terrorism article as it is not clear this event was terrorism. LibStar ( talk ) 09:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events , and Pakistan . LibStar ( talk ) 09:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This source explicitly describes it as terrorism, and all others generally refer to it along those lines, referencing attacks and militancy and whatnot. Hence, merge (cut down version) to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017 . PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 21:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or delete : per nom; NOTNEWS. Queen of ♡ | speak 03:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:18, 25 April 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.

merge

North Atlantic Rail: There's been no coverage since 2021 - even their own website stops at July 2021. Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 20:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Transportation , Connecticut , Massachusetts , New York , and Rhode Island . Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 20:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It's still being discussed; in Gnews, [4] an opinion piece, but the first few I pull up are from Conneticut and all over New England. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oaktree b : That piece is from June 2021, during the initial spurt of interest. The only Newspapers.com result in the past two calendar years is a single letter to the editor (not a reliable source). Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 21:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This [5] although the project has morphed into something else. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oaktree b : That's the update to NEC FUTURE , which is an Amtrak project. Same region as North Atlantic Rail, and some of the same corridors, but completely separate organization with no relation. Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 22:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete It's rather odd to see this under "Planned" in Template:High-speed rail in the United States when it's just a concept in its infancy. I don't think this has gotten enough sustained attention by the actual planners to have an article. Reywas92 Talk 05:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to High-speed rail in the United States . Although this has been described at length in Newsday and mentioned in Bloomberg , that's about the only significant coverage that this project has received in reliable non-primary sources. There are also less significant mentions in sources like Boston.com , as well as the above mentioned opinion pieces, but at this point I think there is a case for merging the article for now. – Epicgenius ( talk ) 21:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to High-speed rail in the United States would indeed be the wisest choice because, while it is still in the planning stages, it nevertheless stands a chance of coming to fruition. And if it does not, it can still be mentioned as one of the high-speed rail proposals that were put forth. TH1980 ( talk ) 04:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge (selectively) to High-speed rail in the United States . North Atlantic Rail is short and still needs serious trimming. It makes the SPINOFF unjustified. gidonb ( talk ) 02:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to High-speed rail in the United States per above. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 00:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

2014 Macedonian police stations bombings: Per WP:EVENT , "A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)." This event appears to have had little or no impact at the time, let alone enduring impact since then. The reporting, per the sources cited, is only regional, and took place immediately following the event, strongly suggesting no historical significance or lasting effect. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS . -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 08:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Terrorism , and North Macedonia . DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 08:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into National Liberation Army (Macedonia)#Later developments , which has a list of other minor attacks committed by the group at around the same time. -- Dynamo128 ( talk ) 09:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with National Liberation Army (Macedonia)#Later developments : Minor incidents such as this are recorded there 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Tay Bridge transmitting station: No sources cited. WP:NOTDIR of minor TV/radio relay stations and their frequencies. Flip Format ( talk ) 15:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio , Television , United Kingdom , and Scotland . Flip Format ( talk ) 15:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. RobinCarmody ( talk ) 18:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge what's verifiable to Angus transmitting station (the transmitter it relays). Thryduulf ( talk ) 13:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Angus transmitting station per Thryduulf's suggestion. SBKSPP ( talk ) 06:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Trikut cable car accident: LibStar ( talk ) 04:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Transportation , and Jharkhand . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or Merge to a new section about the cablecar on the Trikut Hill article. There is plenty of more recent coverage available, e.g. [41] , [42] , [43] , [44] , [45] . The most recent of those is from less than a week ago, so the nominator has clearly not done a (sufficient) WP:BEFORE . I'm happy with either keeping or merging, but there is definitely no cause for deletion Thryduulf ( talk ) 09:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have now expanded it based on two of those sources but more improvement is certainly possible. Thryduulf ( talk ) 10:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Trikut Hill. Not worthy of its own article per WP:NOTNEWS . sixty nine • whaddya want? • 18:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Kool DJ Dee: The main attempt at a notability claim is that he "is credited with having the first crossfade mixer in the Bronx", which might be valid if it were properly sourced to media coverage to establish it as significant, but is in no way "inherently" notable enough to override the absence of valid sourcing -- but the only source here is the proprietary website of an online store selling Kool DJ Dee merch, which is obviously not independent third party coverage of him. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have far, far better sourcing than just his own self-created web presence. Bearcat ( talk ) 12:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York . Bearcat ( talk ) 12:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to a subsection in the history of hip hop might be in order. I find only trivial mentions of this person [31] , [32] and [33] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He's even mentioned in a few items in Gscholar, mostly name drops, but a law journal among others, discussing the legality of sampling music tracks. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with Oaktree on the merge idea. He has contributed to hip hop but he doesn't have the independent sources or media coverage to warrant his own Wikipedia page. Maybe a merge with a page on early hip hop pioneers? Hiphopsavedmylife ( talk ) 02:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle ( talk ) 08:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG. Is a pioneer really a pioneer if no-one has given him significant coverage calling him a pioneer in the past 50 years? Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 18:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. If you would like to see a selective Merge here, please supply a target article and a particular section would be very helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Selective merge to Hip hop music#Origins . - KH-1 ( talk ) 00:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That seems ok. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Hip hop music#Origins as an WP:ATD-M Lightburst ( talk ) 01:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Tatsuya Suou: content are all trivial. WP:BEFORE shows zero WP:SIGCOV , including scholarly sources sadly. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 11:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Persona 2: Innocent Sin#Setting and characters . The article doesn't show standalone coverage in secondary sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Zx's statement. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 17:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above. SIGCOV is meh, not a single source cited is about the character, but they are about the games, and mention the characters in passing. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Persona 2: Innocent Sin#Setting and characters . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 09:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Ultra ATX: never gained any significant adoption. EVGA's website only describes the product as XL-ATX. -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 18:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Not notable. Bhivuti45 ( talk ) 18:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Motherboard form factor#Size variants , where it's mentioned. ~ A412 talk! 21:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to ATX#Variants as preferred WP:ATD ~ Kvng ( talk ) 13:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to ATX#Variants per Kvng. Skynxnex ( talk ) 13:16, 5 April 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.

merge

Statue of Althea Gibson: On first seeing this article I changed it to a redirect to the appropriate section of the subjects biog (which is headed by a picture of this statue). And the actual content of this article is almost zero; certainly nothing which cannot be contained in the biog. And, considered purely as a work of art, I will eat a milliner-load of hats if it excites any real critical attention. TheLongTone ( talk ) 15:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC) TheLongTone ( talk ) 15:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge / Redirect to Branch Brook Park There are sources about the statue in the article and this source popped up in a basic WP:BEFORE search. Is the statue itself and the sourcing about it notable enough to require the nominator to eat a pile of hats? Probably not. But should this be turned into a redirect and should the details of the statue and the Althea Gibson Tennis Center be merged into the article for Branch Brook Park , where the statue resides? Absolutely! The failure to "consider alternatives to deletion" and to conceive of and propose a merge / redirect as an option should be worth eating at least half a hat. Alansohn ( talk ) 16:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Alansohn , when I created the article, I was hoping for more sources on it. Even as I checked now, there aren't that many. Given that, I would say merge with articles Althea Gibson and Branch Brook Park . Omnis Scientia ( talk ) 16:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Omnis Scientia , you created the article in good faith, but I concur that a merge to both the articles ("There is a statue of Gibson at Branch Brook Park in Newark, ..." and "At the Althea Gibson Tennis Center, the park has a statue of its namesake Althea Gibson , a pioneering ...") with a redirect to the park are the best solutions given the state of sourcing. Alansohn ( talk ) 16:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Alansohn , thanks! I actually created the article because, having been dealing with the categorization of statues of sportspeople, I noticed that none of them were women and sought to rectify that. I realize now that the more notable (and better sourced) statue of Gibson is at the U.S. National Tennis Center (the location of the U.S. Open Grand Slam - Althea was the first African American to win it) and I should have focused on that instead of this particular one - partly because there was an image of it. Omnis Scientia ( talk ) 16:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Omnis Scientia : You can categorise the redirect, so that this can still be found that way. Pam D 10:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ PamD , good idea! Omnis Scientia ( talk ) 10:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merged (actually redirect ) >>> Althea Gibson#Legacy , where image was/is appropriately pictured and text information already included. Djflem ( talk ) 12:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Statues are commonplace and rarely notable, and when there are sources, coverage in the subject's or location's article is often more appropriate per WP:NOPAGE . Keep , this notable (see sources) statue of a major female tennis star is certainly page-worthy. It is exhibited outside of the Althea Gibson Tennis Center, which enhances its importance to her life and its notability. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 12:38, 16 January 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.

merge

Felicia (Darkstalkers): Felicia is a very recognizable character. One of the most recognizable ones from the Darkstalkers franchise, alongside Morrigan. However, recognizable does not equate to *discussion*. Even the recently added academic article added has nothing to do with Felicia, but commentary on cosplay in regards to decency laws, and not an examination of Felicia in those regards (Hell even by the article's own admission the cosplay was changed from the character's appearance). Sadly...you can only say "Felicia is mostly naked" so many times. That alone doesn't merit an article. C. Viper was compared to a King of Fighters character in terms of design by a massive number of publications...and just that. And that didn't survive an AfD. Multiple Dead or Alive female characters also had some variation of "they're sexy" as the crux of their whole article, and they also didn't pass notability standards. I would really like Felicia to have something, but after extensive searching...all we have is "she's mostly naked and sexy for it" and "she's one of the most recognizable of the lot because she gets reused a lot". That's not a base to build around when all the commentary is the same. Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 03:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 03:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Darkstalkers characters . Whilst I disagree with a sudden unilateral redirect, I'd agree that Felicia isn't independently notable; reception has been very puffed-up. I am open to re-evaluating my stance if very good sources are found. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 04:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect . While I oppose bold redirect for such cases, sadly, my BEFORE fails to find anything outside the passing mention ina master thesis that I've added and a rewritten press releases about a comic [45] . The current reception reads nice but I can't find a single source that meets WP:SIGCOV . Ping me if you do. PS. I checked ja and zh articles and they are even worse than ours (ja is a game guide, and zh is a stub). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above reasonings. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 21:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per all. I don't find enough WP:SIGCOV for a separate article. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 21:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion as List of Darkstalkers characters , the proposed Merge target, is also up for a AFD deletion discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If not List of Darkstalkers characters , then merge to Darkstalkers#Characters . Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 09:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I agree with Greenish Pickle. If the merge target isn't kept, then this can be included at the main article. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 02:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Darkstalkers characters preferably, or if the list is deleted merge to Darkstalkers . Not enough secondary coverage for an in-depth character article. Rjj iii ( talk ) 21:12, 30 March 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.

merge

2023 Clarksville tornado: Usually, standalone articles are for tornadoes that are particularly deadly and have a massive lasting effect on a decently-sized community. This tornado caused 3 deaths and was rated as an EF3. This may also apply to 2021 Tri-State tornado , which although an EF4, caused 8 deaths, compared to the effect of the Mayfield EF4 that casued 57 deaths and destroyed several towns. In my opinion, for a tornado to have a section on an article it should either cause 1 million USD or more in damage, be rated EF3 or more, or cause 20 or more injuries. To have its own article, I think a tornado should have to cause 10 or more injuries in three communities and 10 or more deaths in total. The Clarksville tornado caused damage, but it was an EF3. This is pointless as an article and should either go in its own outbreak or go onto the tornado list in December. Cutlass Ciera 14:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe that even if you think it is a minor event, it had killed 6* people and counting. Even if it wasn’t an EF5 or even an EF4, it had done possibly permanent damage to the people of Clarksville, TN. Yes it wasn’t the 2013 el reno tornado but it doesn’t hurt anyone to have this article. It is better to inform people of events like such because events like the December 9th tornado will get covered by other big news like politics, then people forget. With an article about it that people can read, the reader can understand the devastation that the people that experienced the tornado had gone through. There is no harm by having its own article, it might help though. People reading the article could contribute to helping the communities hit by the tornado through donations and or by informing others. Once again, no harm is done by this article. It should not be deleted. EvanAndrews22 ( talk ) 15:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] First off, it killed three people, not six. Two, even if it did permanent damage, it doesn't mean that it is notable. The rest of your statement reads off as WP:USEFUL and WP:HARMLESS . Cutlass Ciera 16:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Really? I am just going to repeat what Reecey said and say that it was one of the strongest December tornadoes in recent years. While not THE strongest, it is still notable in its own right, being the strongest of one of the worst December outbreaks in recent years. You have provided no points except for the fact that El Reno is only notable for size, which it is not. You also fail to realize that the outbreak of which this occurred in was a one-in-a-million chance. I mean, some tornadoes took the same paths as the ones two years prior, which is remarkable, and can only really be compared to the Moore tornadoes and the Codell Tornadoes. I rest my case, this should not be deleted for the reasons stated above and the reasons stated by other people. 108.67.192.250 ( talk ) 16:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I forgot to mention this, but this article is NOT a stub, and you can tell that there is enough info for an entire article. It also was very long-lasting, being an hour long. 108.67.192.250 ( talk ) 16:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, your argument of "Long lasting effect on a decent sized community" is easily disproven by the fact that the tornado destroyed 114 homes, heavily damaged 857 others, mostly in a town/city of over 160k people. 108.67.192.250 ( talk ) 16:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 100 out of 160000 is a very small percentage. Even if we assume 10 people per household, that's still trivial. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Although I agree with that, it is a city of 160k, which is a more than decent sized community. 108.67.192.250 ( talk ) 16:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you're tunnel-visioning on what you personally feel is notable. Tornadoes like this occur all the time. Check out Perryton, Matador, Amory, Sullivan, Winterset, Wynne, etc all from this year. None of these have articles for a reason. Wikiwillz ( talk ) 16:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with you, but we can't use Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument. Chess Eric 16:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It was a major event, and even if you don't live around here, it killed half of the people that were in this outbreak, and it was possibly a multi-vortex. If you want to use the "It was an EF3" argument, then we should also delete the El Reno tornado article. You see how unfair that is? I stand my case. Clarksville (and Hendersonville) deserve their own articles, separate from the current, very tiny, outbreak article. This is IP address user, signing off. 108.67.192.250 ( talk ) 15:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The El Reno tornado was particularly notable due to its large size, which is unique. A run-of-the-mill EF3 with three fatalities is not really notable. It doesn't work that way. Cutlass Ciera 16:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The size of the storm doesn’t matter. The damage it caused does. By saying it doesn’t work that way is saying that those 6 people who died don’t matter as much as those who died in the el reno tornado EvanAndrews22 ( talk ) 16:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you're missing the point here. The size of the storm does matter. The EF3 damage was three or four very poorly built houses flattened and a strip mall destroyed. That itself is not grounds for an article. The rest of the article is refuting an argument I never made. Cutlass Ciera 16:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is notable, It killed 3 people, and was an EF3. It was one of the steongest December tornadoes in recent years. The article shoudl be kept. Reeceycat123987 ( talk ) 16:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yet again, this isn't proving it to be notable. Being "one of the strongest December tornadoes" is not grounds for an article. Three people is not grounds either. Cutlass Ciera 16:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Trivial weather event. Under 10 people dying is rather routine for a weather event; to be blunt, we've had articles in AfD where more people were involved in a mass shooting in the USA and it's been deemed not notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete : The event was a low-end EF3 and was fairly tame. Dozens of other tornadoes even in the last couple of years are much more worthy of an article over this. The speed in which this article was written gives me sort of WP:HATSHOP vibes as well. Wikiwillz ( talk ) 16:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Oaktree b & Wikiwillz — Would you both support a merge into Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023 ? The AfD nominator also supports a merge into the article. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 18:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, given it is substantially thinned down to increase readability. Wikiwillz ( talk ) 18:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023 , now that the latter article is in mainspace. Ionmars10 ( talk ) 16:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023 : we have more than enough sources to support verifiability for an expanded section in the target article. Owen× ☎ 17:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023#Clarksville, Tennessee / Allensville–Russellville, Kentucky as an WP:ATD , non-notable event. Just because the tornado was an EF3 and killed three people doesn't mean it is notable. ~ Tails Wx 17:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but rename to 2023 Northern Tennesse Tornado. Cwater1 ( talk ) 19:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep — As article creator, I do think it passes WP:GNG , so deletion is out of the question. That said, while I am not opposed to merging , a merge will make the outbreak article…well, off-balanced, since the RPS (readable prose size) of the tornado article is actually larger than the entire outbreak article. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 17:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC) (See new comment below relisting comment) The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 02:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This argument has no ground to support it. The section can be trimmed to make it readable. Cutlass Ciera 18:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is readable as is. It passes WP:GNG and WP:LASTING . Your deletion reasonings was strictly based on casualties/impact, but that isn’t what makes an article notable. Sources do. That is why WP:NEXIST exists. The 1999 Aïn Témouchent earthquake survived AfD because it has multiple reliable sources. The state of the article (and overall impacts) weren’t that high…Yet it has the coverage, so it passes notability requirements. Like I said, I’m not opposed to the merge, which it seems you aren’t either. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 18:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A large amount of these sources lack WP:DEPTH . The NWS survey is a routine survey done of every tornado that is reported to cause damage in the US. Several of the other sources are news articles that only say one point (e.g. that the tornado was an EF3). Cutlass Ciera 18:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd lack to add Cutlass, that this is how a majority of tornado's are written. The NWS survey is the most official and comprehensive detail of damage and chronological impact. There's little need to scour for sources that would really have less detail or authority to the survey itself. Wikiwillz ( talk ) 18:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree the article passes WP:GNG, but the thing about general notability guidelines is that they're. . well... general. There are nuances to consider. I support a merger, sounds like the smart thing to do. Wikiwillz ( talk ) 18:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Now that an article for the outbreak has been created, there is no need for an individual article for this tornado. I support a merger. Chess Eric 18:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC) Chess Eric 19:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge- We can summarize this in the outbreakn article. Reeceycat123987 ( talk ) 18:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Kentucky , and Tennessee . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To get this back on the log following DRV. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep – Since a WP:SNOW , merge closure was overturned, I am going to double down on the keep. Passes WP:GNG , passes WP:NEVENT and while still a recent event a few days ago, the tornado still gets complete individual news articles about it ( [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] "Federal disaster declared after Clarksville tornado" ), aka secondary RS coverage at least 5 days after the event, indicating WP:LASTING may be satisfied as it clearly isn't a true WP:NOTNEWS event. All original issues with the AfD all pass. In previous struck comment, I originally was ok with a merge, but given the merge overturning, I no longer support a merge. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 02:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It wasn't the merge that was overturned in DRV. It was your blatantly inappropriate WP:INVOLVED attempt to prematurely shut down discussion here. Your renewed "double down" campaign smells of WP:SPITE . Owen× ☎ 12:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No WP:SPITE at all. I honestly don’t think it needs merged anymore, given the clear RS consensus that it wasn’t just a passing news event, meaning it passes all the requirements to be an article. Also, several editors suggested the discussion be quickly-closed by a countersigning admin. That never occurred, so yes, the merge was overturned, because that was an option suggested by some editors during the DRV. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 18:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep - "destroyed 114 homes, damaging 857 others", pretty notable. "claimed the lives of three people, including a child, and injured an additional 62 others." Notable - who on Wikipedia puts a number to "notable" when it comes to human life? — Maile ( talk ) 03:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not notable in death count,but is in injury count. The only notable thing about it is that it damaged over 900 homes. EF3 tornadoes happen all the time, but other notable ones (Such as Amory or Little Rock). If this tornado has an article, a few others from this year should as well (Like the ones mentioned above). 72.46.58.62 ( talk ) 13:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I forgot to put keep in the reply above. Reeceycat123987 ( talk ) 13:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge – No reason for a standalone article. Can easily be included in main outbreak article. United States Man ( talk ) 04:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge – Would be consistent with past practice in the WikiProject. A standalone article just isn't justified, IMO. Penitentes ( talk ) 14:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I'm not convinced this is WP:LASTING yet. We can always split the merge out to another article if we've gotten this wrong. SportingFlyer T · C 15:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge We're doing this again? My position hasn't changed; this can fit in the main article without being split. Chess Eric 16:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: The summary actually isn't finished because the Kentucky part has not been put in yet, but I still lean merge. Chess Eric 16:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not again ; it's the same AfD, resuming after an out-of-process interruption. Please strike out one of your two ! votes here. Owen× ☎ 16:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ...you talking about me? My other comment was a note, not a 2nd vote. Also, someone else relisted the AfD, not the original creator. Chess Eric 16:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] you have two bolded Merges. Please strike one. I relisted the AfD as a close of the DRV. It is the same discussion now being allowed to reach consensus. Star Mississippi 16:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's a separate vote though and I don't understand why that matters. I'll do it though. Chess Eric 19:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023#Clarksville, Tennessee / Allensville–Russellville, Kentucky . No indication of WP:PERSISTENCE and limited WP:EFFECT or WP:DEPTH . All sources in article are either NOAA or WP:PRIMARYNEWS . No reason for a standalone article to exist. Note for closer: If merge is unsuccessful, please consider my ! vote for deletion as not independently notable under WP:NEVENT . Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 18:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge — with Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023 — it is not surprising that there are numerous reliable sources covering the Clarksville tornado. However, I don't think that notability independent of the broader severe weather event has been established, namely in terms of diverse coverage (beyond human interest stories and what-was-hit overviews) and in-depth coverage (beyond just narrative from local news). — TheAustinMan ( Talk ⬩ Edits ) 19:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge As unnecessary CFORK, can be squeezed into the December 9-10 article and still adhere to SIZERULE. Btw the DRV was wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 December 12 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.123.49.55 ( talk ) 21:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC) strike sock -- Ponyo bons mots 21:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note, WP:CFORK is not an issue as the section in the outbreak article is 138 words while the article has a readable prose size of 1,278 words. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 21:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge this topic can sufficiently be covered in Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023 . There is not enough WP:LASTING impact from this tornado to warrant a standalone page. Recreating a standalone article can be revisited in the event there is more lasting impact down the road. Frank Anchor 12:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge not sure why this discussion is reopened, but this article is not notable enough nor WP:LASTING enough. Most of the information is just WP:TOOMUCH or information no one cares about with means to beef up an article of a weak tornado that caused small pockets of EF3 damage in an average path. With this being said, I feel the author of the article, who wrote the entire article less than 48 hours after the event, may have been acting out of WP:HATSHOP motivation, though I should proably assume good faith. Wikiwillz ( talk ) 16:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023 — per Last1in and TheAustinMan. Chris Wx 🌀 ( talk - contribs ) 23:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Diamond Tema: Runmastery ( talk ) 07:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albania and Turkey . Shellwood ( talk ) 08:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Diamond Tema is a well-known YouTuber and writer in Turkey. She has been featured on all major news channels and websites such as TRT . See the references in the article. Kerim Demirkaynak ( talk ) 12:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per the other commenters, like Kerim Demirkaynak, I'd vote weak keep in this discussion and hope that the sourcing is improved. 71.246.78.77 ( talk ) 12:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Checkuser blocked. Queen of Hearts talk 23:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Censorship in Turkey : This article was created after a recent controversy. I can't find much coverage of him in the news prior to that. There isn't anything that contributes to his wikinotability on Google Books as far as I can see. Current coverage appears to be largely of the arrest warrant, so if there should be a standalone article, it should be of the event rather than his biography, but I'm not sure about that as well. Unless an editor demonstrates its notability through WP:NEVENT , it may be considered routine news coverage. By the way, self-published and primary sources such as Twitter, Youtube, his books do not determine his notability and should probably be left out when merging. Aintabli ( talk ) 19:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support Merge : Coverage is significant but there is not that much of it. Seems likely there will not be much lasting coverage, and the event would probably benefit from context. The Censorship in Turkey article is very long already but if it has to be split it can be (and hopefully will be). Mrfoogles ( talk ) 07:22, 26 June 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.

merge

2023 Saidia incident: Mccapra ( talk ) 07:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Algeria , and Morocco . Mccapra ( talk ) 07:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Seems well sourced and sufficient to meet notability criteria. Greenman ( talk ) 07:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There was a sustainable controversy regarding Algeria refusing to send back Abdelali Mchiouer's body: 1 2 3 4 Ismaïl Snabi's still in prison: 1 2 NAADAAN ( talk ) 11:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Worldwide coverage as NADAAN explained Riad Salih ( talk ) 01:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment -- On current showing, I'd have to lean toward deletion based on WP:NEVENT and WP:NCRIME . All of the sources currently cited are WP:PRIMARYNEWS . To by valid for mainspace, there need to be secondary sources that analyse the event in WP:DEPTH or show lasting WP:EFFECTS . It also appears that the coverage is specific to the timeframe of the original incident, which would fail WP:PERSISTENCE . I am not ready to ! vote until I see if anyone can resolve those issues with sources that are not accessible to me due to language barriers. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 13:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Selective merge to Algeria–Morocco relations . The sourcing appears to be routine news coverage of the event and its aftermath, so it's not notable in its own right, but there is relevant information for the target article. I wonder if Mccapra or Last1in would be willing to consider this as an alternative to deletion. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 20:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Certainly thank you that sounds very sensible. Mccapra ( talk ) 20:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I can support a merge to Algeria–Morocco relations as well. My only concern is that we should be looking for secondary sources there as well, and I still can't find any for this event. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist, leaning towards a merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious ( talk ) 08:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge if secondary sourcing can be found to support balanced addition to the target page. JoelleJay ( talk ) 19:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Algeria–Morocco relations : if the event turns out to have a WP:LASTING effect on the bilateral relations, it can always be spun off. Owen× ☎ 21:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Algeria–Morocco relations a properly sourced and neutral version per above. Not every incident needs or has the WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS sources to support a stand alone article. There is a good target for the merge, it will be improved, and the content/history will be accessible. // Timothy :: talk 15:28, 28 January 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.

merge

Văn Miếu station: This one isn't even mentioned in the one source cited! Web searches revealed two articles (in Vietnamese) that mention this station once each [51] [52] . Toadspike [Talk] 14:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography , Transportation , and Vietnam . Skynxnex ( talk ) 14:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge the position data, etc. to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) and redirect there if sources cannot be found (they're most likely to be in Vietnamese, so do check in that language). There is no reason to delete the information present in the article which will be useful if it is expanded in future. Thryduulf ( talk ) 18:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge there isn't enough coverage (or content) for a separate article from Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) yet, but there might be in the future. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 23:20, 21 May 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.

merge

Valmont station: The current citations are a user comment on a blog post, and a single line in a timetable. Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 21:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Colorado . Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 21:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the article about the settlement it serves and/or the branch line it was on. Thryduulf ( talk ) 08:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge (slightly selective) into Valmont, Colorado#History , where most of this text can be put to good use. The branch line has no entry. gidonb ( talk ) 18:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Baalveer 4: No in-depth found. Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 15:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India . Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 15:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep : The article's subject is notable. Someonewhoisusinginternet ( talk | contributions ) 14:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The series is notable, there is no point in deleting the article of a season when the series and rest of the seasons article exists and are notable. Imsaneikigai ( talk ) 20:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : it just started, there is some coverage, and it is the 4th instalment of a franchise. Redirect to the first season (or the 3d) if all in all this is not enough and if waiting for more is unbearable. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Baalveer is a hit notable series meant for kids since 2012 with 3 seasons already. Season 4 has just arrived. It deserves to be kept. Pri2000 ( talk ) 19:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Those who are placing ! vote in favour of the article, I want to ask them about the notability of the season itself, not about the series. We don't need a separate Wikipedia page for each of the seasons where the primary page exists and no reviews for the seasons are found. Placing interviews and WP:IMDb links as references is just against WP:ICTFSOURCES . Demonstrate notability or please stop flooding. A MERGE would be better. -- Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 07:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (note to Admin) - There is campaign going on per this diff , this diff , this diff regarding this AfD. Is this allowed? Isn't it WP:VOTESTACK ? -- Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 07:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] According to WP:VOTESTACK Posting an appropriate notice on other users' talk pages to notify them about the deletion process is allowed ( Posting an appropriate notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances ). I notified them cause they also edit Indian tv show articles, I didn't tell to vote to keep the article so it's not violation of WP:VOTESTACK . M S Hassan ( talk ) 18:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ M S Hassan : how is "please help me save the article by voting" in this diff not a violation of WP:VOTESTACK ? Daniel ( talk ) 23:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Just saying that the series is notable doesn’t make this season of the series notable. Maybe the series is notable, but establishing notability for a standalone article on Season 4 requires in-depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, which, in my opinion, is lacking. These sources are just interviews and announcements. The article currently fails to meet WP:GNG as no in-depth coverage of the subject is found. Do we need to create new pages for every season even when there are no significant sources? Additionally, another issue that the patrolling Admin should address is WP:VOTESTACK , which is the real reason behind these non-policy-based “Keep” votes. Grab Up - Talk 13:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - additionally, the page was created by Sockpuppet user Shabeelko . -- Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 14:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For the record , I was not asked to come here and yet voted ! Keep. So, Twinkle1990, and Grabup, may I ask you to please avoid or better, kindly amend sentences like please stop flooding , real reason behind these non-policy-based “Keep” votes apparently addressed to all Keep ! voters. Thank you very much in advance. For the policy/reason backing my ! vote, if unclear in my comment, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baalveer 3 . I have no further comment. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mushy Yank , For confirming. I was not talking about you at all. Grab Up - Talk 13:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Same here like Balveer 3 nomination. The sources do not have the quality and depth of coverage needed to warrant a page on this show. Fails WP:GNG . RangersRus ( talk ) 13:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I will also say that it is better to have some mention of each season on page Baalveer because of not sufficient coverage on all seasons. RangersRus ( talk ) 13:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to Closer . Page was created by sockpuppet account User:Shabeelko and so is good for WP:G5 speedy deletion. RangersRus ( talk ) 13:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:G5 will not apply to this page now, as the article is substantially edited by others. Grab Up - Talk 13:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Bummer. Unnoticed it. RangersRus ( talk ) 14:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Baalveer : while not a direct sequel, a section in the main article will not require independent notability. Most of the "Keep" comments here seem to talk about the notability of the Baalveer franchise, not that of Baalveer 4 . Please note that Baalveer 3 is also on the chopping block, so merging with that would be a mistake. Owen× ☎ 10:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Baalveer , notability standard not met for this precise series based on sources available and presented, per OwenX this can be folded into main article using non-notability-contributing references. Daniel ( talk ) 23:36, 4 June 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.

merge

Carrot cake cookie: WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV . Should be merged into Carrot cake#UK and US if not deleted outright. BaduFerreira ( talk ) 21:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions . BaduFerreira ( talk ) 21:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I have bookmarked scores of cookies I'd like to try making. This one isn't in it, but it appears to be a prime example of something that's just an inspired recipe with many variations, not a notable dish that's cohesively described outside of a cookbook writer's introduction. This could be a sentence in Carrot cake . Reywas92 Talk 02:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Carrot cake and redirect, at least for now. It's possible this one could get there -- oreo makes a version, subway and aldis have a version, I've added that content+refs. Gourmet did something in 2004, but on a quick search I'm not finding it, and it was not unlikely it was a simple recipe, but if anyone can figure out their archives, ping me to a link and I'll add. Commercial uptake is probably a promising sign for this cookie's notability, so it would be good to have that info at carrot cake for future consideration. Valereee ( talk ) 12:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Selective Merge to Carrot cake , which presently has no mention other than a link in its See also section. North America 1000 10:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as suggested, as a good compromise. Bearian ( talk ) 14:34, 17 April 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.

merge

Death of Omar Daraghmeh: I would prefer a redirect to Timeline of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war where this is already listed. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 00:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Terrorism , Islam , Middle East , Israel , and Palestine . Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 00:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment — Five minutes before starting this AfD, the nominator cursed at me on this article’s talk page after I asked a simple question, which was not pinging them. Minutes later, the nominator also accused me of being a “fool” and not knowing how to edit (i.e. WP:CIR ). I have absolutely no idea what brought on the personal attacks, but whatever. I would like to see other responses before I comment an ! vote, given the nominator seems to be angry for some reason. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 00:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My complaints about WW's conduct are due to them placing the accusations of Hamas (who have blatantly lied during this conflict, such as denying the massacres of civilians they clearly commited) in wikivoice when this is clearly inappropriate, and then reverting with no edit summaries an attempt to correct this [19] , which also re-introduced an error that WW made calling Omar the "leader of Hamas", which is just blatantly wrong. In my opinion, it displays a lack of competence to edit this contentious topic area. My tone was one of intense exasperation rather than personal venom. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 00:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ( edit conflict ) You still didn’t have to curse. I get what you mean, but even when I was trying to have a genuine conversation, you just weren’t civil and are still accusing me of WP:CIR style stuff. I would have proposed a WP:MUTUAL for us to both leave the article, as one, I may not have the knowledge to edit this topic and you are not editing in good faith , or at least not really showing you are. The AfD complicates that though. I would still like to propose a MUTUAL thought, i.e. we both stop editing this AfD & article and let the community figure it out. Agreed? (EC — While typing this, BD2412 proposed draftifying it, which I am not opposed to at all and would have been willing to do had you not started an AfD). The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 00:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, if you think that "Hamas accuses Israel of assassinating senior member in prison" is enough of a reason to call the article "assassination of", and you had, in earlier versions, "On October 23, 2023, Omar Daraghmeh, the leader of Hamas was assassinated..." as if that is established fact, then, in the context of your experience here, a "JFC" is strong but not unwarranted. Drmies ( talk ) 01:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to draft , pending development of sources indicating encyclopedic significance, rather than just interest within a news cycle. BD2412 T 00:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify — Per BD2412 The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 00:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep per speedy keep criterion #2, brought for vexatious reasons or reasons of disruption. The rationale of WP:TOOSOON is suggested by the nominator, but the based on the nominator's documented behavior at the talk page the motive seems to be anti-POV rather than notability. Note that minutes before nominating for deletion @ Hemiauchenia blanked a number of sources here [20] with the edit summary "Reverting to the least terrible version, though whether this should be a standalone article is questionable" . That edit summary, IMHO doesn't explain the edit, and the removal of sources seems to be attempt to undermine the article just before nomination. In the alternative, draftify. Oblivy ( talk ) 00:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I reverted to this version primarily because it accurately stated in prose what happened, Omar Daraghmeh died in prison, Hamas and PIJ claimed it was an assasssination. WW's version stated definitively that he was assassinated, which was not appropriate. If you look at the actual sources covering this, like Reuters , The Times of Israel , Al Arabiya , they're all incredibly brief, maybe 3 paragraphs at most. There just isn't much to say about this event, which reliable sources don't seem to consider that significant. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 00:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If the goal was genuinely to improve the article, then why not simply do that rather than nominate it for deletion just minutes after the change? And why delete sources like the BNN article? It's not a deprecated source, and it documents the arrest Oblivy ( talk ) 01:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oblivy I looked at that edit--what is supposed to be helpful about those sources? ReliefWeb and the UN produces primary sources, and I don't know what they add. Drmies ( talk ) 01:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ( edit conflict ) Reply to this version of Hemiauchenia's reply, altered in the EC) -- I think you just confirmed Oblivy's point. My first talk page question was and I quote, " Why is “assassination” not a neutral title? Two RS sources, Al Jazeera and Reuters used it ( Reuters article )}}". Nothing else. The response you responded to that started with and I quote, " Jesus fucking christ"... You aren't going after a notability reason, but rather a POV reason. That is the whole issue. Noting, I am WP:COALing out, given other editors are commenting and I think it is clear a lack of good faith is occurring. Have a good day y'all! Cheers! The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 01:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Drmies Agreed that the UN sources don't add much re: the article subject but they did support some of the timeline in the prior version. The BNN article documented the arrest, which is relevant to the claim of assassination. Oblivy ( talk ) 01:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I also fail to see how this is a vexatious nomination, given that @ Sj : Previously attempted to redirect the article, but was reverted by WW. It's clear that other people have concerns about the notability of this topic. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 00:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Let's go ahead and stop commenting on editors' and their possible motivations and focus on the notability of the article subject. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk ) 01:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm happy to back away from this, but motivations are at the heart of my rationale for my speedy keep vote (and are inherent in WP:SPEEDYKEEP #2). Bad-faith deletion nominations are unhelpful to the project and deserve to be called out. Oblivy ( talk ) 01:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you believe there is a behavioral issue, being it up at the proper venue. This is not the place for it. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk ) 01:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Honest question: how else to invoke Speedy Keep #2? Oblivy ( talk ) 01:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not by making unsubstantiated accusations at an AfD of a CTOP article. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk ) 01:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Id say redirect to the conflict but it is an implausible search term. Omar Daraghmeh could be redirected, but this is silly. Delete as completely pointless. nableezy - 01:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I actually don't have much of an opinion; I came here because I thought that here we had another useless "Death of" article overflowing with detail about the death of someone on whom we have an article. Ima go with a weak delete , and Ima do it "per Nableezy ", because they usually make a lot of sense. Drmies ( talk ) 01:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the article about the war. For all the 3 lines of text that it is, we don't need to be hurling accusations and hatred at one another. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify If the topic has sustained coverage, and esp. if the situation around the death becomes more clear, it can be moved back into mainspace. Oblivy ( talk ) 01:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify: If the content develops, its develops; if it doesn't, it doesn't. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 06:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Drmies and Nableezy, possibly selectively merge anything of relevance to an appropriate article. W C M email 09:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete this stub as excessive fragmentation. As is, WP:NOTNEWS also applies. gidonb ( talk ) 10:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge. This can go into an article about the war and doesn't need its own article at this point. Cortador ( talk ) 11:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Timeline of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war and/or Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2023 . Not opposed to draftifying . Mooonswimmer 14:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or merge per all above. There’s nothing indicating any special notability at this moment. The Kip 15:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above and lack of notability. Spilia4 ( talk ) 22:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or merge (with sourcing review) Per above comments. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 22:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge per most of the above. Even if this article develops, this should be moved to the Timeline of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war per nom. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈ ) 06:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY . The problem here was that the page was created before the news had even got to it, based largely on Twitter cites. Plenty of coverage has since come out, and I've added it, while culling the tweets . Iskandar323 ( talk ) 10:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] One sentence about his life pre-arrest and seven about his imprisonment and death barely even comes close to the "significant improvement" described by WP:HEY . The article is still a stub, and little information is given to explain why the subject is notable beyond Hamas claiming his death was an assassination, which is extremely shaky grounds for article-worthiness as it is. The Kip 16:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Deaths in custody are not a routine or mundane event, even in this conflict. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 17:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , non-notable. RodRabelo7 ( talk ) 01:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep clear pass on WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV . We keep pages about long forgotten people who died in wars and then decades later get a story or two written about them and so for consistency must keep pages like this that meet GNG. The nom's "Hamas are blatant liars" is disproven by the coverage. Mztourist ( talk ) 05:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hamas have definitely flagrantly lied about the massacres in the kibbutzim, saying that no children were killed when we have actual footage of them shooting them [21] [22] That was my point. Is there previous coverage of this individual and/or coverage about what role did he serve in Hamas? Otherwise, it doesn't seem to have WP:LASTING significance. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 05:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is significant coverage of his death now so its a pass on GNG. Whether or not this event has lasting significance can be determined in the future. Whether Hamas lied about other things is irrelevant, as SIGCOV exists of this event, from Palestinian and Israeli sources. Mztourist ( talk ) 07:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as any closure with this makeup of comments is due to be contested. I see substantial arguments to Delete, Merge or Draftify this article. Sorry to prolong this divisive discussion but any closing decision would be seen as inserting my own opinion. Also noting that during this AFD, this article has been moved to be titled Omar Daraghmeh . Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Mooonswimmer . Eladkarmel ( talk ) 15:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Timeline of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war as nom and others have suggested. I don't see any consensus for either Keep or Delete developing. I think the source eval of the article shows it may have some recent SIGCOV: Source eval: Comments Source This certainly seems like SIGCOV, unless someone has an argument that this is not a WP:RS 1. Laxmi, Bijay (9 October 2023). "Prominent Hamas Leader, Omar Daraghmeh, Arrested by Israeli Forces". BNN. Retrieved 23 October 2023. WP:IS, WP:RS, but fails WP:SIGCOV, its simply reporting a statement with one sentence 2. ^ Jump up to:a b Mughrabi, Nidal Al; Abd-Alaziz, Moaz; Adler, Leslie; McCool, Grant (23 October 2023). "Hamas accuses Israel of assassinating senior member in prison". Reuters. Archived from the original on 23 October 2023. Retrieved 23 October 2023. WP:IS, WP:RS, but fails WP:SIGCOV, its simply reporting a statement with basic background 3. ^ Jump up to:a b c d "Hamas accuses Israel of assassinating its senior member". Al Arabiya. WP:IS, WP:RS, but fails WP:SIGCOV, its simply reporting a statement in two sentences 4. ^ Jump up to:a b "Hamas accuses Israel of assassinating senior member in prison". Jerusalem Post. Fails WP:IS WP:RS 5. ^ Jump up to:a b c d "Hamas: Leader in West Bank Daraghmeh 'Tortured to Death' in Israeli Prison". Palestinan Chronicle. A one sentence bullet point. Not SIGCOV 6. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i "'Operation Al-Aqsa Flood' Day 18: Palestinian prisoner dies in Israeli custody; 32 health centers in Gaza forced out of service". Mondoweiss. This seems like weak SIGCOV, unless someone has an argument that this is not a WP:RS 7. ^ Jump up to:a b c "Palestinian prisoners dies in Israel's jails 2 weeks into his detention". Middle East Monitor. This seems like weak SIGCOV, unless someone has an argument that this is not a WP:RS 8. ^ "Palestinian group accuses Israel of killing senior Hamas leader in prison". Anadolu Agency. WP:IS, WP:RS, but fails WP:SIGCOV, its two sentences 9. ^ "Palestinians protest in West Bank after Hamas official dies in Israeli custody". Time of Israel. There does not appear to be any evidence that this will meet WP:LASTING and will fail as NOTNEWS, and no evidence that DRAFTing will improve the article with time, so trimming (article is longer than sources) and merging into an appropriate target which exists is the best option. If subject develops sources with SIGCOV that show it passes WP:LASTING and is something more than routine news, article can be split back out easily. // Timothy :: talk 17:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep - I chose not to comment earlier as I was wondering if anyone else would resurrect Oblivy 's self-expunged SPEEDYKEEP #2. Since no one did, I will do so. I think that the article is in desperate need of cleanup and rewriting, probably to the point of TNT and certainly worthy of Draftify. However, you can't SPEEDY to either of those resolutions. The Talk commentary by the nominator -- specifically the use of obscenity, abuse, and insults -- seems to me to express open malice which satisfies CSK #2d. I cannot view this nomination as a good faith effort to improve the encyclopaedia; it appears driven by a desire to punish an editor based on their good-faith beliefs and reasonable edits. If brought by a neutral editors, I would happily ! vote to TNT the article. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 15:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: I have struck what I consider to be an unfounded aspersion against me in the above post. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 17:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please do not ever change a post by another editor. I have changed my own wording to make clear that these are my impressions. You do not get to strike through things you do not agree with, especially after your own behaviour on the subject article's Talk. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 19:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please review WP:RPA , and if you think somebody is acting in bad faith report it. You do not get to attack other editors in an AFD, if you think the nomination was disruptive then go report it. nableezy - 19:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Lê Đức Thọ station: The one source cited doesn't mention this station at all. A BEFORE search found this rather funny video about trash piled on one of the station's staircases [45] , an article that mentions this station simply as the destination of the reporter's train but doesn't provide any detail [46] , and this article which names the station in two captions but doesn't say anything about it at all [47] . Toadspike [Talk] 14:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography , Transportation , and Vietnam . Skynxnex ( talk ) 14:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge the position data, etc. to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) and redirect there if sources cannot be found (they're most likely to be in Vietnamese, so do check in that language). There is no reason to delete the information present in the article which will be useful if it is expanded in future. Thryduulf ( talk ) 18:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge there isn't enough coverage (or content) for a separate article from Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) yet, but there might be in the future. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 23:18, 21 May 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.

merge

Halsted Street station (Heritage Corridor): Was draftified in hopes of improvement, but returned to mainspace without improvement. Onel 5969 TT me 08:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Illinois . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No significant coverage, and the sources cited are either not RS or passing mentions. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The references are adequate, and the Chicago Tribune reference is more than a passing mention. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 14:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Eastmain. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (article's creator here) for the reasons Eastmain gave. Additionally, Pi.1415926535 recently expanded the article with improved and additional references. Lost on Belmont 3200N 1000W ( talk ) 00:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment the Trib article consists of 3 sentences about the new station, hardly an in-depth piece. The other 4 are simple mentions. Not sure when one brief blurb amounted to significant enough coverage to pass GNG. Onel 5969 TT me 00:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If I find some books at the library in an attempt to meet WP:GNG 's criteria, would they count towards mainspace eligibility or not really? Because I would be happy to use them as sources, although it may be difficult to find any that are both independent and reliable. Hotdog with ketchup ( talk ) 02:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – now appears sufficient to meet WP:GNG . Useddenim ( talk ) 01:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep per reasons stated above. Many closed train stations similarly have limited information both on and off Wikipedia, but keeping them helps to improve them now and later on. Hotdog with ketchup ( talk ) 03:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - For the closer, in light of all the ! voters above actually ignoring the sourcing, and mostly the WP:OSE arguments, here's an assessment table. Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? https://www.newspapers.com/article/chicago-tribune/132466247/ The source is major newspaper The source is reputable published source Brief 3 sentence blurb which discusses the station. Definitely not in-depth ✘ No https://www.loc.gov/resource/g4104cm.g01790191103/? sp=59 Map showing it exists, but zero in-depth coverage ✘ No https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:April_1923_Illinois_Central_Suburban_Trains_West_timetable.pdf Published by the rail line Yes No coverage, simply a listing ✘ No https://books.google.com/books? id=KSA1HTTU-eMC Yes Yes, a major newspaper Just a brief mention ✘ No https://books.google.com/books? id=KSA1HTTU-eMC Published by the rail system Yes, a major newspaper Just a brief mention in a table ✘ No https://www.google.com/books/edition/Southwest_Transit_Corridor_Project_Chica/Ddo3AQAAMAAJ? hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Halsted+Street+station%22+chicago&pg=RA8-PT59&printsec=frontcover Published by city no editorial oversight In-depth ✘ No https://www.google.com/books/edition/Southwest_Transit_Corridor_Project_Chica/Ddo3AQAAMAAJ? hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Halsted+Street+station%22+chicago&pg=RA8-PT59&printsec=frontcover Published by city no editorial oversight, no peer review Brief one-line mention ✘ No https://www.google.com/books/edition/Southwest_Transit_Corridor_Project_Chica/Ddo3AQAAMAAJ? hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Halsted+Street+station%22+chicago&pg=RA8-PT59&printsec=frontcover Independently published Lulu is a self-publishing site Brief mention ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . Redirect to Heritage Corridor#Stations . May or may not be notable (I'm a bit confused) but has anyone considered a WP:ATD so far? S5A-0043 Talk 12:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: For further input on the sources presented above… Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Still voting keep for reasons above and currently researching the topic in order to preserve the page. Hotdog with ketchup ( talk ) 11:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ::● Keep- I Found This , this , & this PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 22:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I found this . PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 21:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Based on the source table given, is not adequately covered to meet notability requirements. I can find scattered mentions of the station, but nothing I'd use to build an article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] most3 of the sources should be partial and not red (1,2,4) PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 19:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no such thing as partial. The table automatically calculates based on input. I've added the 3 more non-notable references to the table. Onel 5969 TT me 00:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? Chicago Tribune(newspapers.com) Major Newspaper Major Newspaper 3 Scentences ✘ No Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Chicago, Cook County, Illinois. Just a Map ✘ No April 1923 Illinois Central Station... Published by the Rail Line Just a Listing ✘ No Frank Lloyd Wright: His Life and His Architecture Published: John Wiley & Sons, Jan 16, 1991 Breif Mention ✘ No Southwest Transit Corridor Project, Chicago Environmental Impact Statement 1985 ? In Depth ✘ No Report on the Engineering and Operating Features of the Chicago Transportation Problem Volume 1 Published by: McGraw Publishing Published by: McGraw Publishing One Line ✘ No Outside the Rails: A Rail Route Guide from Chicago to La Plata, MO ? Self Publishing Website 2 Full paragraphs ✘ No Ridership Trends - Anual Report 2017 Published By Rail Line ~ Mentioned a Few Times ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 15:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As I pointed out in my revert, none of the three sources you added refer to this station. Outside the Rails discusses Halsted Street station , Southwest Transit Corridor Project discusses Halsted station (CTA Orange Line) , and Report on the Engineering refers to the Halsted cable car barn. Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 17:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have been searching for books relating to the Alton Railroad and the GM&O, as they would probably be our best bets. Hotdog with ketchup ( talk ) 18:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] either way id does not pass GNG PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 21:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete doesn't meet GNG requirements to my eyes. Secondary source coverage just isn't there. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Halsted station (CTA Orange Line) . The vast majority of stations that survived into the public ownership era easily pass GNG, but there's a handful like this one that probably don't. Merging or redirecting is best for almost any train station, since they're always likely search terms. The Orange Line station is directly across the street from where this station was, so it's an obvious target for the merge. (There's plenty of history to be written about the Orange Line station itself, so it wouldn't be UNDUE.) See Medford/Tufts station and Suffolk Downs station for similar situations where I've incorporated the history of predecessor stations into articles on rapid transit stations. Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 19:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose delete and the redirect suggested earlier. Torn between keep or merge to Halsted station (CTA Orange Line) . If sourcing doesn't pass GNG then merge as an AtD as this station appears to be a predecessor to the current station. Slight problem is there's as much if not more material on this station as things stand than the merge target. Nevertheless, as User:Pi.1415926535 says there's expansion possibilities for that article. Rupples ( talk ) 21:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Bumberry Junction railway station: Of the seven sources in the article, six are internal documents (non-independent). The remaining source may or may not have significant coverage to the station - currently it is only used to cite two dates - but it alone does not meet GNG. Newspaper, book, and web searches reveal nothing. Given the short lifetime and not-publicly-advertised nature of the station, I suspect there is simply very little information to be had. A redirect to a few sentences at Macquarie Fields railway station or Main Southern railway line, New South Wales would be reasonable. Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 19:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations , Transportation , and Australia . Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 19:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The station was never even open to the public, and as such I fail to see any claim to notability. It existed for all of a year and the article's creator could find nothing apart from small tidbits scraped from timetables. This is not an encyclopedic topic. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 22:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Macquarie Fields railway station . Yeah it wasn't a passenger station so it wouldn't even pass the very lax guidelines of pre WP:NTRAINSTATION . But it's still worth a mention as we know it existed. Jumpytoo Talk 03:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I can only access one of the sources, but I don't see any problem whatsoever with including this temporary train station in the encyclopaedia, using sources from over a century ago. We could merge it somewhere, but I think it may be better off as a permanent stub - there is nothing wrong with permastubs if they're sourced correctly! SportingFlyer T · C 20:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This location appears in working timetables (not passenger) for the railway. I can include more images of source material if this better achieves WP:GNG . Jamespyoung ( talk ) 16:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, the issue with GNG is the lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Timetables and other documents produced by the railroad are not secondary sources and do not establish notability. Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 21:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per nominator. Steelkamp ( talk ) 01:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Main Southern railway line, New South Wales . I can see that it isn't really important enough to sustain its own article, so pulling the content into a short section on another page makes sense. Putting it on the Line page, pending a future article covering the "duplication effort of the line between Liverpool and Campbelltown" might be a way forward? Anothersignalman ( talk ) 12:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Jumpytoo and Anothersignalman. Thryduulf ( talk ) 12:42, 25 March 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.

merge

World Series of Darts Finals: Is it worth keeping, or delete? L1amw90 10:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sports . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Austria , Netherlands , and Scotland . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTSTATS . We have the top level World Series of Darts and we have individual tournament articles like 2023 World Series of Darts Finals (see Category:World Series of Darts ). The article under discussion is an extra one which just covers the "finals". As such it seems to be primarily a repository for random stats. Any useful text could be relocated to a section in World Series of Darts and the stats deleted. Nigej ( talk ) 11:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into World Series of Darts as a premature spinoff. Respondent above me seems to agree that the texts should be considered for merge. I tend to agree with them that in general we have sufficient stats at the target already. Both opinions culminate in merge as does a nomination that is unsure between keeping or deletion. gidonb ( talk ) 07:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into World Series of Darts , as it's an unnecessary spinoff of that article. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

IDN App: IgelRM ( talk ) 18:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Indonesia . IgelRM ( talk ) 18:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment , Internet , and Software . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Non-notable app, written by undisclosed paid editor. The app is already mentioned on the parent article. Polygnotus ( talk ) 22:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge The article was written separately on Indonesian Wikipedia, so I translated it as such. However, I agree with the merge as it is more appropriate in this case. — Zenica87 ( talk ) 08:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for commenting author, understandable. IgelRM ( talk ) 22:48, 25 February 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.

merge

Starkiller: Cannot find a single WP:SIGCOV somehow. GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 11:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Video games . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Star Wars: The Force Unleashed . There’s some decent info about the development of the character even if like most vg characters he’s not independently notable. Dronebogus ( talk ) 22:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Honestly surprised he didn't take off as a character, but as others have pointed out elsewhere his unfortunate naming certainly didn't help and the character didn't have the impact I believe everyone expected he would when the games were first announced beyond "Wait, why is he in Soulcalibur ?"-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 05:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He was overshadowed by his more famous brother Base Starkiller Dronebogus ( talk ) 06:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I agree with the article being delisted as GA, but I disagree with the nom's assertion that the reception is "entirely" made up of listicles and passing mentions. For example, Polygon referred to him as "Star Wars' last great video game character" in a full length article, which denotes his importance. His name is referenced in Star Wars canon, which raised the character's profile beyond most of his expanded universe ilk. As Dronebogus have conceded, there is in fact decent information about the character's development. Is he independently notable? The aggregate coverage about the character's development and reception appears to be meet the threshold of significant coverage, certainly more so then Starkiller Base which does not even have an article devoted to the concept. Haleth ( talk ) 19:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I checked the Polygon article previously and you'd think it would have more of substance, but the title ironically has more commentary than the article itself. It's largely just a plot summary of what happened to him, and I would not call it "full length". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 23:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As per comment above, I think Polygon is the only useful source at the article somehow. GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 23:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Like Haleth , I believe that the "aggregate coverage about the character's development and reception appears to be meet the threshold of significant coverage", as shown in the amount of reception fullfilling WP:WHYN . In addition, The Best of Star Wars Insider Volume 4 , p. 23, Myth, Media, and Culture in Star Wars , p. 146 and Spielerische Fiktionen , p. 286, all have some commentary on the character. Daranios ( talk ) 10:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is the first not a WP:PRIMARY source? "Star Wars Insider" states it is an official magazine and would have an obvious reason to write about Starkiller, amongst other characters. The others appear to be small mentions in the context of a plot summary, though I don't speak German so I cannot ultimately be 100% sure about the last one. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 11:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Zxcvbnm : Being a character in fiction, I'd say the games and related pieces of fiction are the primary sources, and the magazine is a secondary one. However, it would be a non-independant one (and an interview), so presumably that one source does not count towards notability (but nonetheless as reliable). But the other two should, and none of them is a listicle or passing mention - the main points of critique by the nominator. All three have commentary beyond plot summary , and the interview with the voice actor about the creative process for the character is relevant in that regard. Daranios ( talk ) 15:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . What is there could be improved, but I feel like it barely reaches GNG in its current state. In my search, I've noticed articles about Starkiller that would constitute sigcov. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 17:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Star Wars: The Force Unleashed . From the demonstrated sources, I am unconvinced SIGCOV from secondary sources exists for this character. While they are claimed to be significant, this is not borne out from my examination of them. Therefore I must vehemently agree this character should be merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 23:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Zxcvbnm. There is some grey area with how Wikipedia handles listicles, but "10 Of The Most Overpowered Force Users In Star Wars Legends, Ranked" or " "Top 25 Gaming Hunks" don't count for much. They don't make this character notable in a qualitative sense, nor do they provide readers with any meaningful information. I can see how this character could be mentioned as part of what made the game notable. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 14:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Nearly all of the reception is trivial. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 13:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there is about equal support for Merge and Keep (though Merge has the advantage). Clearly no consensus to Delete this article, just a decision to be made on what should happen next. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per the helpful discussion above. Appears to be encyclopedic but lacking sufficient sources to support an article at this time. -- Visviva ( talk ) 03:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Star Wars: The Force Unleashed . This article is mostly lacking of sources. CastJared ( talk ) 09:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Star Wars: The Force Unleashed as an WP:ATD Lightburst ( talk ) 14:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Division 8 (Swedish football): There is little to say other than supplying a dictionary definition of Division 8 as well as trivial truisms such as the winners being promoted to Division 7. The reason is that such low tiers only get local news coverage, if even that, making it failing in generating significant coverage. This overview of Division 7 pre-pandemic shows match attendances ranging from 5 to 60 . Most districts in Sweden don't even have enough teams to fill tiers as low as this. (I would surmise that Division 5, 6 and 7 should go as well, but I won't make a bundled nomination ever again.) Geschichte ( talk ) 08:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude ( talk ) 09:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sweden . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I am inclined to keep, as to not break the chain of this article set. I also feel this is a valid WP:STUB article, even if it is neglected. Govvy ( talk ) 10:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It needs to pass GNG with significant, in-depth coverage. I also forward that the "chain of articles" argument is invalid, because Division 7 and 6, and maybe 5 should be deleted too. England's lowest leagues do not have articles . Geschichte ( talk ) 13:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep – There is little coverage, but it is understandable as it is the lowest level of Swedish football league system . I think it's worth maintaining the article so it doesn't become a lack. Svartner ( talk ) 13:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep , indeed a very weak keep, for the same reasons that this is a keep—continuity, if nothing else. I admit, though, that the fact that it is part of the Swedish football pyramid alone doesn't justify the article's existence. The majority of leagues in the English football pyramid don't have articles of their own. However, every league between levels 1 and 11 has an article, so perhaps precedent is there to keep this one as well. In any case, I'm not opposed to deleting this article. Anwegmann ( talk ) 20:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Swedish football league system , it being part of a series of articles is not reason to keep it. Giant Snowman 16:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge What should really happen here is the Swedish lower leagues should all be merged into their own article so that we don't lose valid, sourced information, even though the information isn't necessarily notable enough for a stand-alone page. However there's no good merge target - it's something that should happen through editing, so a keep with a plan to merge - it's unusual, but that's what should really happen here. SportingFlyer T · C 20:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to consider merge option, as proposed by SportingFlyer. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Not opposed to a merger, and that goes for Division 8, 7, 6, maybe 5 and 4, but is there any valuable and referenced info that is not yet present in Swedish football league system ? I don't see any. Geschichte ( talk ) 13:29, 19 April 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.

merge

Companion rule (Australian Criminal law): A WP:BLAR was contested by page creator. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 08:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Australia . JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 08:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Looks like it was perhaps created in ignorance of Right to silence#Australia . A split from that article should not restrict itself to just the Companion Rule which is a common law principle but not the fuller treatement of the subject, which is right to silence. It is not clear why a split is required from the parent article. As the BLAR was contested, deletion is better than redirect, although I do not oppose redirect if others see fit. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 09:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing this to Merge with Right to silence in Australia , which now exists. I have split this from the parent, adapted, checked and fixed all refs except one which I marked dead. As per the discussion below, this is the better split as it gives the full Australian context in a single article and does not hive out one common law principle from it. I gave the companion rule a section in the new article. It still needs attention, but I think this improves the project. Merge will preserve the companion rule page history. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 11:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe this is the best way to go with this, as I don't think it's worth keeping two different articles about what are effectively the same thing. Now that Right to silence in Australia has been created, I am changing my ! vote to Merge . JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 23:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep [switch to] merge : because the logic of the nomination is both faulty and not based on any policy. If we deleted simply on the basis that the "topic that the page discusses is already very well discussed at Right to silence#Australia", then we would also have to delete Right to silence in England and Wales since it is "already discussed" at Right_to_silence#England_and_Wales . It's a horrible reason for nomination for deletion, that refers to no policy to back it up. Huggums537 ( talk ) 02:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC) Updated on 05:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Huggums537 : The difference here is that Right to silence in England and Wales goes into a lot more detail compared to its corresponding section at Right to silence . The article being discussed is very short and doesn't go into much detail. If someone was to extend it to the point that it was more detailed than Right to silence#Australia , I would be willing to withdraw this nomination. JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 07:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sure @ Jack4576 wouldn't mind doing that once his block expires, and his restrictions allow for it. Huggums537 ( talk ) 07:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I also believe he might have some assistance with it from the mentorship offered to him from MaxnaCarta as well. Huggums537 ( talk ) 07:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even the next keep vote below seems to think this article can be easily expanded. I think it would be safe to assume you could go ahead and withdraw the nomination now with reasonably safe assurances this kind of article would be expanded in the future. Huggums537 ( talk ) 07:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’m always happy to add value to an aus law article but I’m not yet convinced it’s sufficiently covered in secondary sources to warrant a standalone article which is why I haven’t voted yet. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed, and what is being proposed is actually a split from the Right to Silence article and then a merge of this into that split, which makes more sense (as per my delete !vote above). Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 08:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think a merge is reasonable now that the new article exists. I'll switch my vote to merge. Huggums537 ( talk ) 05:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Huggums537, and because there is plenty of legal material on this that could be used to support the state of the law in Australia and justify a standalone article Merge to Right to silence in Australia . The article title should probably be changed to "Privilege against self-incrimination (Australia)" or something like that, which is the term usually used in Australia . Deus et lex ( talk ) 20:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

KFConsole: NPRODUCT requires some degree of sustained coverage. All sources in this article are from Dec 2020, when the promotion product was announced. Over the years since, there has been no further news or details about the product, and no significant sustained coverage. Using WP:VG/S 's custom reliable source search finds that since 2020, Techradar has mentioned the console a couple times, basically simply recapping the announcement details as there are no new details. Otherwise, it's largely forgotten by press. If and when the console actually releases, it can always be recreated if it becomes notable. But right now, it is not. -- ferret ( talk ) 17:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . -- ferret ( talk ) 17:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect/Merge to KFC advertising#KFConsole Agree that there's a lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. TarkusAB talk / contrib 20:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect/Merge to KFC advertising#KFConsole with the presumption that it can be re-created if it turns out to not be vaporware. There is little WP:SUSTAINED coverage of this product, and most of the sourcing in the article is either based on product announcements that all share similar structure and content, or speculation on if this product will be released. The Night Watch (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to KFC advertising#KFConsole - appears to be a flash-in-the-pan advertising gimmick/hoax that fails WP:SUSTAINED . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Area Major Incident Pool : Seems to be more of a definition rather than entity. Google search provides only mostly Wikipedia mirrors. I did find three mentions in this report (page 115) but still not notable enough to warrant an article Elshad ( talk ) 13:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and England . Elshad ( talk ) 13:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . Given the time period (1985-2000) I'm not surprised little information is available online, but everything in the article (assuming it can be cited, I've not looked) is encyclopaedic information. I agree though it's a bit thin for a whole article, so I recommend merging this to a broader article about the structure of the Met over time as this is not the first AfD I've seen about such units. I don't know if such an article exists yet, but if not it can be started. Thryduulf ( talk ) 11:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. What is the suggested Merge target article here? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Organisation and structure of the Metropolitan Police#Specialist Operations , since it seems that some of the wording for this article is taken directly from there and the remainder may be relevant as historical information if added. Recon rabbit ( talk | edits ) 21:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Asian Journal of Public Affairs : Boleyn ( talk ) 20:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Singapore . Shellwood ( talk ) 20:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] limited merge looks to be published by a single school. I can find nothing that counts toward WP:GNG . That said it looks like a reasonable journal. I think a line at Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy#Publications would work nicely unless that would somehow be UNDUE as long as we can verify this journal really is associated with the school. Hobit ( talk ) 01:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 04:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with merge as stated above. Fails GNG and NJOURNALS. Also, some the the articles carried by this journal are cited according to Google Scholar. The journal itself is doing good work in its field. --- Steve Quinn ( talk ) 23:31, 15 February 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.

merge

Tetiaroa Airport : The airport definitely existed, but the airport does not pass the notability bar. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions . ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions . ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I added some references from the corresponding article in the French Wikipedia. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 17:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Air Tetiaroa or Tetiꞌaroa . None of the sources constitute significant coverage required to meet GNG. Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 20:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge This is a private airstrip for the resort rather than a full airport, lacks substantive sources. Reywas92 Talk 14:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to discuss potential merge targets Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith Talk to me 00:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Tetiꞌaroa the The Brando Resort as its airstrip. gidonb ( talk ) 02:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there are 3 different Merge targets suggested, an air carrier, an atoll or a resort. We need to whittle that down to one target article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Tetiꞌaroa I can't find anything saying that the airstrip is exclusively for The Brando Resort , just that people going there is the primary use. Shaws username . talk . 13:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist to determine merge target. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Herald (Benison) , I do not know why this was relisted. There seems to be a consensus that this needs to be merged to Tetiꞌaroa . Can you close the debate as it is open already so long? gidonb ( talk ) 03:35, 22 February 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.

merge

Al-Maghazi UNRWA school airstrike : Outside the article, the most expansive sources are Al Arabiya and Business Insider , but in relation to this event all those do is repeat the UNRWA press release; there is no significant independent coverage. BilledMammal ( talk ) 20:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine . BilledMammal ( talk ) 20:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The Insider source does not simply regurgitate the UNRWA press release ; it also considers the overall places the airstrike in the wider context of other bombinbs and covers a lack of response from the IDF and UNRWA when they requested further comment. Additionally, this Al Jazeera article has further coverage of how refugees had been living in the school and how the strike affected them. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 21:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The coverage of the airstrike in the Insider piece, excluding quotes, is: At least six people were killed after a United Nations refugee school was bombed during Israeli airstrikes, said the relief agency running the shelter. Dozens of people, including UNRWA staff, were injured, and the school suffered "severe structural damage," he added. And even those two are quotes, just summarized ones. The rest of the coverage is about attacks on healthcare facilities; significant coverage of that topic, but not this topic. The Al Jazeera article is a little better, but even that lacks independent coverage focused on this event. BilledMammal ( talk ) 22:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into main article where it already isn't included, as there is insufficient coverage but relevant content. FortunateSons ( talk ) 09:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per WP:GNG which states that "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." That indicates the coverage received is sufficient to demonstrate notability. The strike was also covered by Al-Ahram the Egyptian newspaper of record. The attack was mentioned in a report which aired on Euronews a couple of weeks after the strike, as well. I'm concerned that the nom here is well-known to have a very strongly pro-Israel POV and that may be part of why they want this article to be deleted. AusLondonder ( talk ) 16:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per AusLondoner, the claim of regurgitation is untrue, as is the claim that this was only covered in those sources. nableezy - 19:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Refugee camp airstrikes in the Israel–Hamas war . Simply occurring and being reported on in the news does not make an event notable. It requires WP:SIGCOV that is WP:SUSTAINED . Maybe this can be given its own article if there are journals using this airstrike as a case study after the war ends. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 04:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If we’re requiring journal articles for every event then we should be deleting every attack by Hamas and hell the entire war article. nableezy - 06:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] nableezy there are plenty of journal articles about the war (because the war is, you know, actually notable). I agree we should delete most attacks by Hamas, or at the very least merge them into a single list. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 07:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We had an article within hours of the initial attack. Nobody in their right mind would have said we needed to wait for a journal article to conclude that was notable. Now I might actually agree with a no newspaper policy, hell I’m pretty sure I’ve suggested it before, but it’s never going to happen so I don’t think it’s reasonable to say this article must be based on journal articles but all those need not be. nableezy - 11:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The appropriate merge target should be Al-Maghazi refugee camp airstrikes and not Refugee camp airstrikes in the Israel–Hamas war . Selfstudier ( talk ) 18:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: This page exists precisely because the subject is one of the more notable examples of its kind – an early and at-the-time shocking assault against a school and UNRWA facility before such things became depravely normalized in the conflict – hence the widespread and in-depth coverage at the time and afterwards. Seems WP:GNG . Iskandar323 ( talk ) 22:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Refugee camp airstrikes in the Israel–Hamas war as a premature SPINOFF. gidonb ( talk ) 03:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , per Gidonb. Galamore ( talk ) 18:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the Al-Maghazi refugee camp airstrikes. Unlikely this will receive sustained coverage given it doesn't even have IRS SIGCOV now . JoelleJay ( talk ) 01:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Refugee camp airstrikes in the Israel–Hamas war . Insignificant on its own, covered almost only around the event. ---Lilach5 ( לילך5 ) discuss 04:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or delete Hi, So I think Billedmammal has a point but I can also understand merging so both options are good I think. ElLuzDelSur ( talk ) 07:51, 25 April 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.

merge

Silvanus Bevan (1661–1725) : The main source claims the family is notable, but that doesn't help this person. I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason: Timothy Bevan (apothecary) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Clarityfiend ( talk ) 20:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep or Redirect to Allen & Hanburys found a journal article (accessible on Wikipedia Library) dedicated to the coverage of Silvanus Bevan (Morris, John S. “Silvanus Bevan the ‘Quaker FRS’ (1691-1765) Apothecary with a Note on His Contribution to the Founding of the Pharmaceutical Company Allen and Hanbury.” Journal of Medical Biography, vol. 19, no. 1, Feb. 2011, pp. 2–4. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1258/jmb.2010.010021 . ) Apparently the book "Through A City Archway: The Story Of Allen And Hanburys, 1715-1954" by Desmond Chapman-Huston and Ernest C. Cripps also covers the full history of the Allen and Hanbury company, and to a certain degree covers Silvanus Bevan, but I don't have any access to it, so I don't know to what degree Silvanus Bevan is covered. There's also many mentions of him in JSTOR, although I haven't analyzed every single article where his name is mentioned, so I don't know how notable the coverage is. It seems like he was the founder of the company Allen & Hanburys , so perhaps he could be redirected there if the coverage about Silvanus Bevan is not deemed notable or in-depth enough. Jaguarnik ( talk ) 23:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I made an error, the apothecary Silvanus Bevan is not the one nominated for deletion, rather his father, also Silvanus was. My mistake. There is no coverage I found of his father. I think delete is an okay option. Jaguarnik ( talk ) 23:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge relevant verifiable information from both into Silvanus Bevan as WP:ATD-M . — siro χ o 05:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete both https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvanus_Bevan 1661-1725 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Bevan_(apothecary) and as siro χ o suggests merge relevant content to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvanus_Bevan 1691-1765 Hmee2 ( talk ) 19:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and delete is very rarely done, so I'm guessing this is meant to be a merge ! vote (which implies that the original pages will be blanked and redirected). — siro χ o 23:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for the explanation, and yes. Hmee2 ( talk ) 11:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Silvanus Bevan . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 16:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge only properly sourced content, support per above. // Timothy :: talk 17:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC) 16:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Korean excrement balloon incident : Reasoning: there's just not much else to say about this incident other than what's in the few news articles about it. It falls into the context of the balloon propaganda campaign, and doesn't have enough separate notability imo. 104.232.119.107 ( talk ) 01:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions . 104.232.119.107 ( talk ) 01:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, multiple news sources have had articles about it, including Reuters, ( https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/south-korea-alert-balloons-dropping-trash-north-2024-05-29/ ) BBC, ( https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4nn2p32zrzo.amp ) CNN, ( https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/05/29/asia/north-korea-trash-balloons-intl-hnk ) CBS, ( https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/north-korea-south-korea-trash-balloons/ ) and NBC. ( https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna154435 ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MountainDew20 ( talk • contribs ) 00:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For others reading, note that I had posted on the talk page with the deletion nomination because I am an IP user and can't create pages. This user created the deletion discussion page, and I'm not sure if they saw my post (verbatim matches the current deletion nom rationale) before making this comment. Now direct response to this comment: my point is not that the event doesn't have coverage, my point is that the event is not independently significant enough from the Balloon propaganda campaigns page to merit its own article. WP:NOPAGE is relevant I think here. Note WP:NSUSTAINED and WP:NTEMP . I think you can make an argument that we should wait a bit more to see if coverage is separate enough: maybe this sparks a huge diplomatic incident with significant consequences. But I'm doubtful that will happen; worse events have happened with basically zero meaningful change to inter-Korean relations. 104.232.119.107 ( talk ) 01:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I pull up coverage in Reuters, NBC News, The Independent and what's given now in the article. This incident seems to be notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is more to say, as the balloons also contained CD's and leaflets, in addition to all the other stuff mentioned [46] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Separately notable from what's in the Balloon propaganda campaigns in Korea article? And to clarify, I wasn't trying to say the excrement balloon article can't be expanded more. I was trying to say that, based on the news articles, there's not much more to say that differs from the balloon propaganda campaigns in Korea article. The overlap is really significant. 104.232.119.107 ( talk ) 02:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Or ! merge, I'm not fussed about it. Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : WP:NEVENTS applies, but without getting too into the weeds wrt that guideline, this event belongs contextually at Balloon propaganda campaigns in Korea#North Korean counter-campaigns as this is a direct response to recent South Korean balloon campaigns, with North Korea stating that it would retaliate against the "frequent scattering of leaflets and other rubbish" in border areas by activists in the South. // "Mounds of wastepaper and filth will soon be scattered over the border areas and the interior of the ROK and it will directly experience how much effort is required to remove them" [47] . Also: the article name is really not ideal as under 10% of the balloons appear to have contained excrement. ~ Hydronium ~ Hydroxide ~ (Talk) ~ 02:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : Per WP:NEVENTS and WP:NOPAGE . Also, WP:NOTNEWS given that this happened just yesterday. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 04:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge ; not independently notable enough. Zanahary ( talk ) 05:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , North Korea , and South Korea . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as despite coverage from major media companies, it's yet another example of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING . Duke of New Gwynedd ( talk | contrib. ) 18:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - while it is marginally notable, a merger back would allow for better context. Bearian ( talk ) 15:12, 5 June 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.

merge

2023 Hamburg Airport hostage incident : This is a recent, isolated event that resolved quickly and doesn't appear to have any lasting impact or braoder ramifications. We don't create articles for every news story. Zim Zala Bim talk 20:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Germany . Shellwood ( talk ) 20:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Aviation . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The title leads the reader to think it's an issue with something aviation related, but this is just a circumstance where the airport property is involved with what would be noted in brief within a newspaper otherwise in a regular home or on the road. The young hostage definitely breaches WP:BLP concerns. Nate • ( chatter ) 22:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. A mention of the incident in Hamburg Airport should be enough. -- Kammerer55 ( talk ) 03:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Hamburg Airport , where an short mention exists (and probably should, an airport effectively shutting down for most of a day, unrelated to weather is generally a rare and big event). The possibility of a merge remains but there's no need to do it now, and no need delete history as there's no major BLP concerns. — siro χ o 06:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Hamburg Airport -- This is does not meet WP:NEVENT or WP:NCRIME . Either a Redir or Merge is a viable AtD. I lean toward Merge simply because I think this has more meat on it than a simple redirect can support. Note for closer: If AtDs fail, I am more than comfortable with a simple Delete. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 17:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Spencer Monroe : four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , Television , and Comics and animation . Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep if more sources are found, otherwise merge to List of The Walking Dead (comics) characters . BOZ ( talk ) 20:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Merge per above. This shouldn’t be it’s own article but should be mentioned among the list of characters. Go4thProsper ( talk ) 18:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of The Walking Dead (comics) characters . No sources indicate this character is independently notable. There may be mergeable content for the list of characters. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 18:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the character list. WP:BEFORE only shows a minor character with less than significant coverage. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 17:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

New Hampshire Rail Transit Authority : This article should be merged, the topic would be better suited as a brief section in the NHDOT article or some other relevant article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldPalChummus ( talk • contribs ) 20:30, 8 May 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 May 10 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 18:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Transportation , and New Hampshire . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge the administrative information to New Hampshire Department of Transportation per nom. Details of the individual rail projects are already covered on the relevant rail line articles. Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 22:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above. As author Ronald Dale Karr put it, New Hampshire has been by far the least supportive of commuter rail out of the six New England states. This authority unfortunately didn't accomplish much of anything, but merits a mention at the NHDOT article. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 02:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as per what my two colleagues suggest above would indeed be the best choice here. TH1980 ( talk ) 02:30, 12 May 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.

merge

Norwich City Services : No WP:INDEPENDENT sources. A412 ( Talk • C ) 06:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom . A412 ( Talk • C ) 06:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Norwich City Council . Not independently notable, but sufficiently important and verifiable for a mention as part of a larger article. Thryduulf ( talk ) 11:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : A primary-sourced new article on a Council's service company. I agree with Thryduulf about its lack of specific notability, and suggest its existence and a summary list of the additional services is better under a new Services section in the Norwich City Council article itself. AllyD ( talk ) 15:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

2013 Cotabato City bombing : Almost 11 years after, no lasting impact or coverage to meet WP:EVENT . Also WP:NOTNEWS applies. LibStar ( talk ) 01:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events , and Philippines . LibStar ( talk ) 01:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of terrorist incidents in the Philippines#2013 . PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 03:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of terrorist incidents in the Philippines#2013 per WP:ATD . -- Lenticel ( talk ) 20:28, 23 April 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.

merge

Controlocracy : Given lack of sources, I'd also go for WP:NOTNEO on this one - one man's use of a word doesn't a word make. Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 06:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Norway . Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 06:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Delete per WP:NEO . I only see a few mentions in RS, but it's not the primary topic, except for the opinion piece in Modern Diplomacy . APK whisper in my ear 07:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NEO . 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep The South China Morning Post seems to use the word often enough ( [37] as an example), as does the Guardian [38] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And quite a few hits in Gscholar using the term [39] , seems ok-ish. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to The Perfect Dictatorship: China in the 21st Century . All the sources that use the neologism are only in reference to the book, including in the references Oaktree brought. :3 F4U ( they /it ) 00:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm ok with a merge. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to The Perfect Dictatorship: China in the 21st Century per F4U. Makes sense. A. Randomdude0000 ( talk ) 22:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Cartmel Masterplan : A version of the Doctor Who timeline that was never actually written, and was one subplot for a version of the show which was never written. I think pretty much every source is in this article. If this is anywhere on Wikipedia, it should be a few sentences in another article. I shall cite WP:FANCRUFT and let slip the dogs of war. BrigadierG ( talk ) 16:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , Television , and England . BrigadierG ( talk ) 16:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I believe the discussion from its prior AfD still stands. It's a part of Doctor Who's developmental history that has been discussed in multiple sources. If consensus decides on a merge, I wouldn't be opposed, but I believe this has grounds to stick around. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 19:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agree with the nominator that this doesn't have enough coverage for a separate article. Or perhaps merge the content to Doctor Who (season 25) , which might benefit from some details about the season's development. It doesn't make sense to create a WP:CONTENTFORK purely about a show's development, particularly when the main article is short and lacking. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 23:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Generous merge to Doctor Who (season 25) - as in, the kind that takes the whole article wholesale and makes it a section, not the kind of merge that is just a redirect and maybe one sentence. This seems clearly notable and sourced, but agree that it is probably covered better as "this is what we planned for the next season but it fell through." Just because a topic is notable doesn't mean it's best covered in a standalone article - seems like a classic case where this is better off as a section of a larger topic. SnowFire ( talk ) 05:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The issue I would see about a merge to Doctor Who (season 25) is that some of the material relates more to Doctor Who (season 26) (and arguably the unmade season 27). Might Seventh_Doctor#Story_style be a better option? Dunarc ( talk ) 21:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why not both? I don't think this warrants a separate article, but I could be convinced about where this should be covered. Either way, I think the details of a re-organization or merge can be worked out through editing. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 13:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see a reason to delete, if not notable it should be merged with either Doctor Who (season 25) or Andrew Cartmel . Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 19:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Doctor Who (season 25) or Andrew Cartmel . Seems to be cobbled from WP:SIGCOV failing mentions in passing, but deserves a redirect to somewhere it can be briefly mentioned. It's a fancruft footnote, but probably should not be a red link. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Vette (Star Wars) : The controversy were mostly discussed about the game, similarly like Controversies surrounding Mass Effect 3 and not the character. It doesn't help notability about the character either, AND may be WP:UNDUE or whatever it is. 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 ( 🔔 ) 13:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 ( 🔔 ) 13:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the character list. As with the last AfD, most coverage about her is about a single controversy, and it feels undue to spin off into its own page. Still, I doubt this will reach a different outcome than last time. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Zxcvbnm's statement. MKsLifeInANutshell ( talk ) 07:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, always specify a target article if you are proposing a Merge or Redirect. We have hundreds (thousands?) of articles on Star Wars, its worlds and characters on many different platforms (film, TV, books, video games, maybe board games (?)) and the closer should be guessing which one you think is the most appropriate. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 16:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Zxcvbnm, as WP:ATD . Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV but can be preserved in a logical place. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 18:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Zxcvbnm's analysis. For the target, I would assume everyone above meant for it to be merged to Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series , as that was the target proposed in the last, No Consensus AFD discussion. Rorshacma ( talk ) 19:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Zxcvbnm. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 00:39, 25 May 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.

merge

Paul Phoenix (Tekken) : Most of it are just routine trailer coverage. Most of them are trivial, talking about his hair on Tekken 8 and its announcement. This source can be also unhelpful [1] while this one is quite useful [2] . Meanwhile, this source [3] is a passing mention at the end "I hope Paul Phoenix is a central character in the next series, Tekken 8." Others are mostly build up listicles. Thus, Failing WP:GNG since its not enough. GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 23:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 23:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 23:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep This is unusual for me, but this character appears notable from the sources in the article. However, it is weak because there is just barely enough. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 15:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I re-analyzed the sources, and realized that I counted some obviously bad ones. Weak merge , but I'm open to having my mind changed. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 15:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I could simply not find a single piece of WP:SIGCOV anywhere, even in old gaming magazines. Mostly they are just a small snarky mention of "heh, tall hairdo". It's not indicative of standalone notability of any sort. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 04:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Tekken characters . This one is particularly aggravating. Paul has been in the games since day one but all anyone talks about is his hair. Any serious coverage of him found is from nonviable sources, while any legit site that has a headline about his Tekken 8 gameplay has barely a paragraph dedicated to it. It almost seems like a copout to vote for merging yet another fighting character, but there's really no other choice here. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 04:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, Paul Phoenix is another character that should have the coverage, but doesn't seem to. But I'm over these AFDs, so I'm going to refrain from ! voting, unless it's a keep for me, but I just can't find much reason to keep this one. I'll look a little more to see if I can find anything, because there has to be something . Just wow. MoonJet ( talk ) 09:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Burglar (character) : I couldn't find non-trivial mentions of this guy anywhere. Industrial Insect (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Comics and animation . Industrial Insect (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as an ATD to List of Marvel Comics characters: B . Mach61 ( talk ) 03:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: B in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE like the last discussion which the nominator previously withdrawn after a talk with @ BoomboxTestarossa : . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 18:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Preserve does not override WP:GNG . Nothing does. If an article is not notable, then it should not be preserved. Industrial Insect (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability does not dictate content within a page; please give a policy-based argument for not having a blurb of this character on a list and redirecting the current title. Mach61 ( talk ) 04:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merging is a fine alternative, but there is no reason whatsoever to keep. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per all. This doesn't pass the bar for WP:SIGCOV , but merge is a good WP:ATD . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 15:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Yasmien Kurdi discography : This is just an album listing which might violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY . Redirect to Yasmien_Kurdi#Discography as per WP:ATD at best. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 23:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Philippines . Lenticel ( talk ) 23:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Yasmien Kurdi#Discography : Not large enough to be disruptive to the main article/need to stand alone. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 07:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Yasmien Kurdi#Discography , Correct me if im wrong, but Yasmien Kurdi does not feel notable enough to have a discography article. TheNuggeteer ( talk ) 9:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC) Merge back as we usually due with such unreferenced lists or discogs. Bearian ( talk ) 14:25, 5 June 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.

merge

Angela Ismailos : Fails WP:NFILMMAKER and WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , Women , and Greece . UtherSRG (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . No in-depth coverage from secondary RS. ǁ ǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 ( talk ) 01:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . There seems to be quite a lot of coverage around her film Great Directors , but little else that isn't just puff. If that survives, a merge might be appropriate. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 02:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the "Great Directors" as suggested seems ok. There is coverage for the film/work. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Anyone else agree on the merge? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as suggested. Anything which meets GNG requirements seems to be about Great Directors . WJ94 ( talk ) 13:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

St Hilda's Church, Griffithstown : Additionally, it fails WP:GNG as it seems to just be a random church. It can easily be merged with List of Church in Wales churches or Griffithstown . ''Flux55'' ( talk ) 03:22, 23 January 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 January 23 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 03:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect to Griffithstown . The Coflein entry and the source it cites is adequate to cover it there. I couldn't find any other significant coverage. Jfire ( talk ) 05:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect : have not found anything to indicate that it is notable enough for a separate article. EdwardUK ( talk ) 05:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Christianity . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A quick perusal of what sources there are indicates that if our Incorporated Church Building Society article actually dealt with that subject and didn't just ignore the entire 19th century, it might be better dealt with there. Uncle G ( talk ) 07:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Griffithstown per Jfire. It gets mentioned up front in [19] but only as the location of a funeral. A couple of other such mentions in books. Newspapers find quite a few items, but they are the usual primary sources, mainly weddings and funerals. The church does not appear to be a listed building, but contains a memorial to Henry Griffiths for whom the town is named. I cannot find any reason to keep as an article in its own right, but it is part of Griffithstown and there should be some mergeable content here that would be well placed in that article. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 13:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete There is no serious claim to notability for this late Victorian building, and while I can appreciate the urge to merge, I've not seen lists of churches in town articles— for surely this is not the only church in town. Mangoe ( talk ) 15:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Churches can be found in town articles, e.g South Croydon#Churches or Aberystwyth#Churches . St Hilda's is already mentioned at Griffithstown . If you think that mention is sufficient I would suggest redirect is a better WP:ATD . Findachurch suggests there are 3 churches in Griffithstown. Google maps adds another 2 and a kingdom hall in close proximity. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 16:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions : Other stuff does not exist Djflem ( talk ) 16:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Griffithstown, where St Hilda's is already mentioned as a landmark. Djflem ( talk ) 18:18, 28 January 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.

merge

April 2017 Lahore suicide bombing : No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT . LibStar ( talk ) 00:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Terrorism , and Pakistan . LibStar ( talk ) 00:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per the last 20 discussions we have had, merge applicable content to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017 , where it is already listed, without detail or sourcing. Deleting it would leave that unverified. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 11:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above and NCRIME . ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 04:34, 15 April 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.

merge

Leafa : WP:BEFORE shows nothing at Google, but listicles/rankings. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 01:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 02:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the Fictional elements and Video games . Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 02:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep BEFORE News search should have found CBR , and GameRant , which may both be derided as "listicles" but show continuing coverage: most of the links in the article are from 2015; these are both from 2023. CBR again with a critique of her--and only her--costumes from 2020. More listicles abound . As tacky as the bikini-clad figurines are, they are real-world products based off of one of the shallowest and most annoying characters in one Anime. Jclemens ( talk ) 03:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A good BEFORE search would have ignored such low-level sourcing as poor indicators of notability on their own, so no issues here. Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Absolutely not. Despite opinions to the contrary, these sources cover this sort of topic, so discussing how and to what extent they do is absolutely part of BEFORE. "I found nothing ... but listicles/rankings" is not a credible summary, as listicles are entirely capable of counting towards GNG unless source snobbery is now a part of N. Jclemens ( talk ) 07:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Absolutely not. They're listicles from some of the worst churnalism websites. If you like talking about them, go for it, but there's no room for faulting the nominator on doing a BEFORE search and not reporting back about them. Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Name calling, even against websites, isn't an argument. The reason for a BEFORE to articulate the best sources found, even if they suck, is that gives everyone else a starting point. A well done BEFORE demonstrates coverage or lack thereof, rather than asserts it. Jclemens ( talk ) 06:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay? Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 12:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not just "name calling against websites" (???). There's a Wikiproject-level consensus that these sorts of websites don't contribute to notability. Instead of continually trying to lecture me, try getting yourself up to speed. Sergecross73 msg me 12:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would concur; one of those sources even has no demonstration of notability, it's merely a recounting of facts about the character, which could only reasonably be used to cite information. Listicles aren't an inherent problem, the problem is using listicles that may as well say nothing as far as notability is concerned. - - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 00:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge It reads like written from a fan perspective, talking about the most minor stuff. I am not convinced by numerous CBR listicles that this is an independently notable character. My main question is how in the world it even stuck around so long. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 04:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm only counting multiple CBR listicles as one source for GNG purposes, and the costumes one is probably the most in-depth treatment. The others from CBR just show continuing coverage. Jclemens ( talk ) 05:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Zx, somewhat. I'll add I'm not against Valnet lists being used, but if they're discussing the work and not just reiterating how they play or their role. Give us something examining the character and giving thoughts on them. That doesn't seem to be present here. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 06:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ - Not only are most of the sources just listicles, but they are largely ones that just list the entire main cast of the series, which does not really do much to indicate notability for Leafa in specific. I am also not really convinced by the sources in the article regarding the merchandise featuring her. Not only do they not really discuss the character at all, most of them are not even really reviews on the actual figures themselves, and merely saying "this is a thing that exists". Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . I'm not opposed to Valnet sources, but the ones provided seem to provide limited to no show of notability. One is merely verifying information about the character; another , despite being a ranking, provides zero commentary. This may seem like commentary at first blush, but it's really just describing her personality, offering the mild opinion that she would not be interested. The Sports Skeeda source is listed as unreliable per the Video Game WikiProject reliable sources page , leaving the only one that seems to provide any commentary being the costumes list, which provides only very meager commentary on each outfit. The first is a single sentence, the second is, once again, a single sentence, and barely says anything - "it's just a bikini". There are some okay commentaries here and there, but the tally seems to be that there's a single source whose commentary could be summed up in a couple sentences, maybe even less considering the significant commentary seems to be about her more sexual outfits cheapening scenes. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 00:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Kotaku covers a SAO product containing this fictional character, but without naming her by either fictional name or fictional gamer handle. This is a pretty opaque journal article that mentions her, as a language tool was trained on SAO dialogue. I was really expecting there to be more RS commentary on her relationship with Kirito (cousin/raised together as siblings/has a crush on him) and the associated ick factor, but most of what I'm willing to go find is just things like Reddit discussing it. Jclemens ( talk ) 08:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per arguments above. Coverage is extremely weak - passing mentions and listicles from low level churnalism websites. The Kotaku source is perhaps even less than a passing mention, as it doesn't even mention the subject by name. Sergecross73 msg me 13:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per all. Coverage doesn't reach WP:SIGCOV when you remove unsourced or questionable sources. The others barely mention the subject, but there is a possible WP:ATD here. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 16:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I accept that consensus favors merge. For the closer's convenience, List of Sword Art Online characters#Leafa is the appropriate target. Comment Have any of you tried looking up "桐ヶ谷 直葉"? Sources are still sources if covered in notable foreign entities. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk ) 14:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Foreign language sources can certainly be used to prove notability, but editors are not under a requirement to search in every language if it's not immediately notable in English. If you have found major sources in Japanese, feel free to bring them to people's attention, though. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 17:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is a ja wiki article on this character. Someone better than me with translation might want to look at it and see what sources it includes. Jclemens ( talk ) 08:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Is there? When I looked, I only found her listed in their version of the "Characters from Sword Art Online" article, and could not find a separate article on the Japanese Wikipedia for her. And her character section on the main Character List over there did not look like it had any usable reliable sources, with the citations largely just being the Sword Art Online books themselves, and a couple of social media posts. Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is a ja interwiki link. If that's all it leads to, then I'm wondering why it was even there in the first place. Jclemens ( talk ) 07:59, 19 January 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.

merge

Anna Williams (Tekken) : Doesn't seem notable enough to warrant its own article. Merko ( talk ) 15:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Merko ( talk ) 15:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Merge Anna seems to be a possible breakout character. I found this [10] but there might be more or not that much. If more WP:SIGCOV are found besides listicles, I will cast my vote to keep them. GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I see this as a similar case to Quan Chi , where Anna Williams should and likely does have the coverage. It's also worth noting she kind of co-starred with Nina in the game Death by Degrees , where she had her own mode. However, I have not found anything besides what GlatorNator posted above. How did you find that, by the way? That link won't even show up in the Google searches I've been doing. MoonJet ( talk ) 07:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree about Quan Chi being notable. Anna might be but wasn't sure yet. The source does appear on Google. Not sure why is doesn't show yours. GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 07:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Nominator here, I found three sources on Proquest that mention this character in apparent sections: [11] [12] [13] Whether the coverage is significant is up for debate. Merko ( talk ) 07:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Account "through your library or institution" required to access ProQuest articles. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 07:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you can get access with your Wikimedia account, details here Merko ( talk ) 08:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks.  :) sixty nine • whaddya want? • 18:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak merge Seems like they should be notable, but there is not enough SIGCOV. Ping me if more is found. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 12:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Snowball comment Well there's a first, but I'm going to ask that this be withdrawn for now, I do agree that it feels...off...that she wouldn't be notable and looking at the above even the nominator may have possibly found some sources. I don't want to "other stuff exists", but this might be a lot lower on spectrum of articles that should get the nuke for now. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 14:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak merge Existing reception is pedestrian with the usual "sexiest babe" and "we want her for X game" stuff, which doesn't really tell us why she's notable. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 18:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If a popular Tekken character like Anna doesn't have much, then I guess the same goes to King (Tekken) . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 04:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GlatorNator : From the looks of it, no. Can't really find any SIGCOV to speak of for King either. I'd wager almost all Tekken characters with standalone articles are deep in "FANDOM article" territory, besides maybe obvious main characters like Jin Kazama who seem to possibly have scholarly coverage about them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : Based on two of the sources found in here. The one provided by GlatorNator and the first one provided by Merko are good starting points. MoonJet ( talk ) 09:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The one where Merko provided were just passing mention, but anyway it seems like im on my way for this afd to be neutral. GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 10:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The whole article was about her though, so it's not a "passing mention." However, I do agree that Anna could have a bit more (plus the benefit of the doubt she has more sourcing out there), hence I only went with a "weak keep." It seems that we're all in agreement here that this is a borderline case. MoonJet ( talk ) 03:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : per above. Fails GNG, Sources don't support notability for a stand alone article. // Timothy :: talk 07:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per WP:GNG . Existing sources are not enough to prove notability. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 02:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Tovah R. Calderon : Sources are either primary or namedrops Let'srun ( talk ) 15:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Law , Indiana , and Washington, D.C. . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NPOL Snickers2686 ( talk ) 16:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Snickers2686 Andre 🚐 03:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep For the same reasons mentioned by Snickers2686. MIAJudges ( talk ) 02:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Which role is WP:NPOL based on? If it is the DC Court of Appeals, my understanding is that this is not a state or federal office, and her nomination was unsuccessful. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: as failing the GNG. I'm not sure what the Keep proponents are thinking, but WP:NPOL holds the following: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them." Since the subject has never been a judge or held elective office, NPOL doesn't remotely apply. They could with as much justification claim that the article should be kept per WP:GEOLAND or WP:NHOCKEY. No objection to merge as per Let'srun. Ravenswing 13:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Alternative proposal : Merge all otherwise non-notable failed presidential judicial nominees into a single article along the lines of Unsuccessful Joe Biden judicial nominations . We can preserve a truncated form of the data in one place, without reaching individual notability concerns. BD2412 T 21:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think a redirect to Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies makes more sense, seeing as there is already a description of the WP:BLP1E for this nominee and the other non-notable failed presidential judicial nominees, along with details about specific dates regarding the nomination process. As it is, the list of otherwise non-notable judicial nominees for Trump is fairly small and I don't think there is the needed SIGCOV. Let'srun ( talk ) 15:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Correction, there is not a description of this specific nominee there. In this case, merging the information there would be wise in an effort to retain details regarding why the nominee was not confirmed. Let'srun ( talk ) 15:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why would a controversy list about federal nominees include D.C. court nominees? Snickers2686 ( talk ) 17:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The name of the article is Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies, not Joe Biden federal judicial appointment controversies. A section can be simply added below the federal nominees with any applicable DC court nominees and the description of the WP:BLP1E . Let'srun ( talk ) 19:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies , as per the proposal from Let'srun . MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

History of Uppland : Ideally a major expansion would take place as a result of this nomination, but as of now there is no useful content. Merge is unnecessary. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 11:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Sweden . RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 11:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Uppland#History : the page has even less notable content that the relevant section in the redir target. And having been here for 20 years, I doubt an extra six months in draftspace would help. Owen× ☎ 16:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge to Uppland#History rather than deletion. The article needs work but the subject is notable. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 12:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Tamasha season 1 : All I found on the web is some ROTM coverage, but nothing significant or in-dept Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 17:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 17:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and REDIRECT to Tamasha (TV series) as we don't need a separate article for each season where the season has no review to meet WP:GNG . Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 07:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Tamasha (TV series) : as was done, I think, with season 2. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Mushy Yank. I couldn't find any sigcov of this season. The three sources cited probably don't meet the GNG either. Toadspike [Talk] 22:15, 29 June 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.

merge

Diurnum : An online search reveals this topic does not have enough in-depth coverage to warrant a Wikipedia page. Bremps ... 23:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTDICT . WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] merge to sext , which it's just another name for. Mangoe ( talk ) 04:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to sext or Daily Office (Anglican) . The term only really comes up in in the context of two breviaries used by a couple minor religious orders in the US Episcopal Church . ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 14:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to sext as it is dealt with more fully there, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Kraklewo : The location in the article is empty forest . The only source in the article is a link to the Teryt database (the Polish equivalent of GNIS ), using the SIMC code from the Polish version of the article I find a listing that says, in machine translation, that Kraklewo/Klaklewo is a part of the village of Karpno, something I also confirmed from the Polish regulation list place-names ( część wsi Karpno ). We already have an article about Karpno, Bytów County . Kraklewo appears to be a non-descript location and not obviously inhabited. The article is incorrect in saying it is a settlement - that would be an osada under Polish law, but it is not classified as that. There is nothing more to say about it than that it is a location on the map. Fails WP:GEOLAND , WP:GNG , WP:NOPAGE . I'm agnostic over whether this should be deleted or redirected to Karpno - the name is at least not something that could plausibly be used for something else, and is part of Karpno. On the other hand we should not simply create redirects for every named location in a village. There is no content to merge, though. FOARP ( talk ) 19:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland . FOARP ( talk ) 19:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Karpno, Bytów County , which it is a part of. It makes sense to have a redirect and information in the main village that it has a part named such and such, but I am not seeing what makes this pass WP:GNG otherwise. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Beastie Boys Square : In short, this is one of many commemorative street names given to locations in New York City. The only coverage is WP:PRIMARYNEWS coverage of the renaming being denied, then approved. A previous attempt to merge the content to Paul's Boutique#Beastie Boys Square (where the content has already existed since September 2023) per WP:NOPAGE was reverted. Epicgenius ( talk ) 10:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and New York . Epicgenius ( talk ) 10:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Restore merge location above, or merge to Beastie Boys . Fair game to mention somewhere, but I'm failing to see why it needs its own stand-alone article when there's so little of substance to say on it. Sergecross73 msg me 10:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there is quite a lot of coverage on the 10 year journey. There are plenty of articles, probably over 100 plus TV coverage. . it will, be included in books and it is a designated Sq in NYc. Def passes Wikipedia:GNG VeniceBreeze ( talk ) 18:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please see WP:MERGEREASON - even if there's sources, its a valid decision to merge things if the article is short and easily placed in the context of a related article, which perfectly fits in this situation. Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No one looking for info on the square would go to an article about an album. I added several articles from 2014, 2019 and 2021 to show ongoing coverage but, there are thousands more and the article could certainly be improved beyond what would be appropriate for a section under Pauls Boutique. There is coverage on several votes, the guy who lobbied for it, and the tasks they had to accomplish to get it approved. I didnt write a front page article. . its 3 days old. . do what you want but there is 10 years of I n depth coverage. . VeniceBreeze ( talk ) 18:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The point about "no one looking for info" will be easily met by leaving a redirect from Beastie Boys Square . ColinFine ( talk ) 19:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Due to WP:REDIRECTs and how they work, people will find it just find it just find in the merge target if they type in the name in the search bar. And if there's "10 years of coverage", then you should use that to write an article with more substance and content. Right now its quite barren. Is there anything else to say other than "they tried a couple times and eventually it happened?". There's not much more than that right now... Sergecross73 msg me 20:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I updated it with some more info but the idea is they have a huge fanbase to contribute. . the article was 3 days old before he tried to delete it without even leaving me a message on my page. VeniceBreeze ( talk ) 05:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why wouldnt anyone think this is an important site that should have coordinates and a map pin for tourists? VeniceBreeze ( talk ) 05:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No one is objecting to the inclusion of coordinates or a map. However, when I merged the article, it looked like this . I understand you may feel offended that I didn't leave a message on your talk page when I merged the article. I did not delete anything; all of the content in the article, aside from the references, was already in Paul's Boutique#Beastie Boys Square , with some minor wording changes. To be honest, I was looking for reliable sources so the article could be expanded , but all I found were references that parroted what was already in the page, as well as unreliable sources . (This page currently contains four NY Post sources, which are generally not reliable per WP:NYPOST , and an Atlas Obscura geography article , which is not reliable per WP:AOPLACES .) – Epicgenius ( talk ) 15:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ny post is fine except for politics. Its the oldest and most read paper in ny. If you dont like it, a simple search for beastie boys square before 2020 results in 1000s of hits. [5] https://www.google.com/search? q=beastie+boys+square&sca_esv=cfae4c7047bddcaf&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS945US945&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2013%2Ccd_max%3A2019&sxsrf=ADLYWIIt9UAK34OYWynm8i2jGGNjm9pQxA%3A1716659031135&ei=VyNSZv7xB_7GkPIPmqGEqAo&ved=0ahUKEwi--YCeramGAxV-I0QIHZoQAaUQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=beastie+boys+square&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiE2JlYXN0aWUgYm95cyBzcXVhcmUyBBAjGCcyBBAjGCcyERAuGIAEGJECGMcBGIoFGK8BMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeSO0OUIkDWPwHcAF4AJABAJgBYKABowOqAQE1uAEDyAEA-AEBmAIFoAK5A8ICCxAuGIAEGMcBGK8BmAMAiAYBkgcDNC4xoAftIw&sclient=gws-wiz-serp VeniceBreeze ( talk ) 17:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I tried to post an external link. . not sure why that all came out. I posted more sources incase the ny post doesnt represent reputable coverage of The Beastie Boys and NYC events. VeniceBreeze ( talk ) 18:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That is not what WP:NYPOST says... Sergecross73 msg me 21:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You seem to be an experienced editor. . why are you purposely being ignorant and obtuse? I said i added additional articles. . LA Times, Variety, Billboard, Rolling Stone. . all prior to the 2020 coverage. . there is plenty for an article and its a tourist attraction. VeniceBreeze ( talk ) 22:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What does that have to do what I said? You said NY Post was okay to use outside of politics. That's objectively not the current stance. Sergecross73 msg me 23:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Does it not say i added billboard, rolling stone, variety,and the LA Times if you werent happy w the NY Post's coverage of the Beastie Boys. All before 2020? VeniceBreeze ( talk ) 03:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I wasn't commenting on everything you said, I was merely singling out a falsehood you stated in your argument. You haven't countered that point at all, so I'll assume you're dropping that aspect of your argument. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please stop trying to provoke me into an argument. You can lawyer all you want but an easy search shows how many articles the nypost is cited in. Also, i feel very threatened and triggered by the messages and attempts to provoke me on my talk page. I would appreciate it if you would keep the conversation here. Im done working on this article. . if 20 years of experience lead you tp these beliefs, fine. I believe in quantum information storage, so if your lying it will be recorded for eternity. Best of luck to everyone. . good bye beastie boys square, no page forever. . thanks to these voters VeniceBreeze ( talk ) 19:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not trying to provoke you into anything. I corrected your statement on the NYP and notified you of WP:NPA on your talk page since you keep calling me "ignorant" and "obtuse" for not agreeing with you. How you feel threatened by this series of events is beyond baffling to me. Sergecross73 msg me 19:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Restore merge to Paul's Boutique § Beastie Boys Square , which contains content identical to the article, although missing the Gothamist source. A merge will preserve the visibility of the history and the functionality of inbound links. Folly Mox ( talk ) 12:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 12:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as above. gidonb ( talk ) 03:56, 7 June 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.

merge

Wrightspeed X1 : This one has been edited periodically, but not improved. It has a single source, and does not pass WP:GNG . It is interesting, but gives undue weight to the vehicle, which is only notable for its power train, not for anything else about it. There is thus no objection to merge and redirect as an outcome to this discussion, with the merge target being the source of the powertrain, or with the manufacturer of the chassis. There appears to be no individual article on the designer himself, or that might be a valid target. I am thus asking for consensus not only on the fate of the article, but on any merge target as well. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions . 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Delete I've found a few sources for this [51] , [52] (Old CNET, so still good), [53] , [54] but I feel they don't really have the WP:DEPTH here to satisfty WP:GNG , so I'm gonna second the nom here. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 01:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Allan Nonymous By seconding the nomination please be aware that merge and redirect to a so far undetermined target is a suitable outcome. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Some coverage found, [55] and [56] . Merge to Wrightspeed or the Ariel Atom? I'm not sure. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oaktree b Given that choice, I think it is more relevant to Wrightspeed than the Aerial Atom. However, Wrightspeed ends up at an article of a different name, but mainly about Wrightspeed. I think there needs to be some background work here by someone who can rationalise what is what. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I see some support for redirect, but no consensus as to a target. We shouldn't need another full week to settle on a target. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "Wrightspeed" seems like a good redirect choice. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Revo Powertrains which is the powertrain company founded by Mr. Wright (under the Wrightspeed name?). Redirect doesn't make sense to me as Revo doesn't include anything about this car. Oblivy ( talk ) 02:29, 13 May 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.

merge

2023 MLB London Series : Esolo5002 ( talk ) 18:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I agree that the current state of the article is not great, but no non-routine coverage is just an odd thing to say when WP:BEFORE is conducted. Here's CNN , a news site that doesn't often cover baseball. Here's from The Guardian. I could keep going but that seems unnecessary. – Muboshgu ( talk ) 18:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and United Kingdom . Shellwood ( talk ) 18:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom, although "notable" is something of a red herring. Other than the full team rosters, all of this information should be in the MLB London Series article. MLB has demonstrated that neutral-site international games are not so unique that there should be be stand-alone articles for each of them. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 19:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd argue it's about the same as the yearly world series, you have articles about it every year. This has become an annual thing as well. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think this is a poor comparison; the World Series decides the MLB champion and therefore receives commensurate coverage in newspaper articles, books, and documentaries produced well after the games are played, with some books (such as [19] [20] [21] ) being dedicated to just one World Series. While it's WP:TOOSOON to say if particular London Series will garner the same sort of coverage, we can say for certain that it doesn't exist yet, and therefore it would be more appropriate to develop a summary of each year's series in the parent article until it becomes clear that standalone articles for each year's series are warranted. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs ) 20:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , fails WP:NSPORTSEVENT . Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs ) 19:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : How is this not notable, when we have pages of hits in RS in both US and UK media? What's already in the article is RS [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] , this [26] from French media, a year before the event. It's gotten sustained coverage. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Is there sustained coverage of the 2023 series, or is the coverage this year of the 2024 London Series? Walsh90210 ( talk ) 20:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge While there is sufficient coverage and content to create separate articles for each year of the London Series, the same could probably be said of any MLB regular season series. The location of the games is the thing that is particularly notable, and that aspect can be included in MLB London Series . Since only three series have been played so far, details of each year can comfortably be merged into the parent article at present. I suppose if the series did continue for many years then the main article might become too long and detailed, so at that point we might want to remove things like line scores. -- Jameboy ( talk ) 23:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge this wasn't really different from any regular season series apart from the fact the game was held internationally. Can easily be covered in the parent page. SportingFlyer T · C 06:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge but not per nom as the individual 2023 series is clearly a notable topic with lasting coverage. However merge per WP:NOPAGE as this and all other years of baseball in Europe can be sufficiently be done o the single parent page. Frank Anchor 01:31, 13 June 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.

merge

Earthly Delights (record label) : The only citation is for the unreliable Discogs. UtherSRG (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United Kingdom . UtherSRG (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Possible Delete . Lack of reliability pushes me towards delete, unless someone can find at least one reliable source from somewhere, should any exist. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 20:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Another clear Merge since the label's founder has an article. These types of cases can be handled without further burdening AfD. Chubbles ( talk ) 06:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A plain merge is different than a merge/delete/redirect. Just merging would leave the history intact for any editor to restore, while a delete & redirect would prevent most users from doing that. And that action requires AfD. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But why would we do that, in this case? Chubbles ( talk ) 05:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - I second the merge into Nocturnal Emissions ; don't care what mechanism is used, just that the content is maintained. -- t_kiehne ( talk ) 18:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

National Council of Churches in Bangladesh : Many directory listings confirm the current two sentences. Searches also found brief listings of what denominations were part of the organization. [76] [77] Searches did not find significant coverage that provides in-depth description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the organization - coverage that would make it possible to write a reasonably complete article about its history, activities, finances, leadership, etc., instead of the current very brief, incomplete stub. So it does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH , and should not be the subject of a stand alone article. If it is felt significant enough to be worth a mention in Christianity in Bangladesh , I would have no objection to a merge to that target. Worldbruce ( talk ) 14:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Christianity , and Bangladesh . Worldbruce ( talk ) 14:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- This is presumably an umbrella body for a number of Christian denominations in Bangladesh. As such it should be notable. Peterkingiron ( talk ) 15:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Peterkingiron : Notability is not inherited , so an organization is not notable just for having notable members (being an "umbrella") or for being a member of another organization that is notable. Can you share evidence of notability based on coverage in sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT ? -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 16:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There's more than a page describing its history here [78] , there's another good chunk here [79] , there are a number of directories such as this one [80] that provide additional time-specific data. This encyclopedia article [81] describes its relationship with the All Pakistan Christian Council, of which it was a constituent part and then a successor. -- Jahaza ( talk ) 03:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If anyone is looking for potential sources this seems to be known colloquially as the "Bangladesh National Council of Churches" as well as the two official names given in the article. Phil Bridger ( talk ) 20:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Out of the four sources provided by Jahaza above, the first three are publications from World Council of Churches , which the subject belongs to; and the last one only has a trivial mention of the subject. I did not find any coverage more than just trivial mentions as well. Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 23:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 00:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Tutwakhamoe. Although I appreciate the effort to find sources, they all fail WP:SIGCOV . JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 03:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete The newly given sources are not independent of the subject. Adler3 ( talk ) 03:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Contrary to Tutwakhamoe's argument above, I don't agree that World Council of Churches publications are an inappropriate source for demonstrating notability of its member bodies. That seems to me to be an overly stringent reading of the requirement for sources that are "independent of the subject". I'm also mindful of the problem with deleting things as "non-notable" when they come from non-English speaking developing countries – quite probably sources to demonstrate notability exist (maybe in a library in Bangladesh?) but nobody here is going to find them – and deleting will just worsen some of Wikipedia's systematic biases. SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 06:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to Human Rights Watch they are also called the "Jatiya Church Parishad of Bangladesh". Searching for them under that name finds a chapter in an academic monograph which contains a 3 page long discussion of their important contribution to public debate over reform of Bangladeshi personal law. Looks like WP:SIGCOV to me. SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 06:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Christianity in Bangladesh . The provided sources could be used to create a section on the legal reform in Bangladesh backed by this group, but are nowhere near meeting WP:ORGCRITE for the group itself. In addition to searching for the article title and variations, I also tried searching for "Jatiya Church Parishad" and was unable to find anything on Google Scholar, Books, the general internet, and my university library. signed, Rosguill talk 23:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : To mind systemic bias , I would suggest searching for sources not just in English. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 ( talk ) 03:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I tried searching for ""জাতীয় চার্চ পরিষদ", their name as given on their website sans "Bangladesh", which turned up news sources briefly mentioning NCC's involvement or endorsement with various topics (e.g. [82] ), but nothing that would be useful for writing a Wikipedia article. signed, Rosguill talk 03:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Based on your word, I vote merge as above. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 ( talk ) 03:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FWIW, I think that there probably are sources out there somewhere (read: in a library, in Bangladeshi, and not well-indexed), but with what we've got, the best information we can provide to a reader is a few sentences at the Christianity in Bangladesh (or alternatively, , Freedom of religion in Bangladesh ) about the reform bill they supported that we can verify at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 04:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Shakira impersonator : Everm4e ( talk ) 22:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Shakira fandom . The case for stand-alone GNG is weak, but there is some content that would belong there in a dedicated section. Alternative redirect target to consider: Cultural impact of Shakira . -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Colombia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the present article appears to be biased towards promoting the viewpoint of AlexanderShakifan29, who seems to harbor a vested interest in producing content that accentuates the importance of Shakira. A orish sentence within the article "In general, imitating Shakira is a fairly common practice in mostly Latino and Hispanic countries." lacks a proper citation, and the subsequent reference provided is merely a blog post pertaining to a drag performance. The content of the article seems to rely heavily on anecdotal accounts, tabloid publications, and unverifiable sources as a means of establishing Shakira's significance. In essence, the article appears to have scoured the depths of the internet to cobble together any semblance of information that would support AlexanderShakifan29's agenda of constructing an article dedicated to Shakira. Best – jona ✉ 14:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Note that Shakira Wannabe created by the same user was redirected after an AfD. Why? I Ask ( talk ) 19:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Shakira fandom per above. // Timothy :: talk 09:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Murder of Lisa Dmytrieva : Eddie891 Talk Work 19:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . FWIW, I think in terms of notability this would fall under WP:NEVENT - someone's murder is more an event than a biography, though people tend to organize them in an in between way. There is some later coverage - it was mostly spelled "Liza Dmitrieva", and after the guy who ordered the attack died in 2023 it got brought up again - though I'm not sure "significantly". I don't really have any strong opinions on keep or delete but people can judge for themselves. Not sure if it's enough to pass NEVENT. Also in either case the name of this article runs afoul of guidelines because there was no murder conviction in any case. This could probably be merged to a section in the missile strikes article if it doesn't. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 20:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, Merge to Vinnytsia missile strikes . Not all of it, just the more relevant part, but it really is just a subset of the strikes anyway. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 18:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would be fine with that. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:26, 3 March 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.

merge

Mission Vao : I'm also having hard time of finding sources at google search that mainly talks about the character. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 12:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Video games . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series . I am not seeing sufficient significant coverage for an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Borderline. A bit of sigcov in a couple books: [24] [25] Combining with the Eurogamer source in the article [26] this probably can meet GNG, but it's borderline especially for a fictional element. A merge will make it one of the larger entries on the list, but that's probably fine. — siro χ o 18:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Comment Looking over the sources, unless I'm missing something I'm not seeing any real talk in a large amount as to why this character is important outside of KOTOR, or any in depth examination. I'll still trying to figure out what the "baseline" for notability is, but this doesn't appear to meet that. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 15:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The first two sources both discuss the character in context of gender representation, and other related aspects. Note that the second source draws conclusions independent from Eurogamer but also goes on to reference that article as well. The Eurogamer source itself discusses the character's reception in the context of the characterization of a 14-year-old girl. Overall, it's not so much that it couldn't be effectively covered in a merged entry, but it is indeed SIGCOV across multiple independent sources. — siro χ o 19:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ siro I think what really hurts the perception of things is that big mass of "top X lists" that aren't being cited to say anything. A character's rating on a list matters a lot less than what's being said on it, and some like Den of Geek are giving her a paragraph of coverage but not cited as such. I'm switching my vote to a neutral comment for now, but I really feel if it's going to survive it needs those sources to be gone through and rewritten with the weaker ones tossed, you know? -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 02:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak merge per Kung Fu Man. A lot of these are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs . A rewrite might allow an editor to highlight the WP:SIGCOV instead of a WP:REFBOMB . But I don't see enough worth keeping here. Merge is a good WP:ATD . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 03:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Adobe Illustrator Artwork : This is effectively a documentation cobbled from primary sources and mentions in passing. Not sure what is the best redirect target - some Adobe's software of some list of file extensions? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Software . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to : Adobe Illustrator PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 16:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge selectively to Adobe_Illustrator#File_formats , where it is mentioned. A quick WP:BEFORE -style search found several secondary sources that I consider reliable for basic information about the file format: [31] , [32] , and [33] . I'm not sure if the content has enough depth to meet GNG, but the basic information about the . ai format is verifiable in secondary RS. WP Policies ( WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE ) state that we should preserve verifiable information rather than delete it when it is reasonable to do so. Here we have a natural target for a selective merge in the section Adobe_Illustrator#File_formats . I'd recommend merging the lead of the article into that section along with supporting refs. -- {{u| Mark viking }} { Talk } 18:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Per Mark viking. Pavlor ( talk ) 12:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Tina Wesson : However, some certain others may have been redirected to their winning seasons. I have doubts about this person's notability other than for winning only Survivor: The Australian Outback , despite appearing in two other seasons that she lost... and The Price Is Right once... and writing an book (if not an autobiography)... and multiple third-party sources naming her the Australian Outback winner. I even doubt that bringing her daughter along makes her notable either. If WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, how about WP:BIO1E or WP:PAGEDECIDE then? Preferably, the article should be redirected to The Australian Outback one, but I don't mind it being alternatively redirected to the list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants . George Ho ( talk ) 03:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Television , and Tennessee . George Ho ( talk ) 03:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Survivor: The Australian Outback . She renames a searchable term, but this probably is where BLP1E applies (to her win there). -- M asem ( t ) 12:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep article Won the most-watched season of Survivor and in general reality TV history, she's also one of its earliest winners. She plays again in Blood vs Water and gets to the top 4. There is no reason to delete after being in TWO finales of the biggest reality show of all time, bfr. Thecheeseistalking99 ( talk ) 18:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Survivor: The Australian Outback , fails WP:ENTERTAINER : "significant roles in multiple notable productions", in this case two roles is not enough to satisfy the criteria. Also fails WP:GNG . -- Mika1h ( talk ) 15:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

1907 Mississippi College Collegians football team : PROD was declined. Let'srun ( talk ) 18:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , American football , and Mississippi . Let'srun ( talk ) 18:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . This was neither a "season" nor "college football". There was a single game played against a local boarding school. No sources are presented providing coverage of the game. (Also, the Choctaws are even today a lower division team.) Cbl62 ( talk ) 03:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as non-notable. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 13:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to and create Mississippi College Collegians football, 1907–1910 . Mississippi College really didn't have regular-sized schedules (5+ games) until after 1910 - as we have articles on all their early seasons, some type of merger would likely be best, as recommended by WP:NSEASONS . @ Cbl62 and Suitskvarts : BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 21:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merger is not something a closer can consider unless the proposed merger target exists, and deletion of a one-sentence sub-stub on a single game against a boarding school is no great loss IMO. Cbl62 ( talk ) 23:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Cbl, huh? This AfD can mandate the creation of such a proposed merged article. You led the charge for exactly that action just two weeks ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1924 Delaware State Hornets football team . Jweiss11 ( talk ) 23:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Did you miss the "relisting comment" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1924 Delaware State Hornets football team ? Cbl62 ( talk ) 00:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did miss the "relisting comment" from Liz . I see it now. If that's a policy, it's a bad one that should be changed. It put the onus on an editor to create a new target for the merge, which kind of subverts the AfD process. Jweiss11 ( talk ) 00:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As I understand, that is the current policy. I did create the target article at that AfD, but I have no interest in doing that here, as I don't see the value that would be lost from a simple deletion. WP:OSE is not a good rationale even for a merge, IMO. If you or someone else wants to create it though in case that is the consensus, be my guest. Let'srun ( talk ) 01:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In addition, NSEASONS says that "In cases in which the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article. This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article." However, that doesn't mean that the topic is exempt from the notability guidelines simply because the seasons are combined. Let'srun ( talk ) 14:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Mississippi College Collegians football, 1907–1909 ; I think 1910 Mississippi College Collegians football team is substantial enough to stand alone, and we typically group seasons by decade, e.g. Delaware State Hornets football, 1924–1929 , Temple Owls football, 1894–1899 , Henry Kendall Orange and Black football, 1895–1899 . Jweiss11 ( talk ) 23:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Although the consensus to remove the article is clear, the views are split between whether to delete or merge. That is worthy of further discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Suggestion. Why not redirect to Mississippi College Choctaws football#History where this inaugaural 'season' is mentioned and manually write in the score and opposition for the team's very first recorded match? I don't see how one match amounts to a season, but do recognise the match has historic importance for the team. Surely, the detail has better context placed in that article? Rupples ( talk ) 09:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note I have created Mississippi College Collegians football, 1907–1909 and redirected 1908 Mississippi College Collegians football team and 1909 Mississippi College Collegians football team there. Jweiss11 ( talk ) 19:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why is it thought necessary to repeat the long table detailing other teams' results when the same table is included in the wikilinked season article? Presentation wise it's leaving large blank spaces. Other than that, the merge looks Ok. Rupples ( talk ) 20:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As such, a note to the closer that if the result is to "merge", that has already been done, so this can close as a redirect. Let'srun ( talk ) 15:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Quwestion @ Jweiss11 : why not 1910 Mississippi College Collegians football team too? Geschichte ( talk ) 19:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Geschichte : Jweiss11 answered that question just above the relisting. Let'srun ( talk ) 01:24, 5 January 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.

merge

British Rail Class 51 : It should be a redirect to one sentence at List of British Rail unbuilt locomotive classes . Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 20:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom . Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 20:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (first preference) or merge . The existence of three independent sources on the article rather suggests that this is actually notable. I don't have access to those sources, but I have no reason not to assume good faith about them, nor have I looked for additional sources. The issue with merging is that there are multiple equally good targets List of British Rail unbuilt locomotive classes , British Rail Class 55 , English Electric diesel engines and possibly others, and any such merge is likely to result in the removal of sourced encyclopaedic information for no good reason. Thryduulf ( talk ) 10:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Normally I would AGF, but this was authored by the community-banned Australian railroad IP, who is known for misrepresentation of sources and creating articles on non-notable subjects. I don't have access to the sources myself, but I would imagine more than this could be said about the proposed locomotive class if it were independently notable. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 13:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have two of the four (not three) sources, and have given my opinion of them at Talk:British Rail Class 51#Sources . -- Red rose64 🌹 ( talk ) 10:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge The pertinent information could be merged to, say, British Rail , since this was a proposed locomotive class for BR. TH1980 ( talk ) 23:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] British Rail is a very poor merge target when List of British Rail unbuilt locomotive classes exists. British Rail is far too general of a subject matter for this to be merged there, it would be out of scope. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 23:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 04:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per nom. XtraJovial ( talk • contribs ) 03:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there are several different Merge/Redirect target articles suggested. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] merge selectively to Napier Deltic#Railway_use where the designs could be summarized as an unexecuted project. It's the Deltic engine that really gives these any notability at all. Mangoe ( talk ) 05:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I could also go with a redirect to List of British Rail unbuilt locomotive classes . Mangoe ( talk ) 23:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Looking over the discussion it now looks like there are 4 different Redirect/Merge target articles being suggested. If there is no agreement on the horizon this will likely close as No consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with British Rail Class 50 : using the same chassis as the Class 50 and a modified body makes it a better merge target than the somewhat different Class 55, I believe. (I know; sorry, Liz...) Owen× ☎ 22:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of British Rail unbuilt locomotive classes ; somewhat against merging to Class 50 as above; purely on the premise of lack of sourcing, apart from using chassis/body I see no reason to merge to there. Its like merging HS4000 and Class 47 together. Night fury 21:10, 17 January 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.

merge

Maximo Suniel : Presumed to be notable, per WP:NPOL , are "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." JWilz12345 ( Talk | Contrib's. ) 11:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Philippines . JWilz12345 ( Talk | Contrib's. ) 11:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Cagayan de Oro or Mayor of Cagayan de Oro - my best attempts at searches in Filipino sources have turned up next to nothing beyond listings of mayors with no in-depth coverage. — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 15:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Retarget to Cagayan_de_Oro#Postwar_era . I've added two cites about the mayor and his role on the creation of the city there. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 09:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Going Ape : I could not find significant coverage of this documentary in reliable sources . I could not find any critical reviews. The New York Times source states, in full: "This three-part series looks at the way humans mimic chimpanzee behavior, starting with the power walk and dominance posture of the alpha male." The Futon Critic is a press release. A redirect to National Geographic Channel might be appropriate. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 03:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Animal , Science , Behavioural science , Psychology , and Social science . voorts ( talk / contributions ) 03:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The article should probably be marked as a stub in need for more references. As a National Geographic TV show featuring renowned primatologist and presenter Charlotte Uhlenbroek, it must have had coverage and reviews in media. The New York Times link is an example. JohnMizuki ( talk ) 11:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi @ JohnMizuki , I conducted a search and the only coverage of the show are brief announcements like the one in the NYT. A one sentence description is not significant coverage. The source's that you've added do not contribute to notability. The National Geographic sources are not independent and TV Guide is a one sentence description with links to find where to watch the show online. One way to establish notability would be to provide the three best sources that you can find. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 17:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Regarding new sources that have been added: Broadway World is a NatGeo press release; OC Register has only three sentences about Going Ape : "This three-part series examines how similar human behavior is to that of our primate cousins. The show uses hidden cameras, social experiments and footage of apes and monkeys in the wild to show how human social behavior mirrors that of other species."; and Gizmodo is one sentence followed by a couple paragraphs quoting from a NatGeo press release description of the show. I will also add that I conducted my WP:BEFORE search on Google, Google News, and Newspapers.com, and the only sources I could find were one or two sentence TV Guide-type listings in newspapers, similar to the NYT. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 20:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Even with the newly added citations, it seems to fail GNG. Nearly all of the sources (other than PRs) make brief mentions of the show. It lacks in-depth independent analysis/coverage from a reliable major pub. X ( talk ) 19:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of National Geographic original programming . Fails WP:GNG as a standalone article. Available independent sources are only short descriptions from TV listings, not significant coverage. Jfire ( talk ) 21:16, 21 April 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.

merge

Gibbon (character) : Primarily a plot summary, and it's only non-primary source is a top 10 list where it is not spoken about in detail. Industrial Insect (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Comics and animation . Industrial Insect (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: G - Extremely minor character that honestly only had a handful of non-cameo appearances in a fifty year period. Pretty much the only kind of "coverage" of the character comes in the same form as the one source being used in the article currently - short entries in various churnalism "Top Ten Dumbest Spider-Man Characters!" type articles. I'm honestly not a fan of merging every non-notable character into the massive "List of Comic Characters" lists, especially from articles that rely pretty much entirely on primary sources, but since the character has an entry there already, I suppose it wouldn't hurt to move over a few sentences worth of description to that list. Rorshacma ( talk ) 23:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: G in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 19:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: G in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 20:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

The Great Pottery Throw Down (series 5) : No indication this particular season was notable, and no clear sourcing found. Star Mississippi 03:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom . Star Mississippi 03:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Draftify - Does not satisfy television notability . There is only one reference, and it is not significant coverage about the show because it is primarily about a person. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 04:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep or as WP:ATD , Merge with main article The Great Pottery Throw Down . Here are some reviews of the fifth season: [54] [55] [56] . Deleting the content would result in a loss of valuable material for the main page, which would have no information related to season 5. -- Broc ( talk ) 11:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge a properly sourced summary into the main The Great Pottery Throw Down , season does not have WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 17:41, 27 January 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.

merge

The Rural Museum - A Collection of Traditional Farming Tools : No citations, no secondary web presence. Maint tags since 2017. Qcne (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions . Qcne (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Palau-sator . There appears to be sourcing in the Catalan article with which to add a sentence or two about the museum. Star Mississippi 02:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd like to see if there is additional support for a Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I'll ! vote for merge . The Palau-sator article is a stub and this could be a first entry in a sub-heading "Cultural organizations" or such. The target article is both in need of content and references. Hopefully this afd has prompted some interested editors. Lamona ( talk ) 22:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Kansas and Missouri : NotAMoleMan ( talk ) 02:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/<Missouri>|list of <Missouri>-related deletion discussions]]. NotAMoleMan ( talk ) 02:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/<Kansas>|list of <Kansas>-related deletion discussions]]. NotAMoleMan ( talk ) 02:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ NotAMoleMan Before I review the notability parts: there was absolutely no reason I can see for you to notify any of the people you've notified besides Red Slash, one of which is indefinitely banned. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry about that, my bad. It was my first time doing this, I'll keep that in mind next time. Thank you for telling me. NotAMoleMan ( talk ) 02:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This is not a random pair of U.S. states. See Kansas–Nebraska Act for context about the historic interactions between these two states related to slavery. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 02:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Kansas , and Missouri . Aaron Liu ( talk ) 02:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Kansas–Nebraska Act , which is pretty much most of this information. I don't see much else that warrants a standalone article. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 02:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd also support a merge to Border War (Kansas–Missouri rivalry) . Aaron Liu ( talk ) 20:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and rename to Kansas–Missouri rivalry , comparable to Rivalry between Cologne and Düsseldorf and California–Texas rivalry . BD2412 T 03:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This is a good article. Title change is okay if the state names are kept in the title. Sources are reliable, and rich. They can support more discussion of the history of the two states as the US argued about slavery. I have added some more recent references on the continuing competition between the two states. Related articles focus on politics and the past; this article takes the story to the present century. - - Prairieplant ( talk ) 03:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I still only see stuff related to the Act or sports. I think merging it into the Act's legacy while mentioning the present-day law against financial incentives for pulling from the other Kansas City and stuff would be enough. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 12:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/merge Civil War-related content would belong at Kansas–Nebraska Act#Aftermath , not here. You could just as easily have an article for any arbitrary combination of states, like Ohio and Michigan which fought a war and also has rival universities. Many other states also have shared metropolitan areas and can be said to compete or cooperate economically. This is really just WP:SYNTH , not a substantively notable topic that requires a standalone article. Reywas92 Talk 14:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Reywas92 : You have literally just described why an article of this type on Ohio and Michigan would not be arbitrary. Something like Delaware/Idaho or New Hampshire/New Mexico would be arbitrary. BD2412 T 23:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Everything resulting from the war can be covered in the war's article. It's not too much. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 00:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But it would be because the war already has an article and the university rivalry is irrelvant. Connecting those doesn't make an encylopedia article. Kansas City metropolitan area can also cover related content. Okay, bordering states aren't as arbitrary as those that don't, but there's New York and New Jersey, Wisconsin and Minnesota, Maryland and Virginia, Oregon and Washington, Florida and Georgia, plenty of others that one could make whatever discussions of a rivalry, historical comparisons, or how their economies are related, but those just aren't articles we need. Reywas92 Talk 00:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Re: New York and New Jersey, Wisconsin and Minnesota, Maryland and Virginia, Oregon and Washington, Florida and Georgia , yes, we actually could make pretty solid articles for all of those. Neighboring states often do involve themselves in rivalries along several dimensions of cultural significance, including athletic bragging rights due to cross-border proximities, and competition for business and natural resources. BD2412 T 02:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Those other articles are wholly legal and political, and not brought to the present. Kansas and Missouri had a major role in the slavery debate and the war, making them a unique pair of states. - - Prairieplant ( talk ) 21:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems like you could just as easily have Kansas and Nebraska since the Act created both. Any pair of states is unique with some sort of relationship; we already have articles about the role in the war, with no need for this page. Reywas92 Talk 22:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That is already well documented elsewhere in the encyclopaedia. SportingFlyer T · C 23:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Same can go for this article after we merge it. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 00:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Kansas–Nebraska Act as per Reywas92, and the small amount of material not related could be merged to the individual states' pages. There is material here worth keeping but we have better articles for that. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 16:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete we don't really need articles on 2 different similar places or similar topics. What next Jupiter and Saturn . Yes there is some content and sources but it it really appropriate for an article, such content could probably be contrived about many similar topics. Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 18:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Crouch, Swale : It wouldn't even be hard to write an article on comparisons between Jupiter and Saturn . Those have been compared by observers for thousands of years. BD2412 T 02:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But we shouldn't. I and other poets have compared the rain to my tears for decades. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 11:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The points of comparison between the two largest neighboring gas giants in our planetary system are more than merely poetic. BD2412 T 17:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Does a comparison between Dickens and Hugo warrant an article? Aaron Liu ( talk ) 18:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That would revolve around whether there are substantial reliable sources specifically comparing and contrasting Dickens to Hugo. By the way, having poked around with the question, I am confident that I could write a killer article on the history of mythological, poetic, and literary metaphors comparing tears to rain. BD2412 T 18:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But there aren't, and there aren't for Kansas and Missouri. Nearly all sources I find online are either encyclopedias or about Border War (Kansas–Missouri rivalry) , which focuses on the sporting context as an extension of the war context. Even so, that article contains most of the background, and the only standalone parts of this article is some OR-y talk about the two Kansas City-s. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 20:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Article definitely should not be kept as-is. Would support a rename to Kansas–Missouri rivalry or a redirect to relevant Civil War-era content over deletion, though. Elli ( talk | contribs ) 20:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete We already have Bleeding Kansas , this topic is functionally duplicative. SportingFlyer T · C 01:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete without Objection to Creating a Completely Different Article There may be a notable topic on a Kansas City, Kansas–Kansas City, Missouri rivalry but the current article has too many problems to salvage: the text lacks details about a potential rivalry (i.e. the actual topic), instead the text wanders into the historical Kansas–Nebraska Act , it's not well named since it's not about whole states, it's not well sourced. - RevelationDirect ( talk ) 22:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The choices I see are closing this as No consensus or adding another week for relisting and I'm taking that option. Of course the discussion can be closed at any time should a closer see a consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There is no need for an article like this. As for the Civil War history, that was adequately covered in its own article. ~ EDDY ( talk / contribs ) ~ 00:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per nom and Reywas. The keep ! votes aren't convincing about the point of this article's existence. The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 06:04, 27 March 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.

merge

Haeundae Tourism High School : I believe it would fail WP:SIGCOV and fails to meet the standards set in WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG 1keyhole ( talk ) 23:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . 1keyhole ( talk ) 23:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . [1] [2] ( Busan Ilbo ) [3] ( The Hankyoreh ) [4] [5] toobigtokale ( talk ) 11:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge a properly sourced summary to Haeundae District#Education , using the above sources. Source do not show SIRS, except for one they are mill news. The target is under developed and this material will benefit the target and improve visibility of the content. // Timothy :: talk 04:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I switch my vote; merge per this rationale. toobigtokale ( talk ) 07:23, 21 February 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.

merge

Angel Dust (Hazbin Hotel) : This source [9] is a bit useful for addition, but isn't a sigcov at all. Per WP:BEFORE , only this source could be useful [10] , but nothing else. What we have sources now at the reception were just the reviews of the film itself and listicles/rankings only. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 22:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Comics and animation , Webcomics , and Sexuality and gender . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Reviews of " Masquerade ", the Angel Dust-centric fourth episode, and the B-plot of " Welcome to Heaven ", the sixth episode, delve into the characterisation of the character and voice actor performance, passing WP:SIGCOV . 2001:BB6:3A30:D700:5195:FE6F:1E81:6F85 ( talk ) 23:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, not really. The reviews are for the episodes themselves, and as far as my Google search goes, none go into detail on the character. Per WP:LOTSOFSOURCES : Notability requires the presence of significant treatment of a subject in reliable independent sources, not just the mere presence of the searched-for term. Also, per WP:FICT : Specifically, fictional elements are presumed to be notable if there is significant coverage in independent secondary sources about the fictional element . This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON . Spinixster (chat!) 01:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, it's a case of something like Porygon lacking an article despite Dennō Senshi Porygon having an article. Having episodes dedicated to a character can help, but there needs to be actual coverage on the element outside of whatever they're associated with. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 03:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support as per WP:TOOSOON Maybe this character will be important for independent coverage in the future, but not now. Samoht27 ( talk ) 07:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support would be to redirect/move the page back into draftspace/ merge the reception into List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters , right? I agree this character should receive a page at one point, but maybe later in the year/next year when there is just a little bit more coverage. 2001:BB6:3A30:D700:55D1:AA1:430B:8A45 ( talk ) 19:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I do believe that this character will likely have coverage in the future, so to merge into List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters would be optimal. Samoht27 ( talk ) 16:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters . This character is simply not standalone notable and largely uses Valnet sites for its reception. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect/merge per nom and my comments above. This is WP:TOOSOON ; when the character has enough coverage in the future, the page can easily be recreated. Spinixster (trout me!) 02:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters . Most of the sources are primary sources, Decider is unreliable, and the rest I can’t really find on WP:RSP Brachy 08 (Talk) 10:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters . Most sources include passing mention and no in-depth coverage specifically on the character. The information, however, could definitely be worked into the list. Maybe some time in the future, the continued popularity of this character could warrant an article, but it is simply WP:TOOSOON to include one with so little coverage. ~ GoatLordServant ( Talk ) 17:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters . There are not enough sites, besides Decider, that cover the character specifically. -- Turtletennisfogwheat ( talk ) 08:27, 27 March 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.

merge

Sarah Jane's Alien Files : Tagged for notability since 2022 Donald D23 talk to me 12:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom . Donald D23 talk to me 12:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No coverage online except primary sources and a Fandom article. Thriftycat Talk • Contribs 23:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with and Redirect to The Sarah Jane Adventures . It was essentially a tie-in with the series. While there is probably not enough notability/coverage for a separate article, it is worth covering it in the series' article and also it is a plausible search term. Dunarc ( talk ) 23:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge properly sourced content with The Sarah Jane Adventures . Fails GNG. // Timothy :: talk 11:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

List of deputy leaders of the house in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly : — H e m a n t D a b r a l ( 📞 • ✒ ) 06:47, 15 June 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 June 15 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 07:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment you don’t need an AfD for a merger proposal. See WP:MERGEPROP . Mccapra ( talk ) 08:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Follow guidlines at WP:MERGEPROP for merge. AfD is not necessary for this. GAGIWOR ( talk ) 11:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Lists of people , and Maharashtra . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:23, 15 June 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.

merge

Lerche (studio) : I believe twice now it's been changed from "Lerche (studio)" to "Lerche (brand)" or other; but nonetheless: it is not an animation studio or company, it's simply a brand name of one (namely, Studio Hibari ). No source exists proving that Lerche is its own company, and Hibari's own website located here indicates that it is simply an animation brand name. A source provided on the page in a prior version I've removed, a 2014 recruitment notice , also only lists Studio Hibari and its 3D-animation subsidiary Larx Animation as companies--"Lerche" is instead given mention only as a name which certain works were produced under the name of. The about page likewise lists Hibari, LARX, Hibari Vietnam, and AZ Creative. On its own, "Lerche" is not exactly notable enough to have an entire page dedicated to it, either. Ignoring the above points, it's a list of works by Lerche that has no possible expansion as a company article; and especially given that it is a brand name, which Studio Hibari already associates to itself, I think the contents should instead be merged with its owner, Studio Hibari, much like how the Japanese Wikipedia team has handled the issue; or to use another EN Wikipedia example, the Bakken Record brand. This would largely remove unneeded confusion with the article itself, but also more concretely indicate that "Lerche" and "Hibari" are not two different companies, teams, or studios; but rather the exact same thing with different names, with brands between them distinguishable on the page itself. I'm not sure what would be done with the associated category, but the associated template could be combined with Hibari's and simply split between the two. Sarcataclysmal ( talk ) 09:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . Sarcataclysmal ( talk ) 09:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Studio Hibari to match the nom's Bakken Record example. The article is just a list of works they created accompanied with an infobox and a barebones lede of the article subject's name, what it's an instance of, when it was founded and by which company, and the nom's findings show that it's not a company but instead a brand. ミラP @ Miraclepine 00:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 16:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Is there any more support for a possible Merge? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to aforementioned Studio Hibari . Suitskvarts ( talk ) 14:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Ayer Itam line : No sourcing beyond the regional government has been shown to give any coverage to this concept. It is clearly too soon to have an article on this proposed line given the lack of coverage in secondary sources. A basic BEFORE search turned up no further coverage. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 20:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Malaysia . Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 20:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/redirect to Penang Transport Master Plan . I would expect the regional government to be the best source, but it should have something beyond the master plan. Reywas92 Talk 00:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with merge , and the present tense in the article is certainly inappropriate. CMD ( talk ) 21:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hold – I'm currently in the process of adding more content for the article. Hold it until the rewrite is complete. gavre (al. PenangLion) ( talk ) 08:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have expanded and amended information related to the article. Please review it. gavre (al. PenangLion) ( talk ) 12:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The line is scheduled for opening by 2045. This is not something we should be giving a dedicated article when it won't open for more than 20 years, per WP:CRYSTAL . This should be a paragraph within Penang Transport Master Plan . Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 20:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a project that was originally not part of the PTMP (until it was included in 2016), and was in development hell since the early-2000s. The dates of construction went from 2002, 2006, 2012 and was cancelled and revived repeatedly. It warrants an article of its own. gavre (al. PenangLion) ( talk ) 06:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review recent changes to the article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:13, 24 April 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.

merge

Christie (Dead or Alive) : And please understand I'm not saying you can't focus on reception about a character being sexy...but there needs to be some back and forth, or at least some actual meaningful discussion about it. Otherwise it's just not enough, and this definitely fails SIGCOV. Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 15:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 15:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 15:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom. GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 16:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Dead or Alive characters . Another Niemti article about a character that pretends to have reception but doesn't. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 17:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Dead or Alive characters . Another video game character with high quality coverage in articles such as Top 10 Gamer Babes . Doesn't have actual WP:SIGCOV ULPS ( talk ) 20:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge these are the article equivalent of Breastaurants . Dronebogus ( talk ) 22:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per everybody above. I'm mostly responsible for the reception and while it was fun adding content about her movie appearance, it no longer cuts the mustard. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 03:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 18:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Falco Lombardi : There's a few Smash sources, but most of it is just oddly specific listicles. I'd be fine with using listicles if there were whole articles dedicated to or using Falco as a major bulk of the article, but the article is quite literally just built on them. A brief search doesn't yield up anything else either: little to no hits in Scholar or Books, and any other sources don't yield much that isn't of the same caliber of what's in the article. Unless other sources can be found that I missed, I feel an ATD merge to the Star Fox character list would be for the best. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 05:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Video games . Pokelego999 ( talk ) 05:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Star Fox characters per nom. Will admit that yeah this flew under the radar for me too but looking at it I do agree completely, there's no meat here. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 08:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Per nom, the sources are very lacking. Definitely worth a list mention, but there is no need for a standalone page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 11:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with List of Star Fox characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 18:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Freddy Fazbear's Pizzeria Simulator : Even if it did, there is extremely limited information on this subject (even from primary sources) that makes it to where I do not see a substantial article coming out of it. Furthermore, the article is a complete mess possibly beyond saving. I believe the information of this game to be better off as part of the series article . To analyze the Reception section: Touch Arcade isn't actually a review outside of the stars rating. It's also very brief. The IGN reception bit is a listicle of no substance. Rock Paper Shotgun is decent. CD-Action can not be verified after me and some folks at WP:DISCORD attempted to find anywhere to purchase the issue the review is in (I assume good faith in the editor that added it in though, so I'd still count it, it just can't be checked in this discussion). While this specific author at GameCrate seems okay, the discussion that decided the status of GameCrate concluded that it should only be used as a last resort (even after this particular author was brought up), and thus I think should be thrown out the window for notability (the discussion even somewhat alluded to this). Even if we give GameCrate the benefit of the doubt here and THREE was met, I don't believe there to be enough material to make a substantial article as stated above. Searches for additional reviews also turned up nothing, what there is now is all there is. λ Negative MP1 03:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . λ Negative MP1 03:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Metacritic lists CD-Action as having given the game a full review. Perhaps it could not be verified, but I don't believe Metacritic would have a reason to lie about something like that. And that plus a review in TouchArcade (that is short-ish but still a review) and Rock Paper Shotgun means the game presumably meets GNG criteria weakly. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 03:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Touch Arcade review being short is the problem. Sure, you can list the not-even-a-sentence-long brief quote and the star rating, but there's no material in it that could be incorporated into a Reception section that follows something like WP:RECEPTION . It's incredibly unsubstantial. λ Negative MP1 03:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . Very light in sigcov, relies a lot on a very situational source. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 04:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . The TouchArcade source offers little critical commentary or any meaningful observations, it merely repeats information about the game's mechanics and cannot be considered a review aside from its base rating. And the IGN post doesn't have substance either. The Rock Paper Shotgun article provides a small amount of critical commentary and coverage, but it isn't much of a review rather than the author saying "this game is scary". Although the GameCrate source is listed as situational through its author, I see that it is very weak on notability. All in all, I see the article barely meeting the threshold for GNG but the severe lack of proper critical coverage means that the article has little room to stand on its own, though the salvageable material could easily be included at Five Nights at Freddy's . I think we can treat this as similar to a case with a video game character article, which live and die by the quality of their reception sections. If critics are not willing to adequately cover this video game, it can easily be included as part of a relevant article same as characters being merged into related lists. The commonly used essay WP:NVIDEOGAMES also says that articles cannot really stand on their own without significant critical commentary. The essay also says Avoid creating spinout articles that are short or redundant. Any distinct features of a derivative release that can be verified can always be covered in the parent article The Night Watch (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect to Five Nights at Freddy's#Freddy Fazbear's Pizzeria Simulator (2017) as an appropriate source. My rationale is per The Night Watch, but none of the merging ! votes specified where this would go to. Conyo14 ( talk ) 17:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the FNAF article as suggested above. I agree the CD Action should be considered as per WP:NEXIST , but it's not currently verifiable and there's no way of knowing if that review was even significant coverage of the game. The TouchArcade article describes the game without any critical commentary as stated above. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 11:34, 22 January 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.

merge