Datasets:

hsuvaskakoty

/

wide_analysis

like 0

Palestinian citizens of Israel : : Palestinian citizens of Israel ( PCIs ) are the exact same population group as Arab citizens of Israel ( ACIs ). In fact, "Palestinian citizens of Israel " is one of at least 14 terms that are used to describe ACIs: as well as Palestinian Arabs, [1] Palestinian Arabs in Israel, [2] [3] [4] (see The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel ) Palestinian Israelis, [5] Palestinians in Israel, [1] Israeli Arabs, [5] [1] [6] Israeli Palestinian Arabs, [2] [3] [4] Israeli Palestinians, [6] Arab citizens of Israel, [5] Arab Israelis, [5] 48ers, [5] [6] and '48 Arabs. [1] see Arab_citizens_of_Israel#List_of_demonyms . The list of demonyms/ethnonyms and the implication of each is extensively discussed in the main article for this population group, which is Arab_citizens_of_Israel Current article insists on an unsupported (and IMO false) thesis : There are no RS stating what the current article claims, i.e. that PCI is a different ethnoreligious group from ACI, because (supposedly) PCIs are those people who "self-identify" as Palestinian (implying that ACIs do not identify as Palestinian). The two sources given mention no such thing i.e. they WP:FAIL verification and I have been able to find no other resource supporting the self-identification theory. Furthermore I've been in extensive discussions with User:Selfstudier who defends that thesis and they have not provided any RS supporting the "self-identity" theory either. Organizations stating the same group (ACI/PCI) uses the different terms: Inter-Agency Task Force on Israeli Arab issues which says "Arab citizens’ identities are more nuanced than either “Israeli” or “Palestinian.” Members of this population group describe themselves (and are described by others) with many terms. Some common terms include: Arab Israelis, Israeli Arabs, Palestinian citizens of Israel, Arab citizens of Israel, 48ers, Palestinian Israelis" [5] iCenter , which says "What are some names for Arab citizens of Israel? Palestinian citizens of Israel, Israeli Arabs, Israeli Palestinians, Arab Israelis, and Palestinian Israelis. Each of these names, while referring to the same group of people, connotes something different." [6] International Crisis Group which says "The Israeli National Security Council (NSC) has used the term "Arab citizens of Israel". Virtually all political parties, movements and non-governmental organisations from within the Arab community use the word "Palestinian" somewhere in their description – at times failing to make any reference to Israel. For consistency of reference and without prejudice to the position of either side, ICG will use both Arab Israeli and terms the community commonly uses to describe itself, such as Palestinian citizens of Israel or Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel." [2] Authors describing the use of ACI, PCI and other terms for the same ACI/PCI group : Muhammad Amara (author): "Many identity constructs are used to refer to Palestinians in Israel; the Israeli establishment prefer Israeli Arabs or Arabs in Israel . Others refer to them as Israeli Palestinians , Palestinian Arabs in Israel , the Arabs inside the Green Line . Nowadays the widespread terms among Palestinians are Palestinians in Israel or the Palestinians of 1948 ." [3] Columbia Journalism Review : "Palestinian citizens of Israel—also called Israeli-Arabs, Palestinians in Israel, ’48 Arabs, or Palestinian Arabs—" [1] Press stating the same group (ACI/PCI) uses the different terms Foreign Policy (2021): "Only 16 percent of this population wants to be called “Israeli Arab,” according to a 2017 survey by the University of Haifa professor Sammy Smooha provided to Foreign Policy. 'The largest now and the most growing identity is a hybrid identity, which is Palestinian in Israel or a similar combination'" [7] Mosaic : The question of how both Jews and Arabs in Israel should refer to the country’s Palestinian population has been a vexed one... these “minorities” have often spoken of themselves, and been spoken of in the Arab world, as “the Arabs of ’48” or “the Palestinians of ’48,”...It’s no accident that [Israeli] Jews have insisted on the usage “Arabs of Israel.” ...to erase the Palestinian component from the identity [of the country’s Arab population] . . . to create an artificial distinction between those Palestinians who remained within the borders of the new state [of Israel] and those elsewhere, and to suppress the formation [among Israel’s Arabs] of any kind of national identity. And for this reason, too, more and more Israeli Arabs have in recent years come to prefer the term “Israeli Palestinian” (filastini isra’ili, in Arabic) to “Israeli Arab.” This is a direct result of the Palestinian nationalism... “I am not just an Arab,” the term “Israeli Palestinian” says. “I am one who shares an identity with the Palestinians of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and who belongs to the same people that they do. " [8] New York Times (2012): "After decades of calling themselves Israeli Arabs…most now prefer Palestinian citizens of Israel" [9] Press using the term "Palestinian citizens of/in Israel" for the same group (ACI/PCI) BBC , New York Times , Washington Post , NBC News [10] Keizers ( talk ) 21:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] _______________________________ Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions . Keizers ( talk ) 21:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC) ________________________________ [ reply ] Merge into Arab citizens of Israel . Most of the content currently within Palestinian citizens of Israel is already - word for word - in Arab citizens of Israel ; as such, it doesn't make sense to have a separate article. BilledMammal ( talk ) 04:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That is in part because nom has partly undone the spinout, copying material from the article under discussion to the article Arab citizens of Israel , see this series of edits on 2 March, for example and in part because nom has created an entirely unnecessary new article, Terms for Palestinian citizens of Israel . Note that it is not Terms for Arab citizens of Israel . Selfstudier ( talk ) 04:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There was no "spinout", i.e. there was no material in this article that uniquely supported a so-called PCI separate from ACI. All material to support this population group (PCI) supported ACI, as they are the same population group, so it made sense to copy the small amount of unique information over to the Arab citizens of Israel article. Keizers ( talk ) 13:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's precisely how the article was created, as a spinout from Arab Citizens of Israel , as described in my Initial comment below. Selfstudier ( talk ) 13:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Understood, but what I am saying is that literally all of the unique content in this article supposedly about "Palestinian citizens" as opposed to "Arab citizens",, applied to all Arab citizens of Israel , which is obviously going to be the case since ACI=PCI. Keizers ( talk ) 21:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Initial comment Since it seems possible that nom is unaware of the history behind the creation of this article and for the benefit of other editors, please see the RM of 27 October 2021 proposing the move Arab citizens of Israel → Palestinian citizens of Israel . The result was "Not Moved" with the closer commenting The main argument against was accuracy/precision, particularly as not all Arab citizens of Israel are of Palestinian origin. It is notable that this latter argument caused one of the support voters to change their ! vote and as such was particularly persuasive . Immediately following the RM closure, the discussion Talk:Arab citizens of Israel/Archive 8#What should we call the new page for Israelis that identify as Palestinian? concluded that the best way to proceed would be to create a new article, the closer of the RM opining "I think the best way to proceed may be just to write the damn article and then see which title fits best when you've got the first draft down. Or even just boldly create and leave perfecting the title to others." which led to the creation of the article under discussion here. Selfstudier ( talk ) 04:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] More history Following the creation of the article, there was a 6 week (!) RM discussion proposing Palestinian citizens of Israel → Palestinian identity in Israel which resulted in no consensus to move, with the closer commenting It appears to be undisputed that there are some number of individuals who are citizens of Israel, and who identify as Palestinians" . The discussion, such as it was, covered the issue of the article being a POV fork as well but notably no-one at the time proposed AfD and the relevant facts have not changed since in that regard. Selfstudier ( talk ) 05:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The numbers : 2020 figures from Institute for National Security Studies (Israel) says: "The Muslim residents of Israel are the largest group in the Arab population, which constitutes part of the Palestinian people . As of the end of 2020, this group numbered 1.673 million people— 85.6 percent of all Arab citizens of Israeli' and 18 percent of Israel's total population. This figure includes the Muslim Arabs living in East Jerusalem, who are not Israeli citizens. It can therefore be concluded that there are 1.3 million Muslim citizens of Israel (author’s calculation based on the Central Bureau of Statistics, 2020c). " (my bolding) while Amnesty states: "As mentioned above, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs states that "Arab citizens of Israel" is an inclusive term that describes a number of different and primarily Arabic-speaking groups, including Muslim Arabs (this classification includes Bedouins), Christian Arabs, Druze and Circassians. According to the ICBS, at the end of 2019, the Druze population stood at approximately 145,000, while according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Circassian population totalled 4,000 people. Considering the number of those defined as Muslim Arabs and Christian Arabs together, the population of Palestinian citizens of Israel amounted to around 1.8 million, that is some 20% of the total population in Israel and occupied East Jerusalem". Taking the 1.67mm from first source section and adding the 0.14mm Christians gives 1.81mm reconciles the two sources. Selfstudier ( talk ) 05:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ⇒That is all fine, it says that ACI are Muslim Arab, Christian Arab, Druze and Circassians – it doesn't say that any of those groups are not PCI. Keizers ( talk ) 13:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability Here are two scholarly books specifically about the Palestinian citizens of Israel: a) Palestinian citizens of Israel : Power, Resistance and the Struggle for Space Sharri Plonski IB Tauris 2018 "Other choices were made regarding terms and language that should also be mentioned from the outset. Key among them is the terminology surrounding the main interlocutors of this research: the term ‘Palestinian Citizens of Israel’ is immediately contentious. It sits within a spectrum of labels for the community at the centre of this inquiry. On one hand, it potentially challenges the mainstream Israeli-Zionist conceptualisation of this group as ‘Israeli Arabs’; on the other, it misses the political complexity of the term ‘48 Palestinians’ (a term often used by Palestinian activists inside and outside Israel), which more clearly acknowledges the relevance of the 1948 Nakba (Catastrophe) to the identity and material experiences of this group of Palestinians. The use of the term ‘Palestinian citizens’ or ‘Palestinian citizens of Israel’ in this work is due in part to a desire for clarity. " b) Palestinian Citizens in Israel : A History Through Fiction, 1948–2010 Manar H. Makhoul Edinburgh University Press 2020 "There are many names for the ‘Palestinian citizens in Israel’, usually referred to as ‘Israeli Arabs’ or ‘Israel’s Arab minority’. However, most of these identifications are politically and ideologically charged (Makhoul 2018a). My use of ‘Palestinian citizens in Israel’ in this book aims to avoid, as much as possible, ideological or political references by being descriptive, that is, to refer to that portion of the Palestinian nation which remained in Israel after the 1948 war, and later obtained citizenship. Nevertheless, the term ‘Palestinian citizens in Israel’ itself can be misleading, because it suggests equality through citizenship. This confusion is a result of Israel’s distinction between citizenship and nationality, creating a hierarchy between the two. There is no Israeli nationality, but a Jewish nationality. This hierarchy has been legally established initially through the Law of Return (1950) and later corroborated through additional legislation and court rulings, aiming to ground Israel as a state for the Jews, according to which ‘[e]very Jew has the right to come to this country as an oleh [immigrant]’. This categorisation provides Jewish nationals civil and political rights that are higher than those holding Israeli citizenship" Also, by the same author, Palestinian Citizens of Israel - Evolution of a Name (2018) "In this essay, I will show how the terms used to refer to Palestinian citizens of Israel have evolved in the past six or so decades, and how this evolution mirrors the evolution of their identity." It is not disputed that there exist Palestinians who self identify as Palestinian but this aspect is something of a red herring in regards to a deletion discussion, where the issue is whether the subject is itself notable, There is ample and sustained sourcing for the subject 394,000 results in Google scholar . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfstudier ( talk • contribs ) 07:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ⇒ Palestinian citizens of Israel is the term preferred by the Arab citizens of Israel to identify themselves. You are simply giving examples where sources refer to ACI/PCI as Palestinian citizens of Israel . Again, those sources do not distinguish PCI as a separate people from ACI. Keizers ( talk ) 13:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and it’s not even close, sustained significant coverage of this topic is found in reliable sources. And no, this is not the same group as Arab citizens of Israel. There are Arab citizens of Israel that are not Palestinian and we have articles on many of those sub groups. There are Druze in Israel , there are Lebanese in Israel there are Negev Bedouin , each of those, like this, is a sub topic of Arab citizens of Israel. The Palestinian population has its own challenges separate from the non Palestinian Arabs in Israel. And they are covered as their own topic in reliable sources. nableezy - 10:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ⇒ 1) Of course there is a lot of coverage of PCI, that is increasingly the more common term for ACI, but nothing indicates that PCI are a separate people. PCI = ACI. ⇒ 2) The example of Druze and Negev Bedouin don't support your argument, as I have never seen any RS say Druze or Bedouin are not Palestinian/PCI. Can you provide one? Lebanese in Israel are a couple of thousand and yes they would not have their origins in the people of Mandatory Palestine, so they would not count, but we are talking 0.1% of the ACI there, and even then we are making assumptions, no RS. Keizers ( talk ) 13:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Either merge or rename Palestinian identity in Israel . The current title makes it a WP:POVFORK . Number 5 7 11:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe it is worth elaborating on your 'The current title makes it a WP:POVFORK ' statement a bit. I'm not sure it's self-explanatory. Sean.hoyland ( talk ) 12:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a clearly distinct subject, per Selfstudier, Nableezy and in fact the hatnote at the top of the page, which notes "Not to be confused with Arab citizens of Israel ". This page has previously been affirmed by multiple rounds of consensus, and for good reason: the subjects are separate. Not all individuals identified by Israel as Arab citizens self-identify as "Palestinian" – a subject that is both prima facie a separate topic and clearly worthy of a standalone page based on the sources already presented above. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 18:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Iskandar323 : , can you find a single RS that says that not all Arab citizens of Israel are not Palestinian citizens of Israel? With the obvious exception of Lebanese, and the very weak argument for Druze & Circassians based on 1 RS, Amnesty, which isn't even explicit about the issue. Meanwhile, at the top of this discussion I provided 8 RS that define ACI=PCI (just different terms for same people) and 4 RS that use the terms interchangeably. I would like to also start a RfC that the ACI article be renamed PCI, but that is another fight. None of the editors named can come up with a single source. I just don't understand where this idea comes from. I get that people prefer the term PCI, as do I, but that is not a reason to Fork the article and have two articles about the same population groups according to every RS. Keizers ( talk ) 21:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Arab citizens of Israel - as a WP:POVFORK of that article, and per compelling arguments by BilledMammal. Marokwitz ( talk ) 21:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A source to support that ACI and PCI are two different peoples - somebody? anybody? I just don't understand where this idea comes from that PCIs are a separate group from ACIs, as opposed to 8 RS cited at the top that say ACI=PCI (one people, 15 choices of demonym/ethnonym). I get that Palestinians and their allies (like me) prefer the term PCI, but that is not a reason to Fork the article and have two articles about the same population groups according to every RS. Can anyone provide even one source other than the weak Amnesty one, and the minor special case of the Lebanese? Keizers ( talk ) 21:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per nableezy. It has been shown both that the subject is notable and that it is not identical to an existing article's subject (hence cannot be a povfork). popo dameron ⁠ talk 00:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Arab citizens of Israel as a WP:POVFORK of the target. The name Arab citizens of Israel was decided by community decision. I can understand that someone would prefer Arab Israelis or Palestinian Citizens of Israel over the current name. I disagree that such a preference should lead to article multiplication. gidonb ( talk ) 06:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the conditions that require this page are clear from talk:Arab citizens of Israel/Archive 8#Requested move 27 October 2021 , which was about renaming ACI to PCI. As the closer of that RM said: The main argument in favour of moving was WP:COMMONNAME. The main argument against was accuracy/precision, particularly as not all Arab citizens of Israel are of Palestinian origin. Note that some of the merge voters here made the opposite argument at that RM – if what they argued there is true, that "not all Arab citizens of Israel are of Palestinian origin", then clearly it is consistent to have a separate article focused on that subgroup. Onceinawhile ( talk ) 07:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - This seems like quite a strong argument. Perhaps someone could try to refute it to help clarify things. Sean.hoyland ( talk ) 05:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Nableezy. Arab citizens of Israel and Palestinian citizens of Israel are certainly not "the exact same population group". Skitash ( talk ) 18:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Arab citizens of Israel . While, as Nableezy said, the two groups are different, the Palestinian Israelis make up the majority of Arab Israelis and the two articles have a lot of overlap. 三葉草 San Ye Cao 03:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I think opinion is divided enough to be worth at least one relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Arab citizens of Israel – As mentioned above, the topics cover exactly the same ethnic groups, with the majority of the Arab population in Israel being of Palestinian origin. A single article can record all content. Svartner ( talk ) 01:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Arab citizens of Israel per the nomination. Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 02:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I do understand the merge impulse, and it is not unreasonable. However, I am persuaded that there is sufficient distinctiveness between the subjects as to warrant a separate article, generally per Nableezy. And pragmatically, the size of the parent article is such that the reliably sourced, non-trivial information required to provide proper context and treatment of the subject would warrant spinoff in the relatively near term regardless. While that subject, I disagree that this is a POVFORK, this title used by a number of reliable sources and other than a perfunctory mention above, I have not seen the neutrality of this article challenged. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Not a fork, a notable subset of Arab citizens of Israel, no reason to delete given other than asserting that identifiable subsets are all Arabs, which is false. Merging has made to look more like an option by editing so as to include material from the article into the parent and by creating an unnecessary additional article and transferring information from the article to it. These measures will be undone in due course. Selfstudier ( talk ) 12:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ a b c d e Berger, Miriam. "Palestinian citizens of Israel struggle to tell their stories" . Columbia Journalism Review . Retrieved 4 March 2024 . Palestinian citizens of Israel—also called Israeli-Arabs, Palestinians in Israel, '48 Arabs, or Palestinian Arabs— ^ a b c {{cite journal{{subst:!}}title=Identity Crisis: Israel and its Arab Citizens | journal=Middle East Report | issue= 25 | date=4 March 2004 | url= http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/israel-palestine/025-identity-crisis-israel-and-its-arab-citizens.aspx | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110313112806/http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/israel-palestine/025-identity-crisis-israel-and-its-arab-citizens.aspx | archive-date=13 March 2011 | access-date=14 April 2011 }} ^ a b c Muhammad Amara (1999). Politics and sociolinguistic reflexes: Palestinian border villages (Illustrated ed.). John Benjamins Publishing Company. p. 1. ISBN 978-90-272-4128-3 . Many identity constructs are used to refer to Palestinians in Israel; the Israeli establishment prefer Israeli Arabs or Arabs in Israel . Others refer to them as Israeli Palestinians , Palestinian Arabs in Israel , the Arabs inside the Green Line . Nowadays the widespread terms among Palestinians are Palestinians in Israel or the Palestinians of 1948 . ^ a b Rebecca B. Kook (2002). The Logic of Democratic Exclusion: African Americans in the United States and Palestinian citizens in Israel . Lexington Books. pp. 67–68. ISBN 978-0-7391-0442-2 . The category of "Israeli Arab" was constructed by the Israeli authorities. As it indicates, this category assumes and constructs two levels of identity. The first is that of Arab. Local Palestinians who remained in what became Israel were designated as Arabs rather than Palestinians. This category refers to the realm of culture and ethnicity and not, clearly, politics. The official government intention was for the "Arab" to designate culture and ethnicity and the "Israeli" - to designate the political identity. ... In addition to the category of Israeli Arabs, other categories include "the minorities" and "the Arab sector," or, in certain sectors the more cryptic appellation of "our cousins." The use of these labels denies the existence of any type of political or national identification and the use of "minority" even denies them a distinct cultural identity. With the emergence of a more critical discourse ... the categorization expands to include Israeli Palestinians, Palestinians in Israel, Palestinian Arabs, Israeli Palestinian Arabs, the Palestinians of 1948, and so on. ^ a b c d e f "Exploring the Topics of Arab Citizens and Jewish-Arab Relations in Israel" (PDF) . Israeli Arab Task Force . 2022. Arab citizens' identities are more nuanced than either "Israeli" or "Palestinian." Members of this population group describe themselves (and are described by others) with many terms. Some common terms include: Arab Israelis, Israeli Arabs, Palestinian citizens of Israel, Arab citizens of Israel, 48ers, Palestinian Israelis ^ a b c d "FAQ:Arab citizens of Israel" (PDF) . The iCenter for Israel Education . Retrieved 4 March 2024 . What are some names for Arab citizens of Israel? Palestinian citizens of Israel, Israeli Arabs, Israeli Palestinians, Arab Israelis, and Palestinian Israelis. Each of these names, while referring to the same group of people, connotes something different. ^ Berger, Miriam (8 March 2024). "Palestinian in Israel" . Foreign Policy . Retrieved 6 March 2024 . "I don't use the term Arab-Israeli," said the 30-year-old journalist, who was born in the Galilee and now lives in the northern city of Haifa. "We are Palestinians with Israeli citizenship. It's very important for us, the terms and the terminology we use." For Eid, the term Arab-Israeli is too removed from politics. Or, as he sees it, "It puts the Arab disconnected from the Palestinian identity." Arab-Israeli—the official media and Israeli government term for the 20 percent of Israel's almost 9 million citizens who are Arab-Palestinian—is increasingly unpopular among the people it's meant to describe. Only 16 percent of this population wants to be called "Israeli Arab," according to a 2017 survey by the University of Haifa professor Sammy Smooha provided to Foreign Policy. "The largest now and the most growing identity is a hybrid identity, which is 'Palestinian in Israel'" or a similar combination, Smooha said. "I think that's what's going to take over." ^ Philologos (pen name) (23 June 2021). " "Israeli Arabs," "Palestinian Citizens of Israel," or "Israeli Palestinians"?" . Mosaic . Retrieved 6 March 2024 . ^ Jodi Rudoren, Service to Israel Tugs at Identity of Arab Citizens , The New York Times 12 July 2012: 'After decades of calling themselves Israeli Arabs, which in Hebrew sounds like Arabs who belong to Israel, most now prefer Palestinian citizens of Israel.' ^ Koningsveld, Akiva Van (6 October 2021). "Newsflash, Media: Israel's Arab Minority Does Not 'Largely Identify as Palestinian' " . HonestReporting . Retrieved 2 March 2024 . The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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

Alternative versions of Joker : The topic seems to have no stand-alone WP:GNG . Arguably there is also OR issue here - who decides which versions of Joker are "alternative" or "redefined" ("the Joker has been represented in a variety of different stories that redefine elements of the character's appearance and personality")? I am not sure if there is anything that warrants merging or redirecting, but redirects are cheap. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:53, 7 August 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 . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , it needs improving, not deleting, and that shouldn't be the default state and it's ridiculous to think it's an "unnecessary split" as if you could cram all those versions into the existing Joker article. Darkwarriorblake ( talk ) 13:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you cannot cram, well, then the relevant policy is WP:CONTENTSPLIT : consideration must be given both to notability of the offshoot topic... If one or more of the topics is not notable on its own, it may be more appropriate to simply remove the material from Wikipedia than to create a new article . And what we have here is a notability-failing plot summary: see WP:NOTPLOT . What reliable, independent sources discuss the topic here ("Alternative versions of Joker")? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It would be easy for someone to find sources for most of the entries here but to be clear they are sourced, you just don't like that they're sourced to comics. Plenty of websites cover comic books, particularly The Batman Who Laughs, Flashpoint, Injustice, White Knight, and Dark Knight versions (though to be clear I do enough on Wikipedia, I'm not going to go find those sources), but it's not worthy of deletion because of that, and frankly the time you've spent both creating this, replying to me, and posting on my talk page, could have covered that task. Be useful instead of just wasting time on saying that alternate versions of one of the most recognizable villains in popular culture can't be sourced and ignoring that people will, justifably, try to add all of these versions to the main article, where they cannot fit and editors will have little justification to remove them if sourced. Seriously, I spent my time making featured articles, you're running around nominating articles like Remi, Nobody's Girl (a 26 episode anime so hardly unnotable) for deletion instead of just improving them. You're not only wasting your time, you're wasting the time of all the editors you drag into this. Darkwarriorblake ( talk ) 09:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please mind WP:AGF and WP:NPA . And you seem to confuse me with User:Timtrent , the nom for Remi. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Joker (character) , per WP:AVOIDSPLIT . Besides violating WP:SIGCOV , a lot of this is WP:OR without a reliable definition of "alternate". The major appearances are already covered at the main article, and the minor appearances are largely unsourced, with nothing to WP:PRESERVE . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 02:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Piotrus' citation of CONTENTSPLIT is plainly misleading. That policy deals with "two or more distinct topics [!sharing] the samebase title, not spinoffs from a very long article on a notable topic. There is much critical commentary. 104.226.30.18 ( talk ) 16:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with Joker (character)#Alternative versions in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE ....especially as we need to put the history of Earth-Two's Joker somewhere on this website. -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 19:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I would very much like someone to tell me why this is not WP:OR , after which I will consider forming an opinion 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: there's some coverage of the character and his various incarnations in Amazing Heroes , particularly around the publication of Crisis and its' aftermath, though there was stuff on the character throughout (there's a big spike in Batman & Joker articles in '89 around the Tim Burton film). There are a fair few issues on Internet Archive even though there probably shouldn't be. The latter is also true of Wizard, though they were very much more into Marvel and Image, but might be worth a look at for any shiny new 1990s versions. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 08:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BoomboxTestarossa It depends whether the coverage is "within universe" in a comic (etc) issue, or whether the coverage is an external and substantial commentary in multiple reliable secondary sources. The former produces either WP:OR o0r WP:SYNTH or both. The latter potentially verifies notability, not of the Joker per se , but of the topic of this article, the alternative versions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The coverage isn't in-universe, they would be reliable secondary sources. That said I'm not schlepping through back issues (though Back Issue! would be another place to look) for a Big Two article or for an AfD. It's just an illustration that in many areas smashing stuff into Google doesn't really touch upon it. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 01:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : After analysing the content and the alleged references, I see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as making up in excess of 90% of this article. It's a great magazine article, because magazines require no verifiability. There is no WP:V here, and that is one of the major tenets of Wikiipedia. Instead there are pseudo-references to issues of Batman comics. These are not independent of the topic. Remember,the article is not about the character The Joker . It is about the variations, the alternative versions. To remind us what is required: We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42 . Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. I do not see references that meet these tough criteria. I only see OR and SYNTH. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Joker (character)#Alternative versions - There doesn't appear to be any significant coverage in reliable sources of the overall concept of alternate versions of the Joker that shows that the topic is notable enough on its own, and the vast majority of the versions listed here are extremely minor, one-shot characters, if even that. Any versions that actually have reliable sources that would indicate any kind of notability should be covered on main article. Since there are currently no non-primary sources in this article, a simple Redirect is sufficient. Rorshacma ( talk ) 06:42, 13 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! 16:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Joker (character)#Alternative versions . With the Joker being a popular fictional character that gets reinvented and reimagined with every generation, there is basically an infinite amount of alternative versions of him -- to many to mention all. Joker (disambiguation) links to the notable ones with articles; the others can be covered briefly in (or omitted from) the character's main article. – sgeureka t • c 12:07, 15 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

Life TV : Chidgk1 ( talk ) 14:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep Please state a true reason for deletion. Nate • ( chatter ) 21:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Not notable" is number 8. in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#REASON Chidgk1 ( talk ) 07:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Still not acceptable; please properly expand your reasoning beyond that short statement. Nate • ( chatter ) 16:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Looking at this, I would not oppose merging/redirecting Life TV, Life 24 , Life Showcase TV , and Life One into Life TV Media . The articles sorely need references, and there are no hits for "Life TV Media" in ProQuest. Even Digital Spy has few references to offer aside from those in Life TV Media . Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 21:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. A fuller deletion rationale, beyond two words, would be appreciated, one that indicated that a BEFORE had been completed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with other articles about the same company. There seems to be a few incidents of note on Ofcom's site that could be used to expand the articles too. TubularWorld ( talk ) 17:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Life TV Media per User:TubularWorld|TubularWorld]] Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 07:37, 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

Tata Tinplate : All sources seem to be self-source, stuff generated from press releases, routine business reporting, and listings in business directories. Tagged for notability and citations since 2021. Fails NCORP. Valereee ( talk ) 12:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . Valereee ( talk ) 12:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 13:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : As per submission. Samuel R Jenkins ( talk ) 05:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 03:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge any sourced content that can be salvaged into parent Tata Steel#Subsidiaries as an alternative to deletion. Maduant ( talk ) 19:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No objection to merge. Valereee ( talk ) 12:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Added material on the company's early history from two books and time permitting will look to source more. Does need improvement but I'm sure independent further sources can be found. The company is under 75% owned by Tata Steel. With the remaining shares publicly traded there's likelihood of investment research reports and analysis on the company. WP:LISTED In fact, there are two reports on the company available for purchase via Research and Markets. One is 30 pages long, the other 50 pages, see here [13] At the prices charged I'm not going to be purchasing either. Nonetheless, they count towards satisfying NCORP. Rupples ( talk ) 02:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Tata Steel#Subsidiaries as a WP:ATD. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:50, 6 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

Petit Eva : Other languages' citations don't offer any support of notabilty. Donald D23 talk to me 14:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Video games , Comics and animation , Anime and manga , and Japan . Donald D23 talk to me 14:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Neon Genesis Evangelion (franchise)#Petit Eva: Evangelion@School . There are two sizable articles about the production linked at Japanese wiki: [16] , [17] . The site is Mycom.co.jp (Mainichi Communications), a game publisher according to IGN: [18] . They did have editorial content like this Final Fantasy 4 review: [19] . Only review (about the game) I found is this by ITMedia: [20] . If someone knows more about these sites and can say they are reliable sources, I could change my mind, though it's kinda borderline case even if they are. -- Mika1h ( talk ) 18:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As nominator I would be ok with a merge. Donald D23 talk to me 13:46, 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

Scottish Socialist Party United Left : It isn't notable independent of them. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk ) 18:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Politics , and Scotland . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Delete - Merge content to Scottish Socialist Party. I'm not sure it's necessary as a redirect, it's a faction from a minor political party that didn't last very long. Stevie fae Scotland ( talk ) 13:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 01:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and delete — Merge reliably sourced content to Scottish Socialist Party , then delete this article as the redirect title is unlikely to be searched. Despite being around for almost 18 years, :Scottish Socialist Party United Left" only returns 10 results on Google, all mirrors of Wikipedia. SSP-United Left returns a few hundred results, but the results that are from reliable sources are less than what you can count on two hands. Yue 🌙 20:51, 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

Crime Master : Hasn't received any non-primary sources since it's creation 2007. Industrial Insect (talk) 01:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation . Industrial Insect (talk) 01:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: C in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 19:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: C in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 20:55, 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

Nelson Riddle Conducts The 101 Strings : Even the Riddle biography listed only gives three sentences to describe the album. As for the liner notes, this isn't an independent source. Schminnte [ talk to me ] 21:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England . Schminnte [ talk to me ] 21:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] “Nelson Riddle Conducts The 101 Strings” is notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia for several reasons. First, it represented the return to recording industry after a two-year hiatus by Nelson Riddle, one of the most significant American arrangers, composers, bandleaders, and orchestrators of the Twentieth Century, in a European release that was a departure from his career that had been based in Los Angeles, California, most notably with Capitol Records. Second, the recording is a coming together of two artists notable in their own right—Riddle, and The 101 Strings Orchestra, the highly successful easy listening symphonic organization that released more than 150 albums in its three decades of existence. Third, the popularity of and demand for the recording is reflected in the fact that it was reissued on vinyl disc on three subsequent occasions, and was later issued in compact disc format. Fourth, the enduring popularity of the recording over a half century is evident from the fact that its songs are currently available for download from Amazon Music, Apple Music, and Spotify. Johnwellsking ( talk ) 22:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of these points are based on Wikipedia's general or album-specific notability guideline. I will respond to them here: 1) Nelson Riddpe is highly notable, but not everything associated with him is; 2) again, notability is not inherited: this has nothing to do with the album notability guideline. Incidentally, it's interesting to see how most of the albums by the 101 strings don't have articles? 3) just because an album was rereleased that doesn't make it notable, again this isn't based on the album notability guideline; 4) the existence of a song on streaming services does not make it notable. There are over five million albums on Spotify and we have 400,000 album articles. Schminnte [ talk to me ] 11:31, 17 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! 22:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Nelson Riddle . Really just a mention there with the Levinson citation would be adequate. -- Michig ( talk ) 11:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Didn't find any reviews. Checked out the three 1970 NME's online. A part merge to Nelson Riddle#Later Years seems appropriate, specifically the Origin paragraph and Levinson review. Rupples ( talk ) 01:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge the content worth saving to Nelson Riddle . microbiology Marcus ( petri dish • growths ) 17:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Georgia Nonpublic Postsecondary Education Commission : There are approximately 100 news results that turn up in a search: every one that I have checked is a passing mention. This is the best source I've found so far, but it's far from enough. If a reasonable merge target can be found, I do not oppose a merger. Vanamonde ( Talk ) 22:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education , and Georgia (U.S. state) . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are several other references in the article that User:Vanamonde93 overlooked; specifically [1] , [2] and [3] a comparison of responses from five states facing the problem of sudden institution closure. Many states do little or nothing to help their residents with this problem; Georgia has a comprehensive plan that seems to be working. Mgrē@sŏn ( Talk ) 23:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't overlook them; I skimmed the first two (all I can do before the paywall locks me out) but that's quite enough to see they're not substantive with respect to this topic. Similarly, the 47-page report that is the third link essentially states one fact about the GNPEC. There is no evidence of WP:SIGCOV here. Vanamonde ( Talk ) 02:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that this article needs work to assert notability. I suggest the primary author point out exactly which articles are significant coverage to pass WP:GNG . Unfortunately, I do not see them at this time. Flibirigit ( talk ) 01:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Education in Georgia (U.S. state) : a substantially trimmed down and properly sourced version. Sources are not there for a stand alone article. This is an unneeded CFORK, the content will fit well in the target. // Timothy :: talk 17:52, 18 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

2017 Chaman suicide bombing : No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT . LibStar ( talk ) 09:26, 18 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 ) 09:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per usual disclaimers (later sources may exist in other languages, it's Pakistan), merge (cut down version) to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017 . PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 21:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : per PARAKANYAA. Queen of ♡ | speak 03:19, 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

1924 Humboldt State Lumberjacks football team : Let'srun ( talk ) 21:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , American football , and California . Let'srun ( talk ) 21:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Humboldt State Lumberjacks football, 1924–1929 a la similar action for Delaware State Hornets football, 1924–1929 , Temple Owls football, 1894–1899 , and Henry Kendall Orange and Black football, 1895–1899 . Jweiss11 ( talk ) 23:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From page creator: I created these pages to provide a complete record of every football season played by all of the Cal State schools. I have zero objection to merging the 1924-1929 seasons into one page if that's the consensus. ocfootballknut ( talk ) Delete per WP:NSEASON . This is about as low-level as one can get in college football, as the team played only one game during the year and it was against a high school team. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note I have created Humboldt State Lumberjacks football, 1924–1929 and redirected 1927 Humboldt State Lumberjacks football team , 1928 Humboldt State Lumberjacks football team , and 1929 Humboldt State Lumberjacks football team there. Jweiss11 ( talk ) 03:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , per Jweiss. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 03:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per the other noms and per @ Jweiss11 Cray04 ( talk ) 04:40, 3 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

Opinion polling for the 1949 Canadian federal election : No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Also wp:not. Only "Stats only" sources. North8000 ( talk ) 19:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] BTW I did this for 4 of these articles at the same time: Opinion polling for the 1958 Canadian federal election , Opinion polling for the 1980 Canadian federal election , Opinion polling for the 1949 Canadian federal election and Opinion polling for the 1945 Canadian federal election North8000 ( talk ) 16:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Every single other election with available polling in Canadian history has a similar page, with a similar scope of sources. If they are to be deleted, it would have to be up to the 2021 election, and the practice in most elections has been to have a polling page. CharlotteWhitton ( talk ) 19:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I'm baffled why this was created as a stand-alone article rather than within 1949 Canadian federal election , which is quite short and can accomodate it easily. The practice is to include polling and to have a separate page only if length warrants a WP:SPLIT . Reywas92 Talk 23:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Reywas92. We only need a separate opinion polling article for an election if there are, or are likely to be, a large number of polls to include. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Reywas92. — Joeyconnick ( talk ) 16:02, 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

Katie Power : None of this article is cited to secondary sources. Searching the internet, I only found passing mentions (ex. Saying this character is in Power Pack, but not anything further than that). I do not believe there is enough to satisfy the WP:GNG . JackFromWisconsin ( talk | contribs ) 18:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Fictional elements , and Comics and animation . JackFromWisconsin ( talk | contribs ) 18:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Power Pack : The character bio and other information can be merged with the main article. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 18:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: P , where it would possibly be a better fit after a very heavy edit. IIRC there are some decent articles on Power Pack in Amazing Heroes and Back Issue! but I would be surprised if they discussed Katie in the requisite depth. As stated by the nom, reliable sources only list her as a member of Power Pack; there's not even listicle stuff. Awful lot of this sort of thing out there for Marvel characters. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 19:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm fine with this merge as well if consensus develops. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 21:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as the developing consensus, per WP:ATD . Only found WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs that are insufficient for WP:SIGCOV . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 13:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - Per above, there are sources discussing her as a member of the Power Pack, but not really anything so in depth on her, specifically, that a split would be warranted. I personally think that the Power Pack article would be the preferable target, but I have no real problem with using List of Marvel Comics characters: P instead, depending on what other editors think is best. Rorshacma ( talk ) 19:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different Merge targets suggested. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Looking at it again I'd actually suggest a redirect to Power Pack#Members , which has a fictional biography not a mile off the appropriate level of detail for the team. Would also suggest the same for Jack Power (Marvel Comics) . Julie Power has some very sketchy reception, including a remarkably shitty list reference from Scary Mommy , but might just clear even if the article itself is overdetailed fandumb. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 13:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The rate articles are merge-deleted is too high. I just came here randomly. IPs are people too 🇺🇸🦅 16:25, 29 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

List of NASCAR broadcasters : Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN . Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE . As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, one is a dead page and three of those are about the announcers, not helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 18:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Motorsport , Lists , and United States of America . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 18:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE , failing WP:LISTN , and as a trivia list. Conyo14 ( talk ) 23:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio , keeping parent article from being overly cluttered and unreadable. Alternatively merge to that target. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom fails WP:LISTN . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 19:45, 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

2023 Kech District attack : All the sources are from April 2023, no evidence of WP:LASTING to meet WP:EVENT . LibStar ( talk ) 02:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Terrorism , and Pakistan . LibStar ( talk ) 02:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge (like a paragraph) to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2023 . It doesn't seem an especially significant one of Pakistan's many, many attacks, but given Pakistan's broader security problems it's best to retain that it happened and this article has a few details that would be useful for a brief summary. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 03:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. This is not a newspaper. -- Saqib ( talk ) 11:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTNEWS . Don't merge. Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 15:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2023 . There's no analytic coverage here that warrants the event having its own article. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 18:56, 24 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

Strawberry cultivation in Maryland : Incredibly niche. According to this article, it covers cultivation of strawberries on "210 acres" of land — out of Maryland's 2,000,000 acres of cultivated land. This is not a significant industry in Maryland. And its focus is even more niche: diseases of strawberries in Maryland. SilverLocust ( talk ) 23:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology , Organisms , and Maryland . SilverLocust ( talk ) 23:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This seems well-sourced, but indeed the topic is a bit niche. I wonder if an appropriate move or merge target can be found, otherwise keep . All great Wikipedia topics start somewhere, and WP:NOTPAPER . — siro χ o 10:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Almost all of the sources do not relate to Maryland, with the exception of the University of Maryland Extension material, the USDA census info (which just shows that the topic is not notable), and the source "First Report of Clover Yellow Edge and STRAWB2 Phytoplasmas in Strawberry in Maryland." SilverLocust ( talk ) 20:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure a merge to Strawberry would be appropriate, but it may be worth evaluating. Perhaps a move Strawberry cultivation with a subsection dedicated to regional cultivation. — siro χ o 21:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That would be entirely fine with me. Or Strawberry cultivation in the United States . There is already Strawberry cultivation in California , which is definitely notable. For context, "In the United States, fresh strawberries are primarily grown in California (roughly 90 percent annually) and Florida (about 8 percent), followed by New York, North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington." (USDA) . SilverLocust ( talk ) 21:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . This could pass muster as an encylopedic topic if the content was more specifically tailored to Maryland. Better rewritten with less technical material? Most of the content on diseases and spraying likely applies to strawberry cultivation in any location. If strawberry growing was an important agricultural pursuit in Maryland historically, then it could be notable. There's some big claims regarding historic strawberry production in this article Marion Station, Maryland , but how reliable they are is perhaps debatable. Doesn't seem of great importance nowadays — no mention of strawberries in Maryland#Agriculture . May be sufficient sources to meld together an article, e.g. https://collections.digitalmaryland.org/digital/collection/sovf/id/162/ for one. Need more time to look into this. Rupples ( talk ) 17:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can't decide whether there's enough to write a fully fledged article on this topic or not. As things stand most of the sources included are not specific enough to fit in with the article's title. It's not absolutely clear where this article fits in. If considering a merge, is it better merged to something like "Agriculture in Maryland" or "Strawberry cultivation in the US"? Rupples ( talk ) 23:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - but possible merge into List of strawberry diseases - ? Denaar ( talk ) 01:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Digging Further, there are individual pages on each of the diseases already, so this kind of info should probably move all the way to those disease pages? Denaar ( talk ) 01:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to draft and refactor . After a little bit of digging, I note that we have one other state-based strawberry cultivation article, which is Strawberry cultivation in California (which cultivates the bulk of strawberries in the country). Nonetheless, many northeastern U.S. states have smaller but longstanding strawberry cultivation industries, so I would make this the cornerstone of an article on Strawberry cultivation in the Northeastern United States , also covering the activities to this end in Maine, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, West Virginia, and Virginia (all of which have events listed at Strawberry festival ). BD2412 T 03:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd suggest some sort of merge or re-think. I don't think the article works as it is. Too much of it is a secondary review of primary literature on strawberry diseases (we are supposed to be tertiary, not secondary), and the list of pesticides is uncomfortably close to being a specific "how-to" guide for strawberry growers in Maryland. Overall, I think the subject of strawberry growing in the US would be better covered by a general article that includes reference to the various strawberry growing states and their particular individual situation, rather than trying to wring an article out of rather little maryland-specific information. Elemimele ( talk ) 13:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Agriculture in Maryland (which I have conveniently unredirected and expanded) Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 14:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I think there is a consensus to Merge but several different targets are mentioned in this discussion and I don't think the closer should randomly select which. Also a suggestion to Draftify it there is additional support for that option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Agriculture in Maryland per Horse Eye's Back seems okay, the main article Maryland#Agriculture needs a wiki link as well. - Indefensible ( talk ) 03:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with this, best option for the time being, since it exists. — siro χ o 03:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . . was literally about to write the same thing written above. Suggest a merge with Maryland#Agriculture . It lacks the notability to stand alone as it’s own article, but the information could compliment the information already present at the Maryland#Agriculture section quite nicely. 4theloveofallthings ( talk ) 4theloveofallthings ( talk ) 00:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - I like the idea of a larger-scale strawberry cultivation article, but in the short term I think this is better housed at Maryland#Agriculture . Strawberry cultivation in California seems to stand on its own quite comfortably. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 12:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Agriculture in Maryland per Horse Eye's Back. Just the merge target we need -- I was just going to observe that a paragraph on strawberry farming might be a bit undue in the Maryland article. It would definitely be good to have regional articles on strawberry cultivation as well, but for the time being this seems like a good home for this content. -- Visviva ( talk ) 23:22, 17 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

Józef Kos : Long and worthy of respect life. But I'm not sure if meets our notability requirements. According to this article when Józef Kos died at the age of 107, he was "only" the second oldest person in the voivodeship, not to mention a country. Marcelus ( talk ) 22:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Poland . Marcelus ( talk ) 22:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of centenarians (military commanders and soldiers) . Prior AfD in 2007 which I started was a snow keep but with everyone just repeatign that 'being 106 years old is sufficient to make someone notable'. Well, our standards have risen since, I am afraid, and we require significant coverage in RS. What we have instead is a bunch of obituaries in local news. No pl wiki article. The subject fails WP:NBIO . But we have a valid list he should be mentioned in and redirected there. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 01:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 10:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Lerappa : What few sources exist fall under the category of WP:NOTNEWS , and even then, is more related to American Apparel's controversies than it is about their short-lived virtual store. Jontesta ( talk ) 21:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Jontesta ( talk ) 21:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Owen× ☎ 22:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to American Apparel , "History" or "Branding and advertising" section. There's a couple of passing mentions and an interview in reliable sources ( [26] , [27] , [28] ), so it warrants a mention in the American Apparel article but not its own article. -- Mika1h ( talk ) 14:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per WP:ATD . There is a valid merge target for the brief news burst. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 18:46, 19 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

BioMaPS Institute for Quantitative Biology : Does not seem to be a good reason to consider it notable outside of Rutgers University , so possibly a merge is appropriate as AtD JMWt ( talk ) 13:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and New Jersey . JMWt ( talk ) 13:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge / Redirect to Rutgers University or to a more specific school within the university. The institute, which now appears to be known as the "Rutgers Center for Quantitative Biology", does not appear to have any independent notability as a standalone entity. Alansohn ( talk ) 14:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge / Redirect to Rutgers University , a search for the new Center doesn't find anything of note, just primary sources. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 16:44, 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

Consulate General of the United Kingdom, Osaka : AusLondonder ( talk ) 07:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Japan , and United Kingdom . AusLondonder ( talk ) 07:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge' . There is plenty of encyclopaedic information in this article that shouldn't be just thrown away. If additional secondary sources can't be found (remember some are likely to be in Japanese and/or predate Google) then it should be merged to a broader article, maybe Japan-United Kingdom relations . Thryduulf ( talk ) 13:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails GNG and WP:ORG . Any relevant material should be in Japan–United Kingdom relations . LibStar ( talk ) 05:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Japan–United Kingdom relations . Not enough notability for a full page. BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk | contributions ) 12:36, 28 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

List of chairmen of the Legislative Assembly of Zabaikalsky Krai : The assembly has no article. One of the two listed chairmen has no article, and there is no indication in the poorly written article about Anatoly Romanov that he was a chairman of this body, despite the unencyclopedic list of his credentials in the lead. Bbb23 ( talk ) 16:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics , Lists , and Russia . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 16:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The assembly does have an article, Legislative Assembly of Zabaykalsky Krai . An WP:ATD could be merging this article there. Curbon7 ( talk ) 17:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The bolded part of the lead sentence is not wikified, and I could swear the word "legislature" was red when I nominated the article. It's blue now, and I don't see any reason for it to have changed from red to blue, so I must be seeing things.  :-( -- Bbb23 ( talk ) 17:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're not crazy, it was red! It was using a different romanization (Zabaikalsky instead of the standard Zabaykalsky); a redirect was created to the correct article title. Curbon7 ( talk ) 18:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're a wonder; thank you.-- Bbb23 ( talk ) 18:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions . Curbon7 ( talk ) 17:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Legislative Assembly of Zabaykalsky Krai . There is not yet a reason to spinout the list of presiding officers. -- Enos733 ( talk ) 17:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Basically, the existence of such article-lists seems odd. I would place this information as a section in an article about the regional parliament. -- Khinkali ( talk ) 23:02, 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

Toro Inoue : Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 12:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . CptViraj ( talk ) 12:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There's at least one piece of WP:SIGCOV here from a cursory glance. He's been the protagonist of numerous games so far, enough to comprise a series larger than most video game series. I'm still not sure whether he is notable, but it's almost certainly going to involve solely Japanese sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's also this article , which says "Toro is firmly established as a cultural icon in the Far East". Not significant coverage in itself, but indicative that there's more to be found somewhere. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Found another piece of SIGCOV here . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep In addition to the above sources, I found this significant coverage as part of a feature on animal stars in games in a Chinese magazine. In my opinion, this is sufficient to make him squeak by notability. Additionally, I would expect more coverage to exist given his high profile in Japan. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Doko Demo Issyo . Now that the article has been created, I am more comfortable with merging the character there due to the lack of many sources about him. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Create Doko Demo Issyo and redirect there I searched for Japanese articles about Toro Inoue and the ones I found are primarily about the Doko Demo Issyo series which he is the mascot of. [69] [70] We don't have an article for that series, but I would support creating that article and having this page redirect there. TarkusAB talk / contrib 17:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The question is whether the series is mentioned as a whole in sufficient RS. I've found a couple for various games in the series, but never enough to meet GNG. Also this is dismissing the fact that he is most likely a notable character. If the series is also notable, both can exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The two sources I linked discuss the series directly and in detail. A series article would be a good central place to talk about the games as well as Toro. TarkusAB talk / contrib 21:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It does seem like the series is notable, but you have yet to say whether you believe Toro himself is notable. It's pretty common to have articles on both a series and their protagonist, I don't see why this would be an exception to the rule. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 09:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Zx, with respect, you always seem to be under the impression that if a subject is notable by Wikipedia's definition, then a stand-alone article is justifiable without exception . We can assess each case independently on whether it is merited ("presumed" part of GNG). I do think that Toro is a "notable" subject (in the general sense of the term), but it's a weak case for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. The sources you listed are all short blurbs, except the article about his (and other characters') birthday event. There isn't much to say about him; the article would be short. Given the fact that Doko Demo Issyo is the parent subject, and Toro is often discussed in context of the series, I think it would be more effective to have one article about the series and its games, with a section about Toro as sort of being a legacy of the series. TarkusAB talk / contrib 19:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure what's so odd about thinking that - WP:NOTMERGE says that merging should be avoided if "The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short ." Your entire argument hinges around articles being too short, which the page explicitly says should not be used as a rationale unless they are "one or two sentences" long, which is much shorter than the current state of the article, much less its potential size when expanded. The point is that merging is entirely up to personal opinion/consensus, but there is no rule requiring short notable articles to be merged unless people decide it so. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 07:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I never said there were any rules in play, you did . That's why I responded the way I did. Anyways, I would not call these subjects "discrete". TarkusAB talk / contrib 09:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Restructure per Tarkus' suggestion. I feel given the unique nature of this subject that may be the best route. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 21:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Animal . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further thoughts on creating a separate article? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I have just now created Doko Demo Issyo , which I mentioned above as a possible redirect target. TarkusAB talk / contrib 18:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Doko Demo Issyo . They're both notable subjects, but not independently so. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 05:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to series article. The series is definitely notable and this character can be covered there, in context. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 17:04, 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

Star Sapphires : Delete as per WP:NOTPLOT . Zero real world notability, everything is in-universe. Onel 5969 TT me 09:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge the opening paragraph to List of teams and organizations in DC Comics#S - While I would have agreed completely with that initial merge to the Star Sapphire (DC Comics character) page for all of the reasons stated in this nom, that page is no longer a viable target as it, itself, went through an AFD with the consensus to merge it to the List of DC Comics characters: S page, which just has not been done yet. Outside of that opening paragraph, the current page is one hundred percent in-universe plot summary with the only sources being used being the comics themselves. Searching for sources on the group as a whole just turns up more plot summaries and listicles. While some individual members (mainly just Carol Ferris ) may have a bit more coverage, the group as a whole does not have enough to warrant more than a brief summary on a larger list. Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For consistency sake I rather it stay since all the other emotional spectrum organizations have articles and one is as notable as the other. Are we contesting the rest of the emotional spectrum organizations then? This is just as annoying as merging one of the Power Pack characters but all the rest of the members stay even when one of the mergists threatened they were next but it never happened. I don’t know if it’s OCD or what... But it grinds my gears when you go halfway with similar relevant articles. Jhenderson 7 7 7 17:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I mean, very likely with the obvious exception of the Green Lantern Corps, I would very much argue to merge those as well, as all of those articles suffer the exact same issues as this one. ( Particularly the article on the Orange Lantern Corps , as there is no true "Orange Lantern Corps" and Larfleeze already has their own article, but that is another discussion altogether). But, as a large group nomination of all of them together probably would have resulted in a call to separate them into individual AFDs, all we can do is discuss each one individually as they come up. Rorshacma ( talk ) 18:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You can argue it all you want, but chances are this article will most likely be merged just because this was on AFD and the other articles will maybe stay seeming just as inconsistent on Wikipedia as the Power Pack Power family having all but one article of the characters. Like I said, the whole Power Pack (beside Alex, who ironically enough is the more the protagonist than all the rest!!!!) was claimed to be not as notable too but they never got the never AFD boot. Seems weird on what article we decide to pick and choose on. I know this is similar to that silly essay argument, Other things argument yada yada yada. But this is still a valid issue that bugs me and maybe can be an issue to readers too. Jhenderson 7 7 7 13:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I too agree with what @ Jhenderson777 : is saying. -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 03:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the claims of @ Jhenderson777 : . To the closer if the outcome is merge, make sure the link is redirecting to it's section at List of teams and organizations in DC Comics . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 19:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The claims of Jhenderson777 are literally just "it would annoy me if this is merged and other articles are not". That is not a valid reason for keeping, and thus making a Keep argument based purely on that is likewise not a valid reason for keeping. Rorshacma ( talk ) 17:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While I do not disagree, Rorshacma. It’s more of a comment with the preference of keep. But I do feel like you are mocking the situation that I brought up. At this point all these AFD’s are getting useless. Because these AFDs are for deletion and everybody knows they will ended up merged instead. I think the AFD is a setup ruse for more opinions to get rid of the article potentially. Why not merge request since we all know they won’t be deleted? I don’t know about AFD, but at least we can merge request more than one relevant articles too. Also if it’s allowed in AFD, then why don’t we use more than one example like what I am bringing up? Jhenderson 7 7 7 23:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge to List of DC Comics characters: S List of teams and organizations in DC Comics#Star Sapphires . "Zero real world notability" is incorrect, there is some discussion in this book , p. 179 and a bit at this one , p. 95/97. In addition there are a number of secondary sources which do indeed discuss them in-universe, like [87] , [88] , [89] , [90] . Daranios ( talk ) 15:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The non-listicles and plot summary sources are really the barest of mentions of the group. Also, the very first book you linked to does not actually seem to be on the right topic - it appears to be speaking of the Star Sapphire characters as they appeared in the Silver Age. Not the actual "Star Sapphire Corps", which this article is about, which did not debut until the late 2000's. Confusing, I know, but that's why having three separate articles on Carol Ferris (the character most closely associated with the name Star Sapphire), Star Sapphire (DC Comics character) (a bunch of other minor characters associated with the name Star Sapphire but not part of the the actual group "The Star Sapphires") and this article on the "Star Sapphires" group, all three of which reiterate a lot of the same information, is clearly not the best way to present any of the actual reliably sourced information. Rorshacma ( talk ) 17:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree with "barest mention" (that happens in more secondary sources not listed), but discounting Nerd Ecology , what I've seen is probably not enough non-plot information for a stand-alone article. (There might be for a Star Sapphire article which includes the Star Sapphire corps, but it seems that ship has sailed for now.) Merge then. Daranios ( talk ) 18:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, while there really is not enough for a standalone article on any of the non-GL "emotional spectrum" groups like this one, maybe there is a possibility for some kind of article covering the concept behind them as a whole that they could all be merged into. For now, though, that List of teams and organizations in DC Comics#S is the best place to cover the information on this group. Rorshacma ( talk ) 18:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Particularly it's section on that page. It took me weeks to restructure the List of teams and organizations in DC Comics page like I had to do with the List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations page. -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 18:41, 14 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

Ben Jackson (Doctor Who) : Thus, he doesn't seem to meet the GNG nor SIGCOV. As he is a classic series companion, there may be reception scattered about here and there, but I'm not sure if there's enough to constitute a whole article. Worst comes to worst, Ben and Polly's articles should be merged given that they come as a duo, but as it stands right now, he should probably just be merged into the Companions article. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 00:07, 30 June 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 Television . Pokelego999 ( talk ) 00:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Redirect to Companion (Doctor Who) I'm reluctant, but there's limited opportunity for improved secondary coverage given Michael Craze died before Doctor Who home media gathered momentum. Polly (Doctor Who) , who Ben never appears without, is there for any minor material. U-Mos ( talk ) 08:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . While I'm not entirely sure each companion needs an article, I see no value in deleting the article on a single companion when all the others have articles. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS , really? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Necrothesp has started doing this semi-obsessively on fictional character articles. From an experienced user it’d be bad, from an admin it’s borderline trolling. Dronebogus ( talk ) 02:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:AGF and WP:NPA . You are skating on thin ice here, my friend. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So are you Dronebogus ( talk ) 17:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's unfortunate that this sort of personal attack on any editor who expresses principled dissent has become so commonplace on AFD. Whatever one's opinion on this particular article, the harm done to the encyclopedia by haphazardly deleting arbitrary members of a set is readily apparent. -- Visviva ( talk ) 21:08, 22 July 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! 00:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Companion (Doctor Who) . Fairly minor early character with the slight novelty of being a rare reappearance of a classic companion in the revival. Only one surviving complete story featuring him exists, so I highly doubt any sources exist discussing him in detail. Dronebogus ( talk ) 09:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect unless someone rescues this by adding reception/analysis so that it meets GNG. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Polly (Doctor Who) or keep : Ben Jackson is discussed in a number of secondary sources, like [49] , [50] , and [51] , even if not at great length. Commentary on him is often in relation to or pairing with Polly. Daranios ( talk ) 10:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think merging is a good solution. WP:GNG would now apply. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, I'm reluctant to Redirect or Merge to Polly (Doctor Who) as this article is also at AFD and it's unclear what the outcome of that discussion will be. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . As per Daranios's comment above, secondary sources exist, satisfies, WP:GNG . Frond Dishlock ( talk ) 22:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep - Sources exist and he has coverage which can be expanded. If the article is not kept then it should be at the very least Merged with Polly's article (as in they have an article together with a change in the page title). DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 05:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. We could use a review of recently presented sources in this discussion. It would help to hear some policy-based opinions. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment as nominator. I've been mostly silent in the discussion thus far (Partially due to being away from my computer for a long time) but I feel now would be a good time to give some thoughts on the discussion. Taking a look at the sources @ Daranios provided, as much as I'd like to keep Ben's article, only the first source seems to be adequate for providing information. Source three really only briefly discusses Ben in terms of plot summary. Source two mostly seems to be plot summary, and focuses on Polly much more than Ben. Maybe I missed something there, as the book is partially paywalled? Still, I don't think it's enough to justify SIGCOV, in this case. I have changed my mind on GNG, but I feel SIGCOV is the real kicker in this conversation. I did another search for sources in case I missed anything, but outside of what Daranios has provided, I can't really find anything that isn't trivial mentions. As nominator, I will say that I now think it's unwise to merge with Polly's article, as I'm just not sure how Ben would factor into the article, and I'm concerned it would become an example of coatracking. This is especially true as it seems Polly's discussion is leaning towards keep right now, which I very much agree with given the sources presented there. I'm afraid I don't think Ben's article is able to be kept, or able to be merged with Polly, as of right now. Thus, it feels as though a redirect to Companion would be the best option at this point, unless I've missed something with the sources provided. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, as I'd love to keep Ben's article around. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 20:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Re the third source there, the Radio Times article. I don't think that's entirely accurate, the analysis of them constituting an 'odd couple' isn't plot summary. Frond Dishlock ( talk ) 03:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Isn't that just describing his and Polly's role overall in the series? That's still essentially the equivalent of a basic character overview rather than actually discussing the character himself. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 12:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Pokelego999 : Is the fact that they are an "odd couple" due to their class difference discussed in the series itself? If not I would say that it is commentary rather than plot summary which would probably be considered original research if not supported by a secondary source. It is also discussed as "evoking male fantasy of..." in source 2, Women in Doctor Who , which compounds it as analysis. It is a comment about the relationship between Ben and Polly and therefore applies in equal parts to both characters. Which then, in case Ben Jackson would not be kept as stand-alone article, could be discussed within Pollys article and then is specifically not coatracking. At the same time it would fit WP:MERGEREASON #3 (although it would be more than "only one or two sentences"). If such a merged article would better be called Polly (Doctor Who) or Polly and Ben Jackson or some such could be decided based on how large a part of analysis refers to both. Daranios ( talk ) 15:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Given the arguments you've provided in relation to the sources, then I suppose the best option for Ben would be a merger. Given almost all of Ben's coverage factors directly into his relationship with Polly, it seems beneficial for both articles to merge from what I've seen here. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 15:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak merge to Polly, otherwise a weak keep. I would agree that only the Frankham-Allen Companions book gets us comfortably over the crucial SIGCOV threshold in that it addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content . The problem with the plot summaries that seem to make up most of the coverage is that any overall narrative of the character would inevitably be constructed by us. Frankham-Allen has some analysis of the character as a person -- but notably he handles Polly and Ben as a single unit, analyzing Ben in terms of his relationship with Polly. One finds some interesting things here and there, e.g. this book mentions Ben as one of the rare working-class companions. I think it's possible to have a somewhat encyclopedic article here. But overall it seems like we would best fit the available sources by treating Polly and Ben together in one article. -- Visviva ( talk ) 21:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Only one of the books provides SIGCOV. We need more than that. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 21:23, 28 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

BYD HES : Refs are directory entries or trivial mentions. Maybe just redirect to BYD_Company , but the product is not mentioned there. AndrewWTaylor ( talk ) 11:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and China . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:23, 9 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! 04:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or redirect to BYD Company — siro χ o 05:34, 16 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

Interplay Discovery : Under the program, the company published five games in total. A search for "Interplay Discovery" on search engines reveals little about the program, and it seems that the program would never be talked about again since 2011, when the last game under the program was released. I think this article is doomed to remain a permastub . However, I think the program would prove excellent for the Interplay Entertainment article since it involves the company reentering the gaming arena and trying to reclaim its former status as a reputable publisher, even if the attempt turned out to be short-lived. Free Media Kid$ 15:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Free Media Kid$ 15:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Interplay Entertainment . Doesn't seem independently notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 16:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above. Timur9008 ( talk ) 20:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Interplay Entertainment , concur with earlier reviewers. - Indefensible ( talk ) 19:09, 29 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

Unitarian Universalist Buddhist Fellowship : No evidence of notability. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG . AusLondonder ( talk ) 09:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Religion . AusLondonder ( talk ) 09:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . No evidence of notability. Searches bring up nothing for me. Cortador ( talk ) 11:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Buddhism and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - A merge or redirect to Unitarian_Universalism#Organizations should be considered as an WP:ATD . ~ Kvng ( talk ) 13:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Unitarian_Universalism#Organizations where its mention can be expanded. I found mentions and directory entries in several books indicating this is a topic of interest but I did not find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. ~ Kvng ( talk ) 13:54, 29 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

Primary and secondary (polyamory) : One reference (to the essay that coined of the term). Delete or merge into Terminology of polyamory . RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 08:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Polyamory as basic terminology that does not need its own article. — The Anome ( talk ) 10:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I agree with The Anome that this is basic terminology that maybe deserves a sentence or two on the Polyamory article. Delete per WP:NOTDICT and the essay-like nature of the article. Opal|zukor ( discuss ) 12:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with the polyamory article is fine, nothing more than a DICDEF otherwise. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:26, 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

Ecomare : It does not meet WP:NCORP . MarioGom ( talk ) 17:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries , Organizations , and Netherlands . MarioGom ( talk ) 17:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . See additional references and other information including books in the corresponding Dutch article at nl:Ecomare . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep More than enough significant, in-depth and independent coverage to be found in reliable sources. This for example is from the island´s tourist information desk. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 18:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the above and the Dutch article. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 18:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If not keep, then at least merge to Duinen van Texel National Park . I don't read Dutch to assess the sourcing or the Dutch-language article, but at a minimum this should be covered within the park's article. Star Mississippi 18:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Duinen van Texel National Park . While the subject is notable, the article MUST NOT be kept as the amount of text it contains is less than the correct amount of text on this subject at Duinen van Texel National Park. In other words, this article should be considered an unjustified SPINOUT. It's not even a SPINOFF. When much more is written on the subject, a SPINOFF can be created. gidonb ( talk ) 22:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Good point. I open to this as well. A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 02:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : While this article is substantially sourced and notable in some way, there is a possibility that a merge with Duinen van Texel National Park is recommended since such article mentions the affected article. HarukaAmaranth ( 話 ) 01:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I may have to change my mind over the next few days, sock puppet investigation regarding the user who created this page ongoing. HarukaAmaranth ( 話 ) 01:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] HarukaAmaranth , I don't think that should change whether we keep an article if it's useful. Our guidelines don't encourage this. A lot of our content was created by sockpuppets, meat puppets, now-banned editors (some very prolific) and folks with conflicts of interests. We could be busy for months shrinking this thing from 6.5 million articles to several million. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 02:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, thank you, just wanted to know. If that's the case, I'll just say this article needs merging. HarukaAmaranth ( 話 ) 02:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Divided between those advocating Keeping this article and those editors who think a Merge would be more appropriate. Definitely no consensus here for Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 18:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Duinen van Texel National Park . A lot of the material on the Dutch article is unreferenced or actually WP:PRIMARY so expansion by translating from Dutch is not recommendable unless other sources can be found. Therefore I agree with Gidonb that merging back into the parent article is more appropriate. - Indefensible ( talk ) 22:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – has adequate coverage in references. — Jonathan Bowen ( talk ) 21:24, 17 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

Autumn Moon Entertainment : Last AFD was delete? IgelRM ( talk ) 21:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games , Companies , and California . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:45, 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

1924 Michigan Mines football team : This was a less-than-average season (three games played, zero wins), unsupported by WP:SIGCOV , and sourced solely to the school's web site. At best per WP:NSEASONS , this might be suitable for grouping as part of a "decade" article on the Michigan Mines football program in the 1920s. Cbl62 ( talk ) 17:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also nominating the following related page because it relates to an equally less-than-average season is is also unsupported by SIGCOV. 1926 Michigan Mines football team ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) @ TheDiamoneMinor : For examples of season articles on the Michigan Mines/Tech football program that can and should be created, please see 1974 Michigan Tech Huskies football team (undefeated championship season). Season articles need to be supported by WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. Cbl62 ( talk ) 17:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cbl62 : Perhaps a merger of all these early Michigan Mines/Tech football articles into something like Michigan Tech Huskies football, 1920–1942 , a la Temple Owls football, 1900–1909 , would be a better option than deletion? Jweiss11 ( talk ) 18:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not opposed to some reasonable alternative to deletion, but keeping these as stand-alone articles does not appear to be viable. Cbl62 ( talk ) 18:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Michigan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:42, 11 May 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! 23:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions are welcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy ( talk ) 04:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd support a merger to Michigan Tech Huskies football, 1920–1942 like Jweiss suggested. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also the last game wasn't played on November 7, 1924 because the result is already in a newspaper on sunday November 2, 1924 and also on monday November 3, 1924 with that exact result. Themanwithnowifi ( talk ) 09:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply re "merge" proposal . @ Jweiss11 : @ BeanieFan11 : @ TheDiamoneMinor : @ Themanwithnowifi : As noted above, I am not opposed to an alternative to deletion , but the proposed merger target doesn't exist. Does someone want to create and source Michigan Tech Huskies football, 1920–1942 ? Absent that, how is a closer supposed to agree to the "merge" proposal? Cbl62 ( talk ) 10:30, 27 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

Unweave the Weave : While construction projects can be notable, this one seems run-of-the-mill. Also borders on POV in certain instances. Rs chen 7754 00:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Minnesota . Rs chen 7754 00:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to I-35E - It does seem run-of-the-mill, but there seems to be some lasting coverage from the Star-Tribune regarding the section's use as a testbed for variable tolls (e.g. this 2021 article and this 2016 article ). Sounder Bruce 00:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge information to relevant articles. The interchange project is not notable enough for an individual article but the information can be mentioned in the articles about the roads that meet at the interchange. Dough 4872 00:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above comments Jack4576 ( talk ) 01:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the history sections of Interstate 694 and Interstate 35E (Minnesota) , though some of the information is already present in the Interstate 694 article. It could be added to the I-35E article. In general, I don't think there's a lot of notability for completed construction projects in Minnesota, since I don't regularly see news coverage on projects that have been finished. The I-35W Mississippi River bridge collapse and reconstruction is the level of enduring significance, since it raised awareness of similar fracture-critical bridges, but I can't see the point of having separate articles for every state construction project. -- Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Elkman. Admittedly (as one who loves designing highway exchanges for my geofictional ventures), this is as well-written and organised as AFD candidates get. -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 22:21, 23 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

Midlands Rugby League Division One : Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 ( talk ) 19:53, 11 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 11 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 20:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England . Owen× ☎ 00:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Non-notable competition. Fails WP:GNG . J Mo 101 ( talk ) 12:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Update after 1 week : Establish how it fits into the British rugby league system - Merge and Redirect to Midlands Rugby League . Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:49, 18 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

Operation Ajay : Can perfectly be merged into Evacuations during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war . We have too many content forks about this war. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 11:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel , Palestine , and India . Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 11:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge: Not really a particularly notable or worthwhile in of itself. It could be readily incorporated into the target. Nepalese citizens are meanwhile not Indian ones ... not sure what's going on there. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 11:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some countries evacuate citizens from other countries as well during incidents like these. It might not make much sense to send a plane yourself if you have just three people there. Another country could just help you out. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 12:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was more highlighting the lack of effort to align the lead and body. The net effect of the page is a bare bones list with half a dozen entries in it - not exactly stellar standalone content. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 12:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes then, I agree with that. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 16:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge not particularly notable, mostly just has the run-of-the-mill coverage all evacuations received at the start of the war. AryKun ( talk ) 19:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Ling Xiaoyu : If they can say something tangible and of substance, they're worth citing. But that isn't the case here: the article overall is refbombed, with the vast majority of these being short references that aren't saying anything before quickly moving onto the next subject. Couple that with some review quips, and its definitely a mountain out of a molehill situation. It has all the hallmarks of Niemti's wikipedia work. Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 03:22, 27 January 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 ) 03:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Tekken characters , does not seem to have standalone notability or serious significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 04:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Characters of the Tekken series . There's a reference or two here that could be nice, but the bulk of this article is basically as nom describes. There's nothing substantial really being said about the character here, especially given how minor a lot of the commentary is. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 04:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I find this a notable character with multiple reviews and featured in multiple popularity rankings [56] [57] [58] [59] . Even if the reviews are not in-depth analysis on one character alone, they are definitely not passing mentions of just the names either, and demonstrate much more popularity than the average among those 80+ characters listed in the 'List of Tekken characters' article. It is also well-referenced and by itself consistently garnered an average of 4000+ monthly views for the past 8 years. [60] . And if we need real-life influence, this character seems to be popular for cosplay activity as well, examples [61] [62] . -- PeaceNT ( talk ) 21:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ User:PeaceNT Regarding the last two, there's no indication from that article she's a popular subject of cosplay, just that one highschooler commenting on her briefly for the whole article. The second is a professional shoot for a Tekken commercial, and also doesn't highlight her specifically. Now as for the rest The Redbull list has...two sentences about her gameplay. There's no indication Dread Central is a reliable source, the article is by someone called "Foywonder", I can't find a staff page, and the article is dictating the events of the film? PSU is probably the one source with any discussion and it's barely saying anything... The MSN list is a listicle that is not saying anything. "They ranked her 20th out of gaming's hottest women" means nothing. No offense, but if this is the best it illustrates my point in spades.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 21:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge There's already evidence that the character isn't notable after an editor above tried to do some BEFORE, but gathered only trivia sources. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 22:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per all. Does not reach WP:SIGCOV but some of this can be preserved at the list. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 18:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with the Tekken crowd. Just the usual meaningless listicle and fan-poll parade in reception with only the GamesRadar citation being of any significance. Definitely all the trappings of a Niemti article, but today sizable behind-the-scenes and cosplay (ugh) content does not notability make. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 20:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is a notable character in the franchise and i believe there is a lot of information about her that is needed for a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batud1991 ( talk • contribs ) 00:34, 2 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

Inkling (Splatoon) : Most of the reception section content could be potentially be merged at the series article. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 21:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and merge whats useful to Splatoon . SIGCOV and commentary is lacking. Outside of the Reception section, the content is all duplicative to the design of the games. The appearances in other Nintendo games can easily be summarized in the franchise article. -- ferret ( talk ) 21:41, 24 August 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 ) 21:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I am wondering if some of the stuff in this article would be suited for a Universe of Splatoon article? (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 01:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, unless the main article is utterly bloated. There's not THAT much reliably sourced in-depth universe content for Splatoon. -- ferret ( talk ) 01:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, that's why we have series articles, which already exists at Splatoon . Sergecross73 msg me 02:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect To Splatoon . Unfortunately, Inklings just aren't notable at all. No prejudice on the creation of a List of Splatoon characters article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 02:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . [2] and [3] , both of which authored by experts in taxonomy and related fields. I would contend that, while the article could have a stronger foundation, these sources, as well as those "listicles" that discuss Inkling as both a significant female character of her era and as one of the best characters of the 2010s, is enough. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 07:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect The article is a amalgamation of largely primary sources and trivia. It seems when these type of concept/character articles come up the nuance in notability seems to be whether reliable secondary sources cast an independent and descriptive light on the development and reception on the subject, which they do not do here. I'm always super appreciative for efforts to find more sourcing, but as in WP:SCHOLARSHIP , I am cautious about whether a small number of in-depth research articles on the subject should be used as a foundation for a contested article's notability. Even when peer-reviewed, many of these articles are isolated primary research projects and not independent reviews of the subject matter. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 08:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I also share the concerns about the scholarly articles being isolated. It's not really shown that they are widely cited or referred to, and aren't exactly public-facing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure what the standard for "public facing" is; a Google Scholar search for "Inkling" "Splatoon" showed these immediately, and I'm uncertain what your standard for widely cited or referred to. The fact that they have multiple citations and the authors are experts in relevant fields is adequate to justify their use. You can argue perfectly well that these two sources aren't enough on their own, but I think that they do contribute to notability. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 15:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/redirect to main series article. That's what the series article is for, to summarize what primary sources have to say about the topic, keeping it in WP:PROPORTION to more neutral reliable sources. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 14:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I note the article survived a merge proposal where additional sources [4] [5] [6] were identified that were not included in the article. Does the AfM discussion have any bearing, and are the sources helpful at all? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 23:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources were WP:PRIMARY or not specifically about Inklings. Looking at it again I really should have stuck to my "support" as I was absolutely correct there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 04:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to series : No evidence of real coverage that can't be used Additional comment : Can we agree that using Smash Bros. for character notability shouldn't count unless the character is absolutely notorious in the scene like with Meta Knight and Steve (Minecraft) ? This type of commentary was also used at Villager (which was redirected) and Pichu . The Super Smash Bros. scene changes constantly, and except in instances where the character literally broke the game (see the examples I gave), I don't think we should use Smash for character reception. Negative MP1 20:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speaking from having read a bunch of articles about characters in Smash, a lot of notability derived from Smash based sources tends to focus on their role in the series. There is genuinely some commentary that can be derived from these sources at times, but it depends on how it's used in the article itself. However, I feel a lot of the time, unless it's something like the examples you listed, where it is very impactful on the game's entire sphere, they work better as supportive sources than something to build a whole article around. I wouldn't discredit it entirely, but I definitely agree that there should be some pickiness when it comes to sources. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 22:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per others. I feel this has grounds to be a notable topic, but right now sources simply do not exist to individually establish the Inklings separately from Splatoon. Unopposed to this being remade in the future should sources arise. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 22:08, 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

Fex urbis lex orbis : Apparently non-notable Latin phrase used in passing in Les Misérables . A review of the first dozen or so pages of Google Books search yields primarily the book itself, with a couple of passing mentions in other books, and the name of an album by a heavy metal band ; Google Scholar/News and Jstor are no better. It's also a near-orphan: the only article to link to it is the book in which it appears, and there it's relegated to the "See also" section without mention in the article body. Smdjcl ( talk ) 23:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Literature , and Law . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Sourcing that I find is largely to Les Misersables; I don't think this phrase has been used much outside that context. Delete for non-notability, lack of sources. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So we've been taking the word of a work of fiction for 17 years, over all of the scholarship on Jerome which records no such thing . (The nearest that all of the books on Jerome going back centuries get is probably "Major est autoritas orbis quam urbis" which is a completely different thing.) This is unverifiable and almost certainly false. Delete . Uncle G ( talk ) 14:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with List of Latin phrases (F) : I agree there's not enough here to write an individual article. However, it's notable enough that it should be merged to the List of Latin phrases. Other than sources that discuss the phrase in the context of the book, which are generally brief mentions, there's one source (p. 59) that applies the phrase to modern capitalism, but I wouldn't call that significant coverage of the phrase itself; rather, it's using the phrase to frame a discussion about another topic. Another source is a brief mention: "As the anonymous revolutionary so succiently expressed the concept of postmodern contingency, 'shit happens', or the Latin variant, 'Fex urbis, lex orbis' (Saint Jerome)." The final source I could find briefly discusses the phrase in the context of discussing Baudrillard : "Fex urbis, lex orbis (Saint Jerome)—The law of the world is made out of the feces of civilized life."). On page 46 of that source, there's also a section heading called "Fex urbis, lex sociologis", which is also about Baudrillard's work on the field of sociology. (Side note: I gave a brief listen to the metal album; it's meh.) voorts ( talk / contributions ) 20:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment If search results "yield primarily the book itself", then the search engine is not being used properly. The simplest way to exclude the book, and quotes from it, is to look for results that don't include other parts of the text, such as excluding all results that contain the word "exaspérations" and translations of that word. Like this: (

merge

Against Nature (band) : This article was created in 2007 by Nothingagainst The Sputnikmusic website tells us that it was a side-project of the band Revelation , and went on to release a number of albums and EPs under the "Against Nature" name. Encyclopaedia Metallum tells us pretty much the same Given this article's long existence on en.wp, perhaps an articles for deletion discussion might be preferable to outright speedy deletion? Please do note that I am not suggesting Sputnikmusic and Encyclopaedia Metallum are reliable sources, but they possibly hint at some possibility of a "keep" or "redirect" outcome here. That said, my ! vote is: fails WP:GNG , WP:BAND and any number of other policies and guidelines. Let's see what happens. Shirt58 ( talk ) 🦘 09:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Maryland . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I'd suggest to merge this article with that of Revelation , but 1) that article already mentions Against Nature 2) the Revelation article is also unsourced, and 3) "Revelation" is a terrible term to search for because it's not generic. Leaning delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador ( talk • contribs ) 30 June 2024 (UTC) Merge to Revelation (band) . This is an odd story, as it looks like Revelation temporarily changed their name to Against Nature then changed it back, possibly due to contractual problems forcing them to self-release new material under a different name. This article's text about how Against Nature formed is largely taken from this uncited source: [6] . They soon relaunched Revelation, and Against Nature achieved little notability as a stand-alone act, so the whole temporary hiccup in their history can be described briefly at Revelation's article. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Revelation (band) as not independently notable imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:47, 4 July 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

Vital Signs (school publication) : No independent references. If there's anything of value in this article, it can be merged to West Visayas State University . Headbomb { t · c · p · b } 18:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Philippines . Shellwood ( talk ) 18:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi, can we give the article a chance to grow itself? The Philippines is not a country of sophistication; therefore, referencing might be a problem. Maybe they can submit primary sources to back it up. Lovelovetheworld ( talk ) 05:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We don't need to be patronized. Everyone follows WP:RS . -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No independent sources, not indexed anywhere; fails WP:NJournals and WP:GNG . -- Randykitty ( talk ) 17:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or Merge with another article detailing publications within West Visayas State University 122.54.60.130 ( talk ) 07:42, 1 July 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

Daoism–Taoism romanization issue : Should be merged into Romanization of Chinese and Taoism#Terminology . The entire article could be written in one sentence: "Tao" is the Wade–Giles (1892) spelling and "Dao" is the Pinyin (1950s); Wade-Giles was once the pre-eminent romanization method, but has mostly given way to the Pinyin as the government's official method. As a talk page comment from 2008 states, the existence of this article is simply "an outgrowth of several-year-old arguments here on Wikipedia". In other words, this was a move-war over the article Taoism , using the same arguments now set out at WP:TRANSLITERATE , which says Established systematic romanizations, such as Hanyu Pinyin, are preferred. However, if there is a common English-language form of the name, then use it, even if it is unsystematic (as with Tchaikovsky and Chiang Kai-shek). We don't have articles called "Tchaikovsky – Čajkovskij romanization issue" and "Chiang Kai-shek – Jiang Jieshi romanization issue" for good reason, but if we did they would look like this one. Onceinawhile ( talk ) 09:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and China . Onceinawhile ( talk ) 09:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Romanization of Chinese -- I find nothing in this article or its sourcing that sets Tao v Dao apart from every other Romanisation discussion. There is no policy basis for this to be a standalone article. For policy rationale on delete/merge, I'd use WP:GNG via WP:CONTENTFORK (and a very stale one at that). Note for closer: If merge is not the consensus, please consider these as my reasons supporting deletion. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Tao – This is an article I feel like we have purely so that a footnote on Taoism isn't too long, yes. I would recommend merging with Tao because that article already has an extensive etymology/orthography section, and I doubt there's even any material here that should be here that shouldn't be there. Remsense 留 15:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Romanization of Chinese . No WP:GNG . The only source that comes somewhat close to covering the topic of this essay-like article is Carr (1990). That's obviously not enough for a standalone article. Most parts of the article are about general transliteration issues and simply exemplify them with what happens to 道. The last paragraph of the section "§Romanizations" has two sources where the authors/editors explain why they prefer "Daoism" over "Taoism". This content could be merged to Taoism#Spelling_and_pronunciation . – Austronesier ( talk ) 20:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Yes, the present article was partially a WP:SPINOFF , archived at " Done; I've moved the diatribe for now to Daoism versus Taoism. --Brion 22:41 Sep 3, 2002 (PDT) "; but it wasn’t "a move-war over the article Taoism ". According to the page Diffs, anonymous IPs started both articles in the same month (in the first WP-year of low-hanging articles). The Daoism versus Taoism page originated on "18:10, 1 October 2001‎ 157.178.1.xxx:" and the Taoism one on "00:11, 20 October 2001‎ 63.192.137.xxx:" It's understandable why some readers might think this article is "pointless" while others may disagree . In my admittedly subjective opinion, there's no constructive advantage in merging. Haven't researched the Daoism/Taoism debate in years and will look for some new references. Best wishes, Keahapana ( talk ) 02:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is this really a "strong keep", then? How many independent sources are there specifically discussing the romanization issue for this specific word? Specific sourcing seems scant on the article as is, and a few quick Google searches solely return what seem to be offhand parenthetical mentions of the discrepancy. There's no "debate", it's just a bit of confusion over two distinct Chinese romanization schemes. Articles shouldn't be kept because their existence is useful to some clique of editors, they should be kept because their subjects are in themselves notable. Remsense 留 02:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep . What clique? Inclusionist ? Keahapana ( talk ) 21:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keahapana , apologies, "clique" in the loosest sense of "those who feel they have to keep gesturing to it"/"those who find it has utility specifically among Wikipedia editors, rather than the article having its own encyclopedic merit". Remsense 留 17:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You appear to have ! voted twice, which is against the rules. Please change to a comment. Imaginatorium ( talk ) 09:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (I see how it could look that way, but I think their intent was to clarify for me, who was confused by the original edit summary.) Remsense 留 09:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Tao . The article suffers from extensive original research, probably a side effect of the lack of substantial secondary coverage of the issue, though there seems to be some (e.g. Carr 1990 ). I can't think of a compelling reason to spin it off rather than keep it as at most one or two paragraphs in the Tao article. (I don't think a merger to Romanization of Chinese would make as much sense, since this is about how Tao specifically is romanized, not about romanization per se.) WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 15:38, 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

Joe Higashi : Despite the effort being written, sources were mostly from trivia mentions. Also at reception section, those were full of passing mentions and of course listicles, thus showing zero WP:SIGCOV . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 13:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 13:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 13:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Fatal Fury characters . Not much to say beyond the fact that there is no significant coverage shown. Everything in reception is a trivial mention pulled from a review or list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 16:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I agree. Fails WP:GNG . Blitzfan51 the manager 16:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge fails WP:GNG but some information can be WP:PRESERVEd . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 19:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above. The person who loves reading ( talk ) 02:02, 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

Turn Red : Eternal Shadow Talk 04:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music . Eternal Shadow Talk 04:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Unlike nom says, the song passes WP:NMUSIC . A sufficient requirement is for any song to have "been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts". It has ranked 59 on Sverigetopplistan , which is not a WP:BADCHART . बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 05:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per WP:NSINGLE : Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts: Note again that this indicates only that a song maybe notable, not that it is notable . There has also been nothing that shows that the song passes WP:GNG , which supersedes WP:NMUSIC regardless. Eternal Shadow Talk 05:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : One low chart placement alone would not cut it for NMUSIC if you ask me, and this song shows no other signs of notability that I could see. The only other coverage I could find was a page on the artist on Know Your Meme, and we don't regard that as a reliable source anyway . QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 06:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What do you mean by "low chart"? WP:NSONG never said any of such but that it may be notable if it charted, probably if there's WP:SIGCOV and/or enough news coverage, or a certificate and award/nomination. dxneo ( talk ) 11:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Anyway redirect to M Dot R , and it peaked at 69 not 59. Nothing in RS whatsoever. dxneo ( talk ) 12:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Dxneo Low on the chart, as in not even in the top half and only for one week. A lot of songs can achieve that, but that doesn't mean it's an impressive or even notable chart run. Whether NSONG says anything about it or not, I still stand by it personally. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 22:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] QuietHere , unfortunately "personally" is not enough and does not override the WP:NSONG requirements. However, I doubt the article will see the light of the day, and I don't know why you voted del while there's a target page. dxneo ( talk ) 01:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to M Dot R since the single and chart info can be placed in the artist's Discography section. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 02:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to M Dot R . Not notable. Darling ☔ ( talk · contribs ) 14:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with M Dot R : Not notable per QuietHere , but chart info can be merged per बिनोद थारू . voorts ( talk / contributions ) 20:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

2020 Benishangul-Gumuz bus attack : No sustained significant coverage. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 00:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events , Terrorism , and Ethiopia . The big ugly alien ( talk ) 00:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Benishangul-Gumuz conflict , where it is mentioned. Not enough coverage to justify a standalone article, but including this information there seems reasonable. -- Kinu t / c 01:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to above target. Doesn't warrant its own article due to lack of extended coverage, but seems to warrant a mention somewhere. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 02:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Benishangul-Gumuz conflict . Although I disagree that it's wholly WP:NOTNEWS , without considerable expansion and contextualization—which would be achieved by a merge in the first place—it sits very close to it. Anwegmann ( talk ) 02:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Benishangul-Gumuz conflict . Not enough coverage for a standalone article. Ben Azura ( talk ) 01:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . If the murder of at least 34 people is not notable then what on earth is? Pure WP:SYSTEMIC . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:25, 5 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

List of ESPN College Basketball personalities : Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN . Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE . As with sources per WP:RS , there is none. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 23:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Television , and Basketball . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 23:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Trim and Merge to ESPN College Basketball#Personalities with only the most notable announcers on that list. The article on its own is good for the fandom, it is otherwise WP:LISTCRUFT . Conyo14 ( talk ) 04:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:24, 19 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

Notional results of the 2019 United Kingdom general election by 2024 constituency : As a result, this article appears to be WP:SPECULATION by presenting a single set of calculations as an alternative history. The article is based almost entirely on the researchers' spreadsheet or on the Sky News article written by one of the researchers. Per WP:NOPAGE , this topic can be adequately covered by the existing material at 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies : "In January 2024, professors Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher published detailed estimates of what the result would have been had the new boundaries been in place at the previous general election. This analysis shows the Conservatives would have won seven additional seats in 2019, with Labour losing two, the Liberal Democrats three and Plaid Cymru two." Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 14:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom . Shellwood ( talk ) 16:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Very strong keep No, these are notional results used by BBC for the upcoming election, and notional results are an essential part when new boundaries are introduced in the UK. Thomediter ( talk ) 23:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] They're addressed in detail in 2024 United Kingdom general election and also at 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies . Why do they need a WP:STANDALONE page? And why are there no other pages of notional results for other elections prior to a constituency boundary shift? Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 01:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] They're not adressed in enough detail, if the voting figures are missing, they still matter. Just because there is no page previously doesn't make the page irrelevant. There are numerous examples of this such there being a page about Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 1979 , despite there being no page about Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 1977 . Thomediter ( talk ) 12:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete (which, just to be clear, is very strong too, but we don't need to specify that). This is a fork from 2024 United Kingdom general election . That page is the correct place for an encyclopaedic treatment of the matter. What is the case for pulling this out from that page? Only to give the polling excessive detail. Why is it useful? Because there is an election in a few weeks, and people in the UK are interested in the notional results following boundary changes. But... it won't have very much relevance at all once the election takes place. There is some possibility that some aspect of the prediction will be so interesting that people will write about it one day, but they haven't yet. No secondary sourcing supports the existence of this page and it is a very clear fail of the ten year test . It is also excessive detail for an encyclopaedic article. We should summarise that in prose and link to a source with the detail. This is, essentially, a kind of news reporting. It is not an encyclopaedic article. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 06:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The notional results will ALWAYS be relevant to compare how voters changed preference from 2019 to 2024. Again, I have to point out that a lot of news organizations uses these notional results for this purpose. Thomediter ( talk ) 12:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The ten-year-test argument fails because it is already standard Wikipedia practice to use Thrasher+Rallings notionals from previous boundary reviews when calculating swings. Go to any constituency article and the swing in the 2010 results is the swing from the 2005 notionals- e.g. York Outer (UK Parliament constituency) . This is well over ten years ago. Chessrat ( talk , contributions ) 13:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The 10 year test asks whether this page, as a subject in its own right, will be relevant in 10 years. A parliamentary constituency article will be relevant in 10 years, and the 2024 general election article will be relevant in 10 years. This article forks out some projections and treats those as a subject in their own right, but they are not independently notable. The projection is of interest to pundits now, but it will only ever be independently notable if secondary sources in the future decide to treat the subject of these notional results, for some reason, separate from the election itself. That looks like the clearest of possible 10YT fails. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 13:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The list has detailed data which will be used in the election coverage. This page is increasingly important with the upcoming general election. Moondragon21 ( talk ) 15:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia is WP:NOTDATABASE , regardless of how important the data is. The data is discussed on two other pages and linked to from there for anyone who needs it. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 14:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Those that want to keep this: Are there any more sources? There's two decent enough articles talking about this, but it's marginal at the moment. SportingFlyer T · C 02:51, 4 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! 23:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am leaning towards keep , but the article should be linked to those about the 2019 election, rather than the 2024 election. This is essentially an alternative version of the 2019 results. This article is sufficiently notable as it details the results of an election. Onetwothreeip ( talk ) 23:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I do not understand the keep argument that it is an alternative version of the 2019 resuts. In that case it is a redundant fork, which is a WP:BADFORK and should be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete content fork that delves into far more detail than Wikipedia should go into for speculation on the next election. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 10:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , it's not speculation for the next election- it's an estimate of the results of the past election, which has been reported on by several major news outlets. These results will be generally used by both news organizations and Wikipedia (reflecting that use within reliable sources), for purposes such as reporting swing from 2019 to 2024 results by constituency. Chessrat ( talk , contributions ) 16:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Notional election results are not "speculation" as psephology is a precise science. Moondragon21 ( talk ) 02:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] >precise results under the new boundaries usually cannot be known as election results are not usually reported for subdivisions of constituencies. However, it is possible to estimate what the election results would have been by extrapolating from local election results for which more granular data is known Sounds like speculation to me. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 02:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is not our position to speculate on what is considered "speculation", only to follow the practice of reliable sources. Almost all reliable sources treat the Thrasher+Rallings estimates as authoritative election results, for example, a Labour win of Beckenham and Penge in the upcoming election would be reported by the media as "Labour hold" rather than "Labour gain" thanks to Thrasher and Rallings having determined it to be notionally Labour in 2019. Chessrat ( talk , contributions ) 16:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep Ideally this data would be incorporated into the individual constituency articles, rather than be in a separate list, but as long as this has not been done, it is useful to have these numbers on Wikipedia. The argument that thisis speculation is not sufficient. These numbers are used by pretty much all reliable sources covering the election even if they are only estimates. Gust Justice ( talk ) 11:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Isn't that a merge argument? If the information should be on those articles, a merge close would keep the article until the merge has been performed. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 11:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . This list/dataset is useful, but the data are available at reference number 2 in the article: spreadsheet download . I don't think Wikipedia needs to host a mirror of these data ( WP:NOTDATABASE ). Malinaccier ( talk ) 13:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies . While I understand why we may want to cover this, I just don't see how this sort of thing would be best covered in a standalone article rather than within an article with broader scope . It is important to keep in mind that WP:NOPAGE notes that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context . Those seeking deletion have argued that the topic is purely WP:SPECULATIVE or a form of alternate history, or alternatively that this is an inappropriate CFORK. Those in favor of keeping seem to argue that the data itself is valuable in some way, and should be presented on Wikipedia. I think that the data is valuable in the context of elections, and also that presenting this in its own article is worse than including it in a larger page with more context, such as could be achieved by upmerging this to my proposed target. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As nominator I would consider merge an acceptable AtD. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 01:51, 21 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

Super Junior Full House : Nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2015. PROD removed with "try AfD" and zero improvements. Donald D23 talk to me 01:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Television , and South Korea . Donald D23 talk to me 01:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Super Junior filmography#Television , where it is mentioned. Coverage, even in Korean, is scarce. ✗ plicit 02:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Real Situation Saturday . The only secondary discussion of the program I could find was [3] . :3 F4U ( they /it ) 03:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ( T • C • G • E ) 14:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Real Situation Saturday sounds more fitting, so if nobody disagrees i would start merging! Lililolol ( talk ) 19:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Lililolol wait till the AFD closes with the result is merge before merging. Lightoil ( talk ) 11:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Real Situation Saturday : As there is material suitable for a merge. Lightoil ( talk ) 11:37, 21 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

Kaszuba, Podlaskie Voivodeship : It is a small colony near Sławno . Ilawa-Kataka ( talk ) 15:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:15, 17 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! 09:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Question - @ Ilawa-Kataka : , have you considered a merge or redirect to Sławno, Podlaskie Voivodeship as an WP:ATD ? ~ Kvng ( talk ) 15:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Kvng I am absolutely appalled that I did not think of deletion alternatives—though I am experienced with Wiktionary, I have only edited Wikipedia recently. However, I think it may be better as a redirect to Gmina Dąbrowa Białostocka as it is legally distinct from Sławno, and which census area(s) include Kaszuba or where it even is, is unclear (sources consistently locate it at some empty fields, and there are no addresses for Kaszuba). Is there a way I could retract my AfDs and just do that, and would that be appropriate? Ilawa-Kataka ( talk ) 16:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think, since there are not yet any ! votes, you can retract. I'd ask Liz who recently relisted this discussion. ~ Kvng ( talk ) 17:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If possible, redirect/merge > deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:40, 28 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

Homelessness in popular culture : What we get is poorly referenced list of random works featuring homelessness . This fails MOS:TRIVIA , WP:IPC , WP:INDISCRIMINATE , WP:NOTTVTROPES , and so on. While this could be redirected to Homelessness#Popular_culture , that subsection has the same problems and should likely disappear in its current form anyway. The only salvageable part of the aricle is the short prose section "Depictions of homelessness", which I'd suggest is used to replace the current content at Homelessness#Popular_culture . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Social science . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Give "Depictions of homelessness" a new home per nom; delete the remainder. (Disclaimer: A book of mine featuring a homeless character as a semi-protagonist is currently in intermittent development.) -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 23:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to homelessness. AryKun ( talk ) 17:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Give the soon-to-be homeless prose shelter in the Popular culture section per nom and delete the random sampling of depictions as well as such profound nuggets of wisdom as "The homeless are frequently divided as either protagonists or antagonists." Clarityfiend ( talk ) 10:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge the prose portion to Homelessness per nom. No objection to recreation if enough sourced prose content can be added to make a WP:SIZESPLIT necessary. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 01:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge the first two paragraphs to main article. Otherwise we are not an exhaustive list database of depictions of common thing that appears a lot in popular media. And no, not even Wikipedia:TVTROPES is that either (see their page “people sit on chairs”). Dronebogus ( talk ) 23:26, 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

Wisdom of the Gnomes : Tagged for notability since 2021 PROD removed with "deprod; ran for 26 episodes; not an uncontroversial deletion", but nothing added to support notability. Donald D23 talk to me 03:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Comics and animation , and Spain . Donald D23 talk to me 03:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to The World of David the Gnome . Would be ideal as a section there. Hiding T 12:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to The World of David the Gnome . Unneeded CFORK that lacks sources to meet GNG. // Timothy :: talk 00:03, 2 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

Biljana Electronica : Cerebral726 ( talk ) 15:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Planet of the Bass : Not independently notable. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Covered by the NYTimes, Washington Post, and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.18.78 ( talk ) 16:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While those are reliable and independent sources, is the coverage they provide of the subject significant , separately from Plant of the Bass? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] separately from Plant of the Bass? is not a policy based qualifier and should be disregarded by anyone choosing to respond. While I understand the sentiment, it's fundamentally a non-sequitur qualifier: if an element has sigcov in context of something else, specifically a parent topic, that's still sigcov. Jclemens ( talk ) 17:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's policy in WP:INHERIT . The topic can't be deemed notable if its only claim to notability derives from the notability of another topic. The references provided may provide SIGCOV of the parent topic. Do they provide SIGCOV of this topic? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with your argument, but I also feel the need to point out that WP:INHERIT is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Sock ( tock talk) 12:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Does not appear to have enough SIGCOV. Ping me if more is found. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 17:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . ULPS ( talk • contribs ) 23:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per WP:1E . Sock ( tock talk) 12:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ImStevan ( talk ) 15:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why? QuicoleJR ( talk ) 21:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Planet of the Bass SUBWAY guy 12:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep as it is sourced and meets notability standards. Also, the character/song is very new and thus has the opportunity to expand. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 00:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , meets notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2crzppul ( talk • contribs ) Strong merge — it is absolutely not independently notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loytra ( talk • contribs ) Merge or redirect to Planet of the Bass . Keep voters do not provide any rationale. The stubby article does not meet GNG at present. Feel free to pin me if anyone wants to show which sources have SIGCOV, but pending that, as I said, redirect/merge. There is no indication sources cited focus on the character rather then the larger work. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:18, 23 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

Ness (EarthBound) : His entire reception is based around his Smash appearances, with most of it being summed up as "Ness is more known for Smash than Earthbound and is pretty fun to play." I did find this pretty good source while searching https://www.nintendojo.com/features/editorials/best-of-2012-the-church-of-ness-earthbounds-religious-overtones But I couldn't really find much more, as most discussion is just about Earthbound's plot than about Ness as a character. Given that Ness already has a section in the main Earthbound article, a merge there I feel would work as a perfect AtD, given that Ness has some legacy beyond his game, even if it isn't really enough for an article, in my book. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 20:10, 10 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 . Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 20:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge. Per nom. Ness doesn't have any notability beyond EarthBound and Super Smash Bros. His entire "concept and creation" section boils down to "he was in EarthBound" and "the player can select his favorite food and favorite thing", nothing about the actual creation of the character or even Itoi's thoughts on the character. The "Appearances" section is just describing the events of EarthBound, and his Reception is 99% Smash. Two of the sources detailing him as one of the best RPG characters are listicles and have nothing substantive. -- ThomasO1989 ( talk ) 23:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . As is noted, the actual proof of notability is pretty light. That said, I wonder if there isn't dev info, since I know Itoi talked in pretty great detail about even minor characters in Mother 3. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 23:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 23:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Ness is mostly known from Smash, but even that coverage is relatively slim. I don't see a ton of SIGCOV here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per others. Thomas put it the best though. Also Sans is Ness Conyo14 ( talk ) 20:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with the character section of Mother in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 02:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That section was literally added by you today and currently has nothing inside of it. A merge to EarthBound seems more logical, given we aren't constructing an entirely new section solely to accommodate it. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 17:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Now some stuff has been added to it as a start. Of course it was also established just in case you took the AFD on his archenemy Giygas next. -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 17:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Giygas looks fine right now, and I have no intention of nominating it. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 22:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to EarthBound#Ness per nomination. I honestly do not see the logic at all of merging this to main franchise page, rather than to the article on the game in which he was the main character, and where a section on him already exists to merge to. Rorshacma ( talk ) 21:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above. Videogameplayer99 ( talk ) 09:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Bryan Fury : GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Bosconovitch and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kunimitsu (Tekken) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlatorNator ( talk • contribs ) 23:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 11:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 11:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Tekken characters . No notability besides meaningless listicles. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 14:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Very Weak Merge to List of Tekken characters . Bryan is one of the most popular characters in Tekken series and one of the three most used characters in Tekken 7 [1] , and he is also notable for being a half cyborg. He is also very popular among professional players and audience just see views of this video. [2] 103.120.117.110 ( talk ) 17:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ https://m.youtube.com/watch? v=tgMTQ0jsXTo ^ https://m.youtube.com/watch? v=GAw5FPy5ufo Merge to List of Tekken characters . Scrapes the bottom of the barrel for reception and can't really justify a standalone article. WP:POPULARITY is not a reason to keep. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Tekken characters per above. // Timothy :: talk 02:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No merge or very weak merge to List of Tekken characters See my opinion on the delete request; Talk:Bryan_Fury#Deletion_request TheKerberos01 ( ᴛ ) 13:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you oppose deletion or merging, type "Keep" in bold. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 11:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Tekken characters. Sources are lacking and third-party reception section is scant. We've merged Mortal Kombat articles with more than this. The YouTube links below also do not establish notability. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 17:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Tekken characters per all. Once you remove the questionable sources and WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE , you're not left with enough to support an article. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 19:22, 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

2016 Pacific Rugby League Tests : CONCERN: Information here is just a copy of International rugby league in 2016 and has no unique information. Pacific games don't need there own page per size split policy . Please also see deletion discussion for Pacific Rugby League International . Mn1548 ( talk ) 17:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:13, 24 August 2023 (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/2023 August 28 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lebanon , Oceania , Australia , and New Zealand . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/Merge with International rugby league in 2016 . No need for a separate page. J Mo 101 ( talk ) 09:36, 29 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

2024 Lakki Marwat bombing : No lasting effects. Saqib ( talk ) 20:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . Saqib ( talk ) 20:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events , and Terrorism . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: "No lasting effects" seems rather early to call three days since the bombing, the day after an overnight operation resulting from it was held. There's arguments that could be made in regards to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENTS , but WP:LASTING is not the one (yet), since that one specifically states It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable , and less-than-a-week-ago is certainly recent. AddWitty NameHere 01:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] AddWittyNameHere , Noted. How about WP:TOOSOON ? — Saqib ( talk ) 06:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024 . Pakistan has so much terrorism that the odds of an individual incident getting long term coverage are slim unless it is exceptionally high profile and deadly, which this is not. However, it is notable as part of Pakistan's overall problem, so the information should be retained. This is what we did with the 100 past Pakistani terrorism articles that were AfD'd the past few months (though a few stayed their own articles) PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 07:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] PARAKANYAA , Sure - I'm fine with merge into Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024 . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 23:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the event has received WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE in international media: 9 June 2024 , 11 June 2024 , 16 June 2024 . Maybe rename the article, but such events are almost always notable due to Pakistan Army connection. I'd suggest to defer this AFD for a year so we can see the lasting impact. 103.12.120.46 ( talk ) 22:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] IP- As per this report , Pakistan witnessed as many as 245 incidents of terror attacks and counter-terror operations during the *irst quarter of 2024, resulting in 432 fatalities I'm sure each of them received similar amount of press coverage but do we need a standalone WP article on each one of them? I don't think so. This barely two paragraph long article should better be merged. WP is NOTDIRECTORY of terrorist attacks in Pakistan so we better focus on quality of our articles, not quantity. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 23:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as per above. The event does not seem to be too outstanding from other terrorist activities in Pakistan to merit its own article. Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 21:57, 18 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! 23:15, 25 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

Vathlo Island : Fails WP:GNG . The best I can find is the cited [38] (Gizmodo), but that mentions it in passing (few sentences). It has a bit of analysis but I think that's too little ( WP:SIGCOV is not met). Unless someone can find better sources (my BEFORE, as noted, failed), I can only suggest an WP:ATD-R to the List of DC Universe locations . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:25, 22 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 . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Krypton . I don't think there is enough here to pass GNG, but there is some good sourced commentary here which would make for a nice subsection about Vathlo Island on the Krypton page. Merging/redirecting to a relevant article is always preferable to me than a massive list article. Rhino131 ( talk ) 13:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge The cited The Ages of Superman does discuss Vathlo Island for several pages. In addition to the Gizmondo article, Superheroes and American Self Image and Is Superman Circumcised? , p. 231 have brief but non-trivial (and similar) analysis. In total, I think that's enough to establish notability in accordance with WP:WHYN . Daranios ( talk ) 16:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Looking again I am fine with a merge to Krypton (comics) (but not to List of DC Universe locations ), too, as much of the discussion in the secondary sources is of the relationship of the population of Vathlo Island to the rest of Kryptonian society. Not on the basis of WP:GNG but Rorshacma 's WP:NOPAGE argument. And the content then spills over into Kryptonian and Ethnic stereotypes in comics#Black . Daranios ( talk ) 16:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Krypton (comics) - The The Ages of Superman book does look like a good source, but the other available sources are pretty brief mentions. But, regardless, I do believe this is a WP:NOPAGE situation, where the topic is better covered as part of the broader subject for the added context that presenting the information in that way would provide. Rorshacma ( talk ) 22:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Battle of Shevchenkove : It lasted one day and was a minor skirmish in which the Russians hopelessly tried to stop the advancing Ukrainian forces. The contents can be easily integrated into 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive . Super Ψ Dro 15:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Russia , and Ukraine . Super Ψ Dro 15:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive . Most of the sources in the article are used for the background section. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 16:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the "Kharkiv counteroffensive" article, non-notable battle otherwise. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive , minor skirmish as part of a larger action. Mztourist ( talk ) 03:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive would be the best way to document this skirmish which was part of the counteroffensive. TH1980 ( talk ) 02:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 19:15, 3 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

Embassy of Turkey, Singapore : Sources in article are statements from the embassy, and do not address the subject - the embassy. BEFORE showed statements from the embassy, but nothing about the embassy itself from independent reliable sources. I am also nominating the following related pages Embassy of Turkey, Asmara ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) No objection to redirects to List of diplomatic missions of Turkey . // Timothy :: talk 01:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep both per WP:IAR . It's an embassy, we should certainly keep it. Otherwise, I would be fine with a Draftify result. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 01:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Singapore , and Turkey . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete both Embassies are not inherently notable. No significant independent sources to meet GNG. LibStar ( talk ) 09:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete both : No need to say "What about other embassies of Turkey". CastJared ( talk ) 13:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Following with GNG, Embassy of the United States, Asmara should be deleted as well. However the article stands to this day. Katakana546 ( talk ) 13:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, these articles should be held to the same standard. // Timothy :: talk 13:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Already nominated, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the United States, Asmara . CastJared ( talk ) 13:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . See what I wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the United States, Asmara . Embassies are usually the subject of coverage by reliable sources, but you may have to use Google Translate and offline sources to find those references. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Singapore–Turkey relations : Related content. – robertsky ( talk ) 08:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is this a decision? CastJared ( talk ) 08:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's my opinion. People will search for Turkey embassy in Singapore. A redirect to a similar content, in this case to the relations page, should suffice as a navigation aid for those who wants to know more about Turkey diplomatic relationship with Singapore. – robertsky ( talk ) 08:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into the page for the bilateral relations for the Singapore embassy. Certainly there has been extensive coverage of an early Turkish consulate in Singapore (see this ) but this does not appear to be in continuity with the modern embassy, for which there is no SIGCOV. The bilateral relations article is a good place to keep this. Note that this should have been two separate AfDs. -- GGT ( talk ) 20:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per WP:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the United States, Asmara . Brachy 08 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : This fails WP:GNG , see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS . CastJared ( talk ) 15:03, 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

List of NCAA Division III independents football records : This is a list of records for loosely-related college football team seasons. These teams are "independent" and do not belong to conferences, only joined together because they are in a division of college football together. The text in many of these templates also show up as wikitext because of improper code writing. This list was also created as a way to try avoiding deletion of the individual templates at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 June 13#Template:2023 NCAA Division III independents football records . Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Lists . Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Nothing is here connecting these records together; fails WP:NLIST . Let'srun ( talk ) 12:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Member of an already established set of pages. ( List of Division I FBS independents football standings (1973–present) , List of NCAA Division II independents football records ) Unless you plan on also nominating both of those for deletion to remain consistent. But I reckon that is not the plan since this is the only one hindering the deletion of the Division III independent templates. Thetreesarespeakingtome ( talk ) 17:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:AGF . Let'srun ( talk ) 17:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Thetreesarespeakingtome. At the very least, this article could be merged to NCAA Division III independent schools . Jweiss11 ( talk ) 03:10, 22 June 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 ) 15:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a stats sheet. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 20:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just saying - if this isn't a notable list/container article, none of the standings template pages are notable. SportingFlyer T · C 17:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I did not nominate other articles similar to this because I feel this one in particular is the least notable, and I don't agree that everything else would have to be deleted as a result of this discussion. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS would apply. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:58, 2 July 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

Copa 50imo Aniversario de Clarín : Lack of Wikipedia:Notability . This "cup" was not a tournament or recurring sports event but just a friendly match between Brazil and Argentina with no significative historic relevance for any of them. Although this article has several reliable sources, most of them refer to the Clarín newspaper (main sponsor) and the presence of forward Tulio Maravilha (who had scored a goal with his hand in the 1995 Copa América – source: here ) rather than the match itself. This page could be merged into Argentina national football team results (1980–1999) which lists all the matches of the side during that period. Fma12 ( talk ) 19:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football , Argentina , and Brazil . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Alternatively merge/redirect to Argentina–Brazil football rivalry . Giant Snowman 10:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge selectively into Argentina–Brazil football rivalry . The match itself doesn't pass WP:GNG , but merge an redirect to general rivalry article is fine, and similar to the recent AFD for 150th Anniversary Heritage Match , which was also a non-notable friendly match. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Part merge and redirect per Joseph. I also feel that prose should be added to Argentina national football team results (1980–1999) about the match, the article is pretty barren on prose. Govvy ( talk ) 13:11, 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

Vilémov u Šluknova railway station : It's not even a building, just a stop on request. The timetable is not a sufficient reference and there are no others. FromCzech ( talk ) 12:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Czech Republic . FromCzech ( talk ) 12:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Vilémov (Děčín District) in a "transportation" section, seems pretty straightforward. – filelakeshoe ( t / c ) 🐱 12:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The station building is just an unstaffed shelter. I would guess, though, that when the line opened in 1904, there was a bigger building with at least one employee and possibly several. Perhaps the original building was damaged by fire or military action, or perhaps the railway company just let the building deteriorate. Even if a station is only a shelter or a signpost, there's a good chance that it was once a staffed building. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 15:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's pure speculation and unhelpful. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 16:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, it's speculation, and that's why I didn't ! vote keep at this point. I was pointing out a possible path of research for someone with access to offline or paywalled sources. The topic of a station covers not only its present configuration but how it existed in the past. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 16:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Vilémov (Děčín District) - Looking on Google Earth the shelter doesn't appear to have existed in 2000 so unless the "station" was at a different location then the shelter is new, Anyway fails GNG (can't find anything under it's Czech name), sources in the article aren't reliable sources - just a timetable and what seems to be personal blogs). – Davey 2010 Talk 17:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Vilémov (Děčín District)#Transport . Kudos to Eastmain for putting in the sources. The station apparently dates back to 1904 when the line was constructed and was called Wölmsdorf, as was the village. I've checked what's on German Wikipedia and didn't find a separate article for the station. It is noted as a stopping point on the Rumburk-Sebnitz railway line . The modern shelter looks to have replaced a bigger structure sometime between 2012 and 2019 per Google Streetview. Haven't found sources sufficient to establish notability for the station therefore as an alternative to deletion suggest merging to the village the station serves. An official railway timetable helps prove the station exists but doesn't satisfy GNG. Rupples ( talk ) 00:55, 5 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

Statue of Ma Zhanshan : Existence of art outdoors is not automatic notability and no basis to remove a prod without addressing the unacceptable lack of sources and GNG failure. Features in a park can also be included in the park article without stand-alone articles. Reywas92 Talk 03:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and China . Reywas92 Talk 03:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Page creator here, open to speedy merge/redirect to List of public art in Shanghai . @ Reywas92 : Does this work for you? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes that's fine. Reywas92 Talk 03:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, if you withdraw here, I'm happy to redirect or let an admin complete on our behalf if that's the preferred process. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Another Believer , one important thing with these articles is to assure that the photo of the statue is on the redirect page. Prod deletions lose the images, so prod-prone editors should place the images on the pages before prodding. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 12:24, 15 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

KIWB-LD : Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 18:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Idaho . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 18:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge details into KKJB , which is Cocola Broadcasting 's full-power station in Boise; this cluster is better served with one article detailing the LPTV sisters in a shortened table form below KKJB's info. Nate • ( chatter ) 19:41, 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

Flindt Landing : I would have boldly redirected, however it was recently deprodded based on the existence of sources for the VIA Rail station and a nearby camp. – dlthewave ☎ 21:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . – dlthewave ☎ 21:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 22:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Flindt Landing station. Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 23:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Flindt Landing station. Suggest a lead sentence for the merged article of "Flindt Landing railway station is a railway point REFERENCE using {{ CGNDB }} with CGNDB parameter FBEJH and railway station etc." -- papageno ( talk ) 03:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Before agreeing with merge or redirect, what is the notability for an article of Flindt Landing station ? It appears to be a train station where one can alight to camp and go fishing in the wilds. Is that suitable for an encylopaedic article? Wouldn't that be better included in a more general article? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Its pretty marginal but its better than Flindt Landing, if it turns out not to be notable then we can just continue to roll the snowball. Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 15:53, 20 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

Generation Z and the Israel–Hamas war : In some senses, it reads more like an WP:ESSAY in highlighting a particular demographic; a more encyclopedic treatment would be something like "Opinion polling of the Israel-Hamas war". The second section, on social media trends, is also heavy with WP:OR as almost none of the sources specifically mention Generation Z. (The article's assumption seems to be that TikTok users are GenZ, but building that assumption into the article without sources is original research.) To salvage the encyclopedic content, I propose to merge content from the first section into International reactions to the Israel–Hamas war#Opinion polling and Political views of Generation Z#Israel–Hamas_war . Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 14:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with International reactions to the Israel–Hamas war#Opinion polling : per OP. I'd considered starting an AFD myself. It does appear to be very essay-like, and may have issues of WP:SYNTH . — Czello ( music ) 14:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom. There seems to loads of WP:OR in the article and reads like a high school essay. TikTok is stereotyped with Gen Z, but is not exclusive with the opinion pieces as noted in the article. If anything, it would be TikTok and the Israel–Hamas war , though I doubt that would be any more notable than this. (Ping if sources found). Conyo14 ( talk ) 16:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel , Palestine , and United States of America . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll refrain from leaving a bolded ! vote in this discussion as pinging me in the nomination may have been slightly out of process. However, I'll note that the concerns I shared on the talk page a couple months ago and that have been echoed by the nominator have not been addressed. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 22:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, not trying to go out of process, just crediting your observations during the review process! Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 22:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Political views of Generation Z#Israel–Hamas_war and/or International reactions to the Israel–Hamas war#Opinion polling per the nom. I agree that the article is very essay-like and has a lot of WP:OR. Some1 ( talk ) 22:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per the arguments made above; differentiating the content to be merged from the (probably overwhelming) amount of content to be deleted will take time, but it’s probably better than just deleting it all. FortunateSons ( talk ) 23:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per NOTNEWS. While I commend the nominator for suggesting an ATD, in this case, the amount of coverage elsewhere is sufficient for the surveys and already excessive for Political views of Generation Z . gidonb ( talk ) 23:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with International reactions to the Israel–Hamas war#Opinion polling . Hogo-2020 ( talk ) 10:11, 20 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

Dhakota Williams : Majority the linked sources are all 1 source in actuality (News Corp media), and are generally sensationalised and/or not encyclopedic for wikipedia. This BLP only has association with Carl Williams (criminal) , which is all the subject is known for. There is no other source or media that demonstrates independent notability. Tytrox ( talk ) 11:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions . Grahame ( talk ) 03:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per WP:NOTINHERITED . All the media mentions of her include her father. LibStar ( talk ) 03:54, 16 July 2023 (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/2023 July 17 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Only sourcing I find is the Daily Mail and news.au, both of which are non-RS. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge (but trim first) with Carl Williams . Extremely superficial coverage in tabloids, but sufficient to justify some reference in the Carl William's page. Cabrils ( talk ) 08:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Notability is largely WP:INHERITED from her father. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:16, 21 July 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! 16:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe ( t / c ) 🐱 21:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED . Not convinced by the merge ! votes, as there is no relevance between her and her late father other than biology. I don't think it's appropriate for her to have a section or paragraph on that page and I wouldn't suggest a redirect either. At this time, she isn't really notable in her own right so I don't think it warrants any kind of article. Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 20:32, 7 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

Disappearance of Gaynor Lord : A case of missing white woman syndrome . voorts ( talk / contributions ) 22:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom . voorts ( talk / contributions ) 22:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The sources used here are The Guardian, BBC News, ITV News, and The Independent - not a single one which is a tabloid. WP:SENSATIONAL does not apply. 9News, the last source used, could be a tabloid, but even if it was, broad coverage by non-tabloids has been demonstrated. Furthermore, missing white woman syndrome isn't a valid reason to dismiss an article because 1) the term is used to highlight that non-white women deserve more coverage, not that white women deserve less, and 2) it's not Wikipedia's job trying to fix social issues. Cortador ( talk ) 23:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with everything @ Cortador said. There is, to my knowledge, no such as thing as WP: Missing White Women Syndrome even if this concept denotes a very real thing. Wickster12345 ( talk ) 08:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per my comment above. Wickster12345 ( talk ) 08:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTNEWS , WP:N , and WP:NEVENTS . All sources are primary sources that amount to routine news coverage. Notability requires secondary sources. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 23:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of solved missing person cases: post-2000 per the same argument. I was not aware that the target page existed, but this is the optimal solution for these one-off incidents with no historical significance. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 00:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . To add to my rationale, this article fails WP:NOTNEWS . It is a run-of-the-mill missing person case that lacks persistence beyond the news cycle and will not have a lasting effect, beyond her friends and family. I also agree with Thebiguglyalien. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 23:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of solved missing person cases: post-2000 where it can be sufficiently covered. It was, after all, a high-profile case while the search for her was ongoing. This is Paul ( talk ) 00:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I support this option; I had no idea that list existed. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 00:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as per above Mr Vili talk 00:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of solved missing person cases: post-2000 , as proposed by User:This is Paul . Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 03:01, 20 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

Otacon : My WP:BEFORE searches on WP:VG/SE , Google Books, and Google Scholar didn't seem to demonstrate anything that wasn't either plot summaries on analysis' on the themes of Metal Gear Solid 2. Would love to be proven wrong here, but Otacon unfortunately does not seem to be a character with standalone notability. Negative MP1 18:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Negative MP1 18:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I found some possible examples of reception in reliable sources, but it may not be enough. I couldn't find anything major about him. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Characters of the Metal Gear series . The source is made up of very little significant commentary other than listicles and even Zx's sources don't seem like enough to save it. I feel there is some content worth merging though, hence why I believe this is a good AtD. It's a shame, since it feels like there would be a lot more analysis given Otacon's character in the series, but alas. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 21:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I don't feel lime the sources presented above would be enough. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 12:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I wasn't able to find much either. I feel the assertion Pokelego made is correct. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 19:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Characters of the Metal Gear series , does not seem like he is independently notable with the sources I could find. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

List of military engagements of World War II : Should be merged with List of World War II battles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antny08 ( talk • contribs ) 12:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , it's certainly remarkable we've had WP:CFORKs on this topic for so many years. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 14:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom or possibly rename List of World War II battles by year (because List of World War II battles is rather long) and also rename the other list as List of World War II battles by theater . Clarityfiend ( talk ) 20:29, 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

The Miniature Killer : A quick Google search doesn't give sources that prove notability to the character. Spinixster (chat!) 01:21, 16 July 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 Television . Spinixster (chat!) 01:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : The source you're talking about ( The devil is in ‘CSI’s’ details ) should be included in the List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters for the Miniature Killer. The rest of the article is only filler and doesn't need it's own article. Conyo14 ( talk ) 17:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd like to see if there is more support for a Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters . There are not enough sources for notability. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 21:28, 28 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

Ralf Jones : Most of the sources you can find are just what you called "routine trailer coverage". Failing WP:GNG . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Ikari Warriors . I agree that this character fails GNG. Small mentions in reviews cannot be cobbled together to support notability of a character, it goes against the entire tenets of significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Zxcvbnm. Tintor2 ( talk ) 14:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , reception section doesn't really speak to his notability in any meaningful way. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 07:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as an WP:ATD . Reception isn't sufficient for a separate article. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 03:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . Mentioning a character in a game review doesn't mean notability for the character but for the game. ULPS ( talk ) 17:32, 18 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

Virtual Pool 4 : Lots of sources in the article but no reliable, significant coverage. Only candidate I found is a Softpedia review: [2] (listed as a "situational source" by WP:VG/S ) but even if it would be counted, 1 review wouldn't be enough. Mika1h ( talk ) 20:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Mika1h ( talk ) 20:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Virtual Pool as a WP:ATD . Couldn't really find anything of note. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 20:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep since there is signifant coverage in multiple independent reviews (findable in a few seconds (albeit amid some chaff) [3] [4] . More of these reviews need to be added to the article, and some iffy sourcing replaced, but that's a WP:IMPATIENT matter. At bare minimum, it should merge to Virtual Pool ; there's not an actual deletion case here. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Mind singling out the actual reviews from reliable sources? I couldn't find them, much less in a "few seconds". If you put them here that would be much easier. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 04:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just tooling around for a few minutes, I find the following reviews, at sites that don't appear to be user forums (that said, I'm not an expert in what gaming-related sites we consider good enough to cite): https://gertlushgaming.co.uk/review-virtual-pool-4-steam/ https://www.giantbomb.com/virtual-pool-4/3030-41158/ https://game-solver.com/virtual-pool-online/ - online version https://toucharcade.com/games/virtual-pool-4 https://tallyhocorner.com/2023/05/3x3-18/ - about half-way down the review page here https://guysplaypool.com/best-pool-game-on-pc-or-smartphone/ https://www.saashub.com/compare-pool-nation-vs-virtual-pool-4 - in comparison to competing game Pool Nation https://gizorama.com/2014/review/pure-pool-review - in comparison to competing game Pure Pool https://www.uubyte.com/blog/kick-shot-pool-review-a-game-changing-experience-for-billiards-enthusiasts/ - briefly, in comparison to competing game Kick Shot Pool https://www.topsevenreviews.com/best-8-ball-pool-games/ - very short https://macdownload.informer.com/virtual-pool-4-online/ - might be based on the game marketing, not sure https://www.dadsgamingaddiction.com/virtual-pool-4/ - might just be one guy's blog https://povpool.com/virtual-pool-4-officially-releases-online/ - review at site devoted to pool/billiards media http://www.pro9.co.uk/html/print.php? sid=2606 - review at site for professional 9-ball tournament news http://www.pro9.co.uk/html/print.php? sid=1516 - ditto, and in-depth about some features, and comparison to VP3 https://www.pcgamebenchmark.com/virtual-pool-4-system-requirements - technical benchmarking https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Minds_Behind_Sports_Games/3-n5DwAAQBAJ? hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Virtual+Pool+4%22&pg=PA60&printsec=frontcover - covered by name (the online version) as part of the franchise in a book, THe Minds Behind Sports Games What's missing is coverage in the top gaming-review sites, since they seem to not be big into games in this genre (not enough gore and explosions?) Lee Vilenski, below, is probably correct that pool magazines ( Inside Pool , Billiard Digest , etc.) would probably have covered this with reviews around when the came out, but I'm not subscribed to any of them any longer; someone able to do detailed periodical searches, probably through a university library system, might be able to find them. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Giantbomb source you listed is a wiki that fails WP:USERG . (The article literally has a "last edited by [username] on it" note on it.) Can't comment on any others - as much as I know most of WP:VG/S by heart, I've never heard of most of the rest of those sources... Sergecross73 msg me 22:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - so I don't really know about this one. I've done a search about this before, but I know it gets a mention in this book , which makes me think it's probably got some genre specific sources out there - it's the sort of thing that pool magazines probably covered to death when it came out, but I don't have anything from America at that time (I doubt Snooker Scene covered it). It's clear that we don't have any VG specific RS for reviews, or they would show up through metacritic. I would however, be confused if it didn't have enough in-depth coverage due to the series it is from. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs ) 08:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] these two sources are just press releases] but this is the sort of thing I would be expecting. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs ) 08:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Virtual Pool . The review sources provided above do not include accepted reliable secondary sources of the type identified in WP:VG/S . It's important to avoid collating indiscriminate collections of information from various blogs and enthusiast sites that aren't verifiable or haven't been subject to editorial review. Whilst these sort of sources can sometimes supplement others to help establish an article is notable, if there simply isn't coverage from reliable mainstream secondary sources, it shouldn't pass the threshold for notability. Unfortunately, some of the more mainstream websites linked, such as TouchArcade and GiantBomb are descriptions of the game and lack independent reviews. As it currently stands, I don't think the sources, either in the article or linked above, illustrate notability. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 02:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Virtual Pool as a proper alternative to deletion. I have searched a lot for this, but I haven't been able to find much beyond listings, unreliable blogs (Pro9's coverage might be the only thing close to reliable source) and store links. Doesn't meet WP:GNG . Jovanmilic97 ( talk ) 10:15, 29 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

Mel Wasserman : 1keyhole ( talk ) 21:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ohio . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge this older version to CEDU . The reference in the book by Paris Hilton potentially establishes notability, but most of the references are more about CEDU than Wasserman. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 21:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to CEDU . Not enough for a stand-alone article. — Maile ( talk ) 00:03, 13 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

Jinpachi Mishima : GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Selectively to List of Tekken characters . His reception is a joke and clearly fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE . Wikipedia is not FANDOM. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 23:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or merge per above. The reception is, as pointed above, indeed a joke - a bunch of listicles placement plus the claim to fame in the form of "having one of the best mustaches in video games". Nope. Nope. Nope nope nope. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Merge to List of Tekken characters . There is nothing here showing any notability. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 13:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Tekken characters . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 06:06, 18 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

Family Court (Ireland) : Fails WP:GNG . Could be merged.... somewhere... if sources are found. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Organizations , and Ireland . UtherSRG (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . While I haven't yet completed a full WP:BEFORE sources/notability check, at first glance (and as noted by the nom themselves), I'm not sure that outright deletion is likely to be an appropriate outcome here. (Perhaps a retitle, to cover family law in Ireland generally, including seemingly impending reform , which has received relatively significant coverage [18] [19] [20] , might be in order). Otherwise, at the very least (and noting that Circuit Family Court already redirects to Circuit Court (Ireland)#Circuit Family Court ), perhaps something similar could be done here. Which would also be consistent with some of the other members of the related DAB title ... In the meantime at least. Guliolopez ( talk ) 00:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Courts of the Republic of Ireland . This article on the fringes of notability would be better off as part of the proposed target, which currently is only at 1,346 words (see WP:SIZESPLIT ). Per WP:CRYSTAL , this court has been going through its birth pangs for 50 years, and still seems to not exist yet as a distinct entity. Stony Brook babble 21:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Per above. Additional discussion of the proposed merge target (or of course, of any other views) would be quite helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as proposed. Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 20:23, 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

Emoji (Ronny J and XXXTentacion song) : PROD removed without explanation. Deauthorized . ( talk ) 08:01, 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 . Deauthorized . ( talk ) 08:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Ronny J as WP:ATD . — siro χ o 08:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Ronny J : All I could find was this and I don't know what this is, a shame such big names did not make the news. dxneo ( talk ) 12:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to XXXTentacion , as all I could find with a GNews search were news pieces simply announcing the song's release. In the few years after his death, songs recorded by him were still being released and having a good chart run, but if this is any indication, that seems to have run dried. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 15:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Consensus for redirecting has been established, however, it is unclear which article it should be redirected to… Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] CycloneYoris , looking at recent recording by Ronny J, they are released by the labels Listen Up Forever Record and Create Music Group Inc, same as the this song here. I think it's only fair if it is redirected to Ronny J. dxneo ( talk ) 17:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge either to Ronny J or XXXTentacion --- Tumbuka Arch ★ ★ ★ 12:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Tumbuka Arch , per what reasons? dxneo ( talk ) 23:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Dxneo there are very less sources mentioning or discussing this. Apart from this site which you have already pointed, it's all I could find too. I don't see much of the other reliable sites covering it. While the individuals may be legends or whatsoever, however, on Wikipedia, we go by reliable sources to support a subject to be a standalone article.-- Tumbuka Arch ★ ★ ★ 00:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Tumbuka Arch , at this point I believe the article has already drowned so my question is actually on WP:AtD , why merging rather than redirecting? dxneo ( talk ) 00:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for practical reasons. There is no primary redirect target as either Ronny J or XXXTentacion could be the target. There is therefore a valid navigational need to keep the article. The content's verifiable to cited sources so I don't see that keeping a short article is detrimental in anyway to the encyclopedia even if the references don't rise to the level of significant coverage that we require per GNG. A disambiguation page could be created in place of an article as an alternative; although I think the current version of the article would better service wikipedia's readers. Best. 4meter4 ( talk ) 20:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 4meter4 , not having a target to redirect to is not a valid reason to an article that does not pass the mininum requirements listed under WP:NMUSIC . At this point a fair redirect target is Ronny J as this single was released through his now record label(s). dxneo ( talk ) 20:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ dxneo Actually it is entirely valid per our policies at Wikipedia:Disambiguation and more specifically WP:NOPRIMARY . Notability policy does not trump disambiguation policy or our policy language in relation to redirects; nor does it supersede our policies on content forks. Navigation needs are a valid reason to keep an article; although it may mean adapting the article into a disambiguation page. But as I stated above, WP:COMMONSENSE in this case makes an article page more useful than a dab page in this case. Otherwise we create a DAB page which links to both primary targets, and then merge the content into both articles and create an redundant WP:CONTENTFORK . To my mind keeping the article is an easier and prefereble solution. We have WP:IAR as a policy for a reason; particularly when practical solutions are better than strictly following policy language. 4meter4 ( talk ) 20:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 4meter4 , creating a DAB which links both primary targets seems like a good way to go. Thank you . dxneo ( talk ) 20:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not sure why you are thanking me.. . A disambiguation page is a workable solution, but as I stated I prefer keeping the article as opposed to creating a dab page and merging identical content into two separate article per our policy on content forks. 4meter4 ( talk ) 21:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm also opposed to keeping the article, sooner or later someone is going to tag it for deletion once again. dxneo ( talk ) 21:05, 24 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

Ance (given name) : This name fails WP:NNAME and WP:GNG . Hardly any information or reliable sources found online. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 00:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Useful and referenced with several bearers of the name who could potentially be the subject of future articles. Expandvand improve articles; do not delete them. Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 01:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Two of the redlinks were recently created and were immediately draftified for lack of sources demonstrating notability. Even so, it can always be recreated if articles about people with the name come along in the future. And what if an article can't be expanded? Like I said, I can hardly find reliable sources online. Being referenced doesn't mean much if the sources don't demonstrate notability. "Useful" is quite an arbitrary description. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 03:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There really is no good reason to delete instead of improving it or deleting it so someone else will have to come along and recreate it. The point of an encyclopedia is to expand knowledge, not to remove it from view. Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 05:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply Yes, to expand knowledge on encyclopedic subjects. I will try to convince you once again to read WP:NOTEVERYTHING , especially WP:NOTDICT . AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 00:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This, as far as I can tell, is encyclopedic and has the potential to be improved. If it is not inherently wrong or unreferenced, an article should not be deleted. Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 07:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply What's inherently wrong is that it's not notable. I can't find any reliable sources that contain information not already in the article. If you think it can be improved, why don't you do it? Your beliefs essentially go against the essence of Wikipedia, and all of your arguments have been ignoring rules. If you don't like the rules, you can try to change them elsewhere; they are valid as they stand. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 22:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As I did elsewhere, I'll call attention to WP:IAR , a policy which also exists, and associated policies. I'd say that some of the policies mentioned here are getting in the way of maintaining a quality encyclopedia and are increasing the bureaucracy and probably having the effect of discouraging editing on what is supposed to be a free encyclopedia created by collaborative volunteers. There are likely ways to improve this article without deleting it altogether. Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 17:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply Notability is bureaucratic? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 00:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability is pretty arbitrary as is, admittedly, my perception that it is notable and useful. If it’s factually wrong, of course it should be corrected or improved, amended, etc. . If someone just doesn’t think it fits the guidelines (which have never been set in stone), maybe someone should take a closer look at whether that guideline is actually useful. Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 03:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:ITSUSEFUL Industrial Insect (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply There may be some room for arbitrary-ness, yes, but I think these articles pretty blatantly fail the guidelines. I guess you're right that they've never been set in stone, but these ones have been used and widely accepted for some years now. AfDs aren't a roundabout way to challenged guidelines/policies either. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 04:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:IAR and its related policies are also policies like the ones you’re quoting here and they are intended to keep legalism from getting in the way of creating or maintaining an encyclopedia. I assume we agree that articles that are unreferenced or are factually incorrect should be deleted if the information can’t be corrected and linked to reliable sources. We might disagree over what constitutes a reliable source as we do on notability, but that’s the standard I would say is set in stone. The information must be accurate. As far as I can discern, this article and the others you want to delete are indeed accurate and can probably be improved upon, which makes deleting them inappropriate under a reasonable standard. Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 17:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply Yes, we agree on the second part. Accuracy is set in stone, yes, but as is notability. Notability may be a bit more subjective and flexible, but it is a cornerstone of Wikipedia and current guidelines are generally community consensus. They could change in the future but that possibility doesn't make it appropriate to keep them now. On a side note, I feel like this page is getting butchered by the length of this debate. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 04:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify - Appears to be common and notable at a glance but article doesn’t cite any sources. WilsonP NYC ( talk ) 02:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:33, 16 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! 00:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply to Wilson. "At a glance". Yes, but commonness doesn't necessarily demonstrate notability. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 06:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:IAR is also one of the foundational rules here and I would say deleting an article that could potentially be improved will get in the way of maintaining a quality encyclopedia. This is important enough to get right, regardless of the length of the debate. Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 01:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply Yes, I agree that IAR is an important rule, but I don't find it any less arbitrary than notability; in fact, it is probably more so. As I've said before, improving an article is only an option if the subject is notable, which these subjects, when comparing them to criteria laid out by the project and approved by the community, I do not believe meet those guidelines. I am not a deletionist nor an inclusionist; I simply look at the rules and attempt to get people to enforce them, I do not discriminate against users, and I know hardliners who would have wanted many more of your articles deleted, but I do not. Wikipedia just isn't a collection of indiscriminate information, trivia or definitions. As I see it, we're at a deadlock. You wouldn't want an article made on every name in existence, would you? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 05:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Fails MOS:DABNOMENTION as a disambiguation article without a single existing article. Geschichte ( talk ) 10:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply Not exactly a disambiguation page, but yes, same idea, fails WP:NNAME . AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 06:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I believe it would be a wonderful idea if the linked entries on the page will established individually as articles on En wiki. Alayyop ( talk ) 15:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It would , but this is not the case. Geschichte ( talk ) 12:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hey, um, can someone maybe strike this down as a vote from a sockpuppet? User:Liz , maybe? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 06:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just letting whoever is reviewing this know that this vote should be discounted as it is from a now-blocked sockpuppet. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 01:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Struck. BD2412 T 03:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Anica , of which this is a regional variation (see Stuart Wilson (2015). Simply the Best Baby Name Book . p. 55. ISBN 1447265971 . ). There are a wide variety of names derived from diminutives of the classic Greek name Anna, including this one as well as Ancia, Anka, Anika, and Anicka. Information about these names can be presented in a single place, and, importantly, does not require the presence of a notable person with the name for the name itself to be notable. BD2412 T 03:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ WilsonP NYC and Geschichte : Would the proposed merge satisfy your concerns? BD2412 T 03:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you proposing that all related names be merged? That would be a hard pass from me, as it would be more messy and verge on failing WP:SYNTH - just look at Anika which jumbles together names of different origin. Geschichte ( talk ) 08:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am proposing that these two articles, for which a source identifies a common name origin, be merged. This is rather the opposite of the situation with "Anika". BD2412 T 14:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you proposing something like what happened with Antė ? My only concern is that it would be strange to just list this one variant without any notable people under the name, and there is not much information to merge here. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 03:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC) AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 03:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think much more information is needed. It is obviously a name in use, with a sourceable etymology connecting it to another name sharing that etymology. If not merged, I would opt to keep rather than delete altogether. The presence of notable people sharing an attested name should be of no more significance than the presence or absence of notable people living in an attested town. BD2412 T 03:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't necessarily agree with that last sentence but I don't feel like getting into all that right now so I could endorse a merge if we listed relevant cognates and variants, such as those aforementioned. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 04:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @BD2412. You were the one who brought up Anika. And are you sure that "Simply the Best Baby Name Book" is an ideal source? The name sounds somewhat frivolous. Geschichte ( talk ) 07:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Geschichte : I thought that as well, but in the introduction to the book, the author describes a meticulous and scientific process of examining names, and cites the work of other experts, so I am satisfied that despite the marketing-ready title, the work is sound. BD2412 T 19:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Geschichte : Do you find this an agreeable proposal? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 00:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I support merging to Anica per BD2412. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 06:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I wouldn’t be opposed to this, though I kind of agree with Geschichte, but I’m not sure that Anika is the best analogy. Anything is better than it being kept at this point, as it seems like this AfD may go towards no consensus. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 16:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And it would be kind of awkward to just have Ance there unless we added more variants. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 16:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There are a lot of options being put forward here, and I'm not seeing a consensus yet. Also, as a courtesy note, there is no need to bold the word "reply" each time one replies to someone else; the line indentation serves the purpose of indicating which comments were being replied to. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I was not aware of this, thank you for telling me. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 03:33, 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

Bonathorne railway station : At present, this train station does not seem to pass GNG. The two sources cited are routine coverage. A quick Google search did not provide better coverage. Significa liberdade ( talk ) 05:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to South Western railway line, Queensland , which should really have an overview of every station on the line. I wouldn't object to Dirranbandi, Queensland as the merge target either. Thryduulf ( talk ) 07:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . Other stations where there is little information or notability usually go on the line's page. MarkiPoli ( talk ) 13:23, 13 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

BISU Visual Identity : We tend to have articles on university colors only for those with a significant history and influence (e.g. Oxford Blue (colour) ), which is unlikely to be the case for a system introduced in 2003. I was unable to find any secondary sources, although perhaps someone who speaks Chinese could confirm. {{u| Sdkb }} talk 21:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Beijing International Studies University as nom. {{u| Sdkb }} talk 21:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts , Advertising , Education , and China . {{u| Sdkb }} talk 21:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Minimal merge to above target, perhaps a single sentence would be the right amount given reliance on primary sources. — siro χ o 01:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See also related AfDs for UCLA Blue , Tufts Blue , and RISD Blue . I tagged Carolina blue for notability, as it's a little more borderline. {{u| Sdkb }} talk 01:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:52, 1 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

Nordic cross skating : Boleyn ( talk ) 11:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 12:17, 7 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! 06:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Roller skiing . While there are multiple sources, some very detailed (see, for example, [66] ), it is hard to distinguish from Nordic blading . -- Викидим ( talk ) 09:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions . Owen× ☎ 12:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Roller skiing#Nordic blading . Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:16, 19 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

2018–19 Oregon Battle of the Books controversy : Local incident that had no lasting or widespread impact. The competition involved in this controversy ( Oregon Battle of the Books ) also appears to be non-notable. However, the incident is worthy of a short mention at Melissa (novel) , so relevant information should be merged there. Astaire ( talk ) 04:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Oregon and Literature . Astaire ( talk ) 05:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 08:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Melissa (novel)#Reception , which seems to already have a subsection about this very controversy. I don't see independent notability in the controversy, and even if it were marginally notable I'd think it better to cover this article's subject in the context of a broader article where more context can be provided . — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:35, 21 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! 05:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Melissa (novel) per above. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 06:34, 21 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

Ageism against Joe Biden : Numerous claims look to be backed up by singular sources and/or "making sources fit the narrative". Can't move to draft due to existing rejected draft. Suggest this be deleted (relatively quickly given it relates to a living person). Rambling Rambler ( talk ) 19:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Politics . Rambling Rambler ( talk ) 19:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong delete/merge this clearly falls within Public image of Joe Biden and having its own article is WP:UNDUE - there isn't a separate article regarding racism towards Obama which was much more egregious. LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) 19:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep WP: NPOV does not mean false balance. Medical experts have widely described the claims as baseless. WP: BLP also requires this. Article meets WP: GNG . ShirtNShoesPls ( talk ) 19:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The only medical experts who can actually make an assessment in a clinical setting literally work for the White House and their statements are super polished. LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) 19:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Medical experts have widely described the claims as baseless Exactly two medical professionals are cited for this claim. That is nothing close to widely. Russian propaganda and members of the far-right have made multiple ageist attacks and age-related conspiracy theories against Joe Biden. is nowhere near sourced enough (the only source having been for believed Russian interference in 2020) to make the claim. Psychologists, political scientists, economists, historians, and other medical experts have described these ageist claims as forms of disinformation and misinformation was sourced by a single article with an interview with older voters, so is completely WP:OR . That is woefully failing policies on NPOV, for this very slanted article that read like "these are conspiracies that have been dismissed by professional associations", and is doubly concerning given the article is about the abilities of a living person. Rambling Rambler ( talk ) 19:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Public image of Joe Biden#Age and health concerns : There's already some coverage of the topic there, could just add the decent bits of this article to this existing coverage (and redirect there) 🔥HOT m̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃ 🔥 ( talk ・ edits ) 20:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as suggested above is fine, this is an extension of that idea, not otherwise widely discussed. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above. The article fails WP:NPOV and the content spread is one-sided, but in the main article, it can work. Conyo14 ( talk ) 20:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete — I rarely support deletion, but the current title is not acceptable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree about the title being unacceptable, but WP:NOTCLEANUP . 🔥HOT m̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃ 🔥 ( talk ・ edits ) 21:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Might not be cleanup, but think it'd have to be a merge without leaving a redirect because of how openly non-neutral the title is. Rambling Rambler ( talk ) 21:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] good point. 🔥HOT m̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃ 🔥 ( talk ・ edits ) 22:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirects are allowed to be non-neutral; see WP:RNEUTRAL . Elli ( talk | contribs ) 23:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] They are allowed in extremely limited circumstances, namely according to the reasons listed which revolve around verifiability of a common non-neutral name. "Ageism against Joe Biden" is a made-up descriptor by an editorialising user. Rambling Rambler ( talk ) 14:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That is not what RNEUTRAL says (and whether this should exist as a redirect is really better to discuss at WP:RfD , assuming this gets closed in favor of deletion or redirection). Elli ( talk | contribs ) 04:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] uh, it quite literally does: "The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms." So the article of this title very much doesn't fall into the acceptable realms of "non-neutral redirect" given "Ageism against Joe Biden" isn't a common term or substantiated in reliable sources. Rambling Rambler ( talk ) 21:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Point 2 clearly allows situations similar to this. Again, though, this isn't really a debate for AfD. Elli ( talk | contribs ) 19:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It allows it but it's still within the confines of the non-neutral term being a common subject or term used in reliable sources. That doesn't apply here for "ageism against Joe Biden". Rambling Rambler ( talk ) 20:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as noted above. This is a weird niche of anti-Biden disinformation, and it does not seem to warrant standalone coverage. Zaathras ( talk ) 21:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Public image of Joe Biden#Age and health concerns per HotMess and others above. Fails WP:NPOV , WP:DUE , and WP:NOPAGE . Sal2100 ( talk ) 22:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as per above SKAG123 ( talk ) 01:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to suggested page, or Delete . As it stands, the page appears to fail NPoV. GoodDay ( talk ) 21:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete As per nom. Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 11:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. Nothing useful here. Riposte97 ( talk ) 23:18, 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

Count Baltar : QuicoleJR ( talk ) 16:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy . QuicoleJR ( talk ) 16:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Battlestar Galactica (1978 TV series) . He has plenty of mentions in book sources, but they all seem trivial and largely in relation to the Cylons , who are indeed quite notable (despite the really poor state of said article). I can't see significant coverage of Count Baltar. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or selectively merge to Battlestar Galactica (1978 TV series) . Mostly WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs at best, and not enough WP:SIGCOV directed towards the actual character. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 01:45, 20 July 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! 23:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or selectively merge to List of Battlestar Galactica characters . No need to retell the plot. – sgeureka t • c 07:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 12:37, 27 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

Mitchell Institute : Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 11:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education , and Maine . Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 11:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Most recent edits are by bunch of edits by IPs and COI accounts some of which were pasting copyvios, the other edits have been reverting said copyvio, previous edits prior to the IP/COI were three years ago. Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 13:14, 6 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! 07:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to George J. Mitchell There are a couple of hits on GBooks but no SIGCOV. (One of them is Mitchell's memoir). It looks like there's probably enough at least for a mention in the article on Mitchell himself but not a separate article. There is also an organization called the "Mitchell Institute" in Australia which is possibly notable. Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 12:39, 13 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! 23:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Presidentman, seems like a reasonable compromise. - KH-1 ( talk ) 04:29, 21 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

Cyberworthiness : The context is lacking and this seems like an unestablished Australian? neologism. TadejM my talk 02:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Computing , and Internet . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to cyber resilience . I did find this paper: [12] and some conference proceedings mentioning the word. It seems to be mostly used in military contexts, in Australia, so it might be a distinct enough topic (or have distinct enough usage) to mention in the cyber resilience article, but probably isn't worth its own article. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per WeirdNAnnoyed . Owen× ☎ 17:20, 17 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

Battle of Navsari : This is a historical battle that occurred more than a thousand years ago. There are no sources for any detail of the battle, just cryptic mention in a single inscription in India. The existing coverage in Umayyad campaigns in India is quite enough. Kautilya3 ( talk ) 06:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , Islam , Asia , Pakistan , and India . Kautilya3 ( talk ) 06:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Umayyad_campaigns_in_India . The details in this article are not present in the main article. It would probably be better to move the contents to the main article. killer bee 06:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Umayyad campaigns in India where the battle is already described. I don’t see anything to merge here. Mccapra ( talk ) 01:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can provide additional sources or evidence you have that could support the validity of the Battle of Navsari. This could include historical texts, archaeological findings, or other reliable sources that provide more detail about the battle and its participants. We will review these sources carefully and make a decision based on their reliability and relevance to the article. Thank you for your cooperation. Umarrizwan.ansari ( talk ) 10:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not done. Read this discussion of similar case. We can't invent names for battles like "Battle of X" just because it happened at X. Imperial [AFCND] 11:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the Umayyad campaigns in India . We can't invent names for battles such as "Battle of X", just because it is happened at X. Significance of major events would be shadowed over comparatively less significant events where the authors of the sources don't address deeply about the topic. This event can be added to the above linked articles where similar events are addressed. Imperial [AFCND] 11:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wdym? It is not even a reason for deletion this article just lacks some secondary sources Umarrizwan.ansari ( talk ) 19:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I fixed the article with more sources and information so there is no need to delete this page Umarrizwan.ansari ( talk ) 07:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of the sources are outdated and unreliable. Moreover, you can't invent names for battles like "Battle of X" unless it is used by historians. Imperial [AFCND] 08:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Additionally I found that none of those sources mentions the Umayyad caliphate nor its commander. What you did is original research. Please read WP:NOR . Imperial [AFCND] 08:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to [[Umayyad campaigns in India] -- I completely agree with ImperialAficionado 's statement that we can't make up terms like this. The article as it stands appears to be a mixture of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to create a topic that is not directly mentioned in the underlying sources. It would be better to spend the energy improving the parent article (which could use some help). Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 17:50, 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

Phanes Press : Was purchased 20 years ago, no coverage before or after. Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 04:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If they're an imprint, merge to Red Wheel Weiser Conari . PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 04:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Companies , Religion , Spirituality , Massachusetts , and Michigan . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Red Wheel/Weiser if that can be confirmed. Redirect only would be problematic as this is not currently mentioned at destination article. Jclemens ( talk ) 06:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Red Wheel/Weiser and add mention of Phanes Press on this article. Phanes Press does appear to be an imprint of Red Wheel/Weiser, see [25] . The article itself does not meet notability guidelines at WP:ORGCRIT - most web results for it are on the websites of online book retailers. Redtree21 ( talk ) 07:40, 20 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

Maha Bhoga Marga : At the very least this article needs a rewrite, but in my opinion this looks like a WP:TNT situation. Suntooooth , it/he ( talk / contribs ) 15:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions . Suntooooth , it/he ( talk / contribs ) 15:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Indonesia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:14, 8 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! 08:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: @ Suntooooth , this article and the Indonesian Wikipedia version, id:Maha Bhoga Marga , both cite offline refs. Can you give us your assessment of each? Thanks, -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't give a thorough response for a few reasons: I'm extremely busy and ill IRL at the moment, so it's difficult for me to focus; I don't speak the language of the sources, so everything I'm gathering is from inference and some machine translation; and I think I probably overstated when I said most of the sources are unreliable or aren't independent, since I can't tell for sure either way with most of them. I'm not sure why I thought most of them were unreliable. After looking at the sources today, ref 6 (Mastra, I Wayan (2010)) jumps out to me as an autobiography making claims about third-parties (which if I'm interpreting WP:BLPSELFPUB correctly seems dubiously reliable) and possibly not independent, although right now I don't have energy for research to determine if I Wayan Mastra is independent of the organisation or not. Ref 4 (Suama, I.N. (1992)) is a thesis, which could be reliable but also may not be, and as I don't speak the language I can't verify whether it's reliable Sorry I can't give a better answer; I think I was probably a little hasty to condemn the sources when writing my original comment, although the issue of the article being entirely promotional in its entire history is still maybe worth a deletion, and at the very least needs a complete rewrite. Suntooooth , it/he ( talk / contribs ) 01:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, Suntooooth . Well, now it's my turn to claim "I'm extremely busy and ill IRL at the moment, so it's difficult for me to focus" I will try to come back to this in a few days, if possible. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 18:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I don't see any opinions on what should happen with this article aside from the nominator. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge a trimmed down version to Protestant Christian Church in Bali as an AtD. If sourcing develops for a stand alone article, it can be split in the future. // Timothy :: talk 14:45, 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

Orange Lantern Corps : Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:31, 30 April 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 . Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Even though the article currently relies substantially on just one major source, the subject itself seems to be quite notable in the DC comic world. It has several good and reliable sources that could be added to the article. I think it's the article's referencing that needs some work. ZyphorianNexus ( talk ) 23:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not voting yet, but stating that there MUSTBESOURCES isn't a valid argument. In-universe importance also has no bearing on an article's real world notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 23:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And are those sources are in the room with us? What can you dig up source wise? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify . This article relies mainly on one source and until its referencing is improved, it should probably be draftified and worked on. Zakaria ښه راغلاست ( talk ) 23:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Larfleeze . That character seems to be notable rather clearly, and there are a number of secondary sources discussing the Orange Lantern Corps with reference to him (an exception being the Glomulus entry of Strange and Unsung All-Stars of the DC Multiverse ). So as long as not more secondary sources are put forward, that would be my preferred solution. Daranios ( talk ) 19:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the claims of @ ZyphorianNexus : or merge with List of teams and organizations in DC Comics in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . Part of this page was also developed by @ Jhenderson777 : . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 01:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The claims of Zyphorian dont hold any wait as there has been no provided prof of such. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 12:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Larfleeze - Larfleeze is notable, but the "Orange Lantern Corp" is not. Unless things have changed recently, there is no "Orange Lantern Corps" as an actual organization separate from Larfleeze - its just constructs controlled by Larfleeze, or people who have temporarily briefly gained similar powers to him. All sources regarding the Orange Lanterns, including those present in the article currently, are pretty much actually about Larfleeze himself, so it does not make much sense covering this as two separate articles. Rorshacma ( talk ) 01:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or merge per Rorschacma. The sources appear to be about the parent topic, with not enough WP:SIGCOV to support a separate page. Even so, this is probably a WP:NOPAGE circumstance for how much the two topics retread each other. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 18:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Larfleeze for obvious sensible reasons. I don't really edit and rarely even bother voting anymore, partly due to nonsense like this. While my Lantern Corps knowledge isn't super-detailed it makes perfect sense as IIRC by definition Larfleeze and the Orange Corps are basically the same thing, so merge. What is dumb is that the term clearly has some use as a redirect and this topic never should have been nominated for deletion. The nominator should instead have constructed their case on the article's talk page as a first point of call, working on how the Larfleeze article could be worked to also cover the oxymoron of the Orange Lantern Corps, instead of just going "BALEET" as a push-button exercise, likely informed by their own disinterest in a topic. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 10:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Larfleeze per above. // Timothy :: talk 18:43, 7 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

1895 Pacific Tigers football team : The only source is a database, and I'm not finding the sources needed to meet the notability guidelines. Let'srun ( talk ) 02:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and California . Let'srun ( talk ) 02:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Given that every other season on Pacific's football history has an article, I think some kind of merger would probably be best so that the information on this one is not lost. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 02:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you actually have a suggestion for a merge, perhaps to a combined season article? I'm all ears, but looking at 1898 and 1899, I'm not seeing much for those seasons either... Let'srun ( talk ) Let'srun ( talk ) 02:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not to mention, there isn't much info here to save, considering the only source. Let'srun ( talk ) 02:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Pacific Tigers football, 1895–99 , perhaps? Or maybe extend it to include a few of their next seasons? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 02:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see coverage to meet NSEASONS even for that range, at least from a first glance at the sources in those articles and elsewhere. 1898 has only the database and a very short recap, while the 1899 one has only the database and a long section devoted to the rules of the game in the era with no references to the actual team. Reasonable minds may differ. Let'srun ( talk ) 02:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , this is the first game and the first season of the team's history. The year is a matter of record and the season covered to some extent in the sourcing. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 11:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] covered to some extent in the sourcing Where? All I'm seeing is one line in a database entry here . Cbl62 ( talk ) 16:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . North America 1000 15:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete (without prejudice). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS due to the lack of WP:SIGCOV . Pacific was a major program in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s but not so in the 1890s. Indeed, the program was practically non-existent prior to 1919 -- a grand total of five games played between 1895 and 1918 (zero wins, one tie, four losses, 11 total points scored). If someone some day wants to create an article on the early history of the Pacific football program, it might possibly be viable, but I certainly don't have the time or inclination to work on that when there are so many more worthwhile topics to pursue. Cbl62 ( talk ) 16:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899 . Jweiss11 ( talk ) @ Jweiss11 : Two issues with your suggestion: 1) a closer cannot redirect to a redlink so that's not viable unless someone creates it; and (2) is there SIGCOV to support the proposed article? Cbl62 ( talk ) 19:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's probably worth the editing time to create the proposed article, though, and merging the very small amount of information. The 1898 and 1899 articles aren't in great shape either, and it's possible the game(s) which were played were indeed covered in local papers of the time. SportingFlyer T · C 17:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:GNG . Wikipedia is also not a directory . Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge now that a target article has been created. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Personally, while I appreciate the work put in by jweiss11, I don't think that the combined article meets the WP:NSEASONS due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV . Let'srun ( talk ) 01:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We could expand the scope of Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899 to include 1919 and perhaps some or all of the 1920s. I think Pacific may have played rugby at some pint between 1900 and 1918, a la 1906–1917 Stanford rugby teams . That could be covered in an expanded article as well. Jweiss11 ( talk ) 02:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: My inclination is to Merge but I'm a closer, not a participant, and I don't see a consensus to do that. Another closer might IAR this but I'm not ready to do that yet. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Given that the merge target of Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899 had already been created (by me per precedent with suggestion from two other editors), what's the point of keeping this AfD open? I don't think there's any consensus to keep this as a stand-alone article. Randy Kryn , you were the only keep vote. Would agree now that the merge to Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899 is the best course of action? Jweiss11 ( talk ) 02:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure, Jweiss11 , that works. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 02:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think all editors were in favor of this Merge. But I'm not the only closer in town, another one might decide to close this discussion presently. I just wanted to see more support which Randy's opinion helps. L iz Read! Talk! 02:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Liz, okay, I understand that it's not solely on you to close this. For the record, I'll note two similar recent AfDs with analogous content: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1884 DePauw football team and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1884 Wabash football team . Jweiss11 ( talk ) 03:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899 , as it is unlikely to see enough sourcing for its own article. ~ EDDY ( talk / contribs ) ~ 01:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect . There's no 'merging' to be done as all relevant content is already included at the target. Simply redirect it to Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899 . BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 01:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Beanie - I've previously taken the same position, but I think that may be wrong. I think (someone correct me if I'm wrong) merging preserves the edit history of both articles. If that is correct, the merge maintains the attribution history on the original work. Cbl62 ( talk ) 01:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * Merge or redirect . Favoring merge if that preserves the attribution history. Otherwise redirect for the reasons outlined by BeanieFan. Cbl62 ( talk ) 01:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I suppose an admin could perform a WP:HISTMERGE here if that's deemed necessary. But there's never been a whole a lot of substance in this article. Jweiss11 ( talk ) 02:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that in the case of 1884 Wabash football team merging to Wabash football, 1884–1889 , no history merge was performed. Same for 1884 DePauw football team merging to DePauw football, 1884–1889 . Jweiss11 ( talk ) 02:19, 16 July 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

Sagat (Street Fighter) : However after rather extensive searching there's not a lot of actual meaningful commentary about Sagat as a character or his design, and far less than most of the cast. I've extensively searched through Internet Archive, google scholar, and done web crawls through various websites and while he's mentioned (often times discussing his gameplay in the context of a particular game) it shows he's iconic to the series, but fails notability as a character. Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 23:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 23:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Addendum: For the sake of transparency, while this was originally attempted as a WP:BLAR , another editor contested the merge and posted sources on the article's talk page suggesting notability was satisfied by them. However two of the articles were commentary about his gameplay in a particular game ( [20] , [21] ) and the third, Undisputed Street Fighter, added little commentary on his own as is effectively a primary source ( per Internet Archive ). -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 23:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . There's just too little in terms of significant coverage. And while I'd say the gameplay coverage can be included, it's basically game guide content and doesn't show notability, especially since Sagat was not uniquely discussed (all of SF4 and SF5's cast got their own articles). - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 23:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep I don't believe Undisputed Street Fighter's a primary source. It is based on information from Capcom interviews, but was not written by Capcom and restates the information in the words of the author. The other two sources analyze his gameplay and a bit of his backstory, making him squeak past GNG even before you get into possible Japanese sources that may exist. I don't think sourcing is particularly incredible but I debate the idea it is obviously non-notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 01:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem with the two gameplay sources is that they exist not because Sagat is notable, but because Street Fighter is notable. Every character in SFs 4 and 5 got an article like this, so it's not like they went out of their way to write about Sagat just because he's a notable character. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 07:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I don't agree with the suggestion that the two sources that analyze his gameplay don't contribute towards the character's notability. For the purpose of this AfD, I think it's irrelevant as to why they wrote about Sagat, as long as the writers and the publications that they employ them are vetted as reliable sources and aren't connected in some way to the publisher or owner of the Street Fighter IP. Haleth ( talk ) 01:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They concern only one incarnation of a character, and even then strictly on their gameplay in that title and similar articles were done for all the other characters in that title; Sagat's gameplay is not exceptional nor being examined outside of the context of that article. If gameplay articles like that counted for notability we'd literally have articles for nearly ever fighting game character up, not to mention every competitive pokemon, or every character even remotely involved in eSports. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 02:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I vehemently disagree that intent is irrelevant. What you're describing - not being a primary source and being reliable - only go to establish that they can be trusted to provide accurate, unbiased information, not that the information they provide is a show of notability. These articles' existence establishes only that Sagat is as notable as th least notable member of the SF4 and SF5 casts. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 03:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Really, everyone from SFII's roster should have an article, and Sagat is no exception. The whole roster is so iconic, that I would be shocked if there's not more out there, besides the sourcing brought up here. And if we count gameplay articles, I don't think it's true we would have articles for the vast majority of characters. Not everyone gets a lot of gameplay coverage, at least not without falling into WP:GAMEGUIDE . So I support keeping the article on those grounds. MoonJet ( talk ) 07:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] On what grounds? You didn't cite anything. Come on, you should know better than thinking that a baseless assertion of being "iconic" is a valid AFD argument. Closing Admin discount this sort of fluff. Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Because I feel, in good faith, some editors are arguing more because they like the subject than practicality, I'm going to point out the essay WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES : just because something is iconic, doesn't make it notable. We've seen several examples of that. So repeating "there has to be sources!" does not mean a lot if there are sources to cite. If you want to help, find sources that satisfy SIGCOV, but "I'd be surprised if there wasn't more out there!" is not only not an argument it's a bit rough to people that have tried per WP:BEFORE to find said sources. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 07:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not really an argument for keeping the article, per say, just a little benefit of the doubt. If I had nothing else to add besides that, I wouldn't be ! voting at all. MoonJet ( talk ) 08:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not everyone gets gameplay coverage, but Sagat is getting gameplay coverage because every Street Fighter character gets gameplay coverage. This is something that I would expect to show notability of a list of characters, not to say that each individual character is notable if they get this couple of sources. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 17:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Highly notable and more sources exist. KatoKungLee ( talk ) 14:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What sources? - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 16:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Weak Keep The two presented sources by the nominator feels like it should help its notability, but a borderline case. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 23:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I feel as though no one has elaborated upon the actual merits of these articles. What do these articles show? To me, it seems like they convey "Street Fighter 5 and 6 competitive play is notable." - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 01:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The merits appear to be that Sagat and his gameplay is important to the professional Street Fighter scene. One might find this trivial perhaps, if you are not a fan of watching Street Fighter, but that would be an issue of WP:IDONTLIKEIT . It still qualifies as establishing context and making the article not indiscriminate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 10:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Zxcvbnm : : You know every character, especially for titles like SF4, got articles like that. Again you're trying to present the argument that somehow Sagat is unique in this case when he isn't. Also please actually read what articles like WP:IDONTLIKEIT because it's been very well explained how the source doesn't work for notability in their view. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 10:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, I find it strange to call it IDONTLIKEIT when we're pointing out that the two gameplay articles are indiscriminate. I believe that Sagat is important to the scene, just as many SF characters are, but the point we're making is that these two sources don't show that he's important. Maybe if Sagat was one of like, five characters to get a gameplay article, that would be notable - but he's not. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] @ Zxcvbnm : This is a glorified "list of Street Fighter IV characters" article, covering the characters not because they're notable, but because SFIV is notable . Now, looking at the shacknews citation: [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] Sagat's shacknews article was done because he was a DLC character, and they did this for all of the SFV DLC up to a point. They didn't do it because they found Sagat notable, the least notable SF character would have gotten this article if they were featured as part of the DLC they covered. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 18:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Either we downgrade IGN as a reliable source because they made all these articles, or we accept that they mean that all of these characters they consider notable. I don't think the fact that there is an article for each character diminishes its significance, unless they were all lumped together in a single listicle somehow. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's a ridiculous premise. This is not significant coverage. The fact that you admit that if these articles were combined into a list should be proof that you're not even arguing that the content is significant coverage. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 19:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some of the articles were posted several weeks apart. I'm afraid I don't see what's so ridiculous about saying they are each an independent article. They decided to give a full treatment to each character, and that says something about the characters and their importance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 09:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll contend that Crimson Viper and Dudley (Street Fighter) both have more said about them independently as fictional characters in reliable sources, and yet somehow the existence of guides didn't stop you from voting to merge them. In fact, you're the one that [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crimson Viper|AfD'd]] the former. It's okay to like a subject Zx and not want to see it merged but at some point you have to look back at the standards you've set and realize it's making you look hypocritical, even excluding the fact you're trying to argue How-To content provides notability. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 09:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It says nothing, because the fact that 100% of SF4's cast got one of these articles tells us that IGN would have written about any character in SF4 and give them their own separate articles. It's essentially saying that the SF4 cast as a collective being notable affects the notability of the individual characters, which is silly. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 09:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] C. Viper and Dudley both got 1 and 2 pages, respectively, in Undisputed Street Fighter (unless you count a cosplayer dressed as C. Viper) while Sagat got a 5-page spread. The C. Viper AfD claimed that C. Viper had 5 pages on her, but did not really go into how much coverage was on those pages or what exactly it was. That is why I don't believe I would be a hypocrite for daring to ! vote weak keep on Sagat. However, as the "weak" implies, I still acknowledge coverage is slim, yet viable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep . Character has a degree of importance that ensures his own article, albeit not a highly notable one; the user who proposed the deletion has a point but the article isn't exactly that unnecessary to warrant a deletion for the time being. NanaOn-Sha ( talk ) 07:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC) sock puppet NinjaRobotPirate ( talk ) 03:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and Merge to List of Street Fighter characters . From what I've seen of this discussion, it's mostly a lot of "He has to be notable!" and while I agree, he very likely is, there just don't seem to be enough sources backing him up. General notability doesn't matter much on Wikipedia unless there's sources to back it up. If that wasn't the case, nearly every Pokemon would still have an article right now. I'd love to keep Sagat around and frankly I feel there's some good grounds for a potential revival in the future, but the current situation, from my observations, seems to indicate that there just isn't enough for Sagat to stand on. If some more sources get discovered, ping me, and I'll be willing to change my vote. As it stands, I feel merging is the best option, as it retains all of Sagat's major information. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 22:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I hate to make a second comment here, but I feel in good faith there's a heavy amount of WP:ILIKEIT involved in this mess, primarily with some claiming that the character should be notable due to the others or being "iconic", which time and again has been proven to not be a standard with previous AfD's. Additionally despite the claims above, no additional sources have been added to the article, its talk page as part of ref ideas, or mentioned here. The main argument is that at this time Sagat does not pass notability, and that the major sources provided as a counter to that assertion mainly consist of How-To content specific to one specific game with no citeable commentary about the character. Sources may manifest down the road as they have with other character, and they could (and should) be worked onto the character list entry until we have a point the article can be revived. But for a character that is over thirty years old, the fact there is so staggeringly little we can cite is a big moment of pause. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 02:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I did some searching, and the best I found are some articles from reliable sources (like IGN) mentioning Sagat, but virtually none specifically about Sagat that weren't fan blogs or similar sites. It's doesn't matter how "iconic" Sagat is, he's evidently not iconic enough to receive coverage by reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador ( talk • contribs ) I think delete is a virtual impossibility here as there is a clear WP:ATD even if Sagat is decided to not be notable. I am curious to know if you believe, specifically, that Shacknews and IGN as well as the Undisputed Street Fighter section are not "specifically about Sagat". They seem primarily about him as a character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 11:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The first article is a self-described guide, which I don't think is a good source, leaving a single article on one specific incarnation of Sagat. I've never hear of Undisputed Street Fighter, so I can't comment on that. That said, I can't see any of these sources in the actual article, so if you want to preserve the article, feel free to add them. Cortador ( talk ) 12:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Undisputed Street Fighter is linked here . See WP:NEXIST , AfDs are not predicated on what's actually in the article. I should also say that guides are not restricted for use as sources. WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE applies to the content of articles. However, I also recently found this article from Japan Times about how Sagat was used as an ambassador for tourism for Saga Prefecture . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As others have noted, Sagat appears mostly, if not exclusively, in list of one kind or another (e.g. the guide articles exists for all SF4 characters, and the book also covers all characters), indicating that it's less Sagat being notable, and simply the Street Fighter games and franchise. Cortador ( talk ) 12:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect I have changed my vote per arguments above before the discussion was relisted. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 00:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect per my previous vote. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 00:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You don't gotta revote, this is just to get more input. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 21:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, alright. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 16:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - Yeah, checking the sources myself on the article, there isn't a whole lot here. Not sure how this was able to come into existence to be honest. NegativeMP1 ( talk ) 15:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is evenly divided between those editors wanting to Keep this article and those request a Merger. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . The reception section is poorer than that of many similar artices we merged. Existence of how-to gaming guides is not very helpful - such guides can be found for many aspects of many games, that doesn't mean they become notable. It's just a quirk of modern day Intenet. If we treated them as SIGCOV, we would suddenly get hundreds of articles about quests or puzzles from various games, in addition to every playable character becoming notable. Nope, nope, nope. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:15, 24 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

Davidson Centre : As always, sports venues are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them, but this cites no sources at all and has been tagged as such since 2012. Bearcat ( talk ) 15:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Canada . Bearcat ( talk ) 15:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Unable to find any sources that aren't WP:PRIMARY or aren't a business directory. grungaloo ( talk ) 22:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I can find no useful sources covering this centre other than a brief construction industry mention of a planned 2010 expansion: https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/others/2010/01/expansion-planned-for-davidson-centre-gymnasium-in-kincardine-ontario-dcn037301w Meters ( talk ) 19:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Berian (below). Should have done that myself. Meters ( talk ) 19:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] Merge and redirect . I have smerged images and a small amount of text into the main article Kincardine, Ontario . Bearian ( talk ) 17:18, 15 April 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! 23:23, 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

Binocular dysphoria : Pepper Beast (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 17:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete so I did find some passing mention of this in peer reviewed articles but the statements are made in passing and are not cited. Dr vulpes (Talk) 18:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , for lack of WP:MEDRS sourcing. The article itself states "At present there is no peer reviewed evidence of this condition." SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 15:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Stereoscopy : while not an actual medical condition, plenty of mentions in both technology ( [4] , [5] ) and mainstream ( [6] , [7] - I know; sorry) media means we can't just sweep this under the carpet as "someone's pet neurological hypothesis". By this point, it is a notable neurological hypothesis, if nothing else. As such, MEDRS doesn't really apply, and we need to go back to GNG. Owen× ☎ 23:22, 3 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

Oral reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada : There are no WLs (signifying that none of these cases are particularly important or notable). There are only 3 years, signifying that this is a project someone started and never finished. Ultimately, we do not have any sourcing which would indicate why this list is significant or notable. The mere fact that the SC can decided cases in this way does not mean that we need to have a list of all the times they did so. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 14:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Canada . ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 14:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify . The editor who started this ages ago has made some edits recently so this is possibly the best option for now for this in-progress list. — siro χ o 02:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have no issue with moving to a draft, but the last substantive and productive edit to this page (by anyone) was in 2006. Highly unlikely anyone is going to pick back up where they left off, and even further, I do not see what this list adds to anything. There is no indication that being decided orally is of any significance that would give rise to a standalone list. 16:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 23:14, 3 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! 23:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Ex tempore decision , which appears to be the parent topic, and merge the first paragraph of the lead (but not the list). Oral judgments of the Canadian courts is certainly a notable topic [9] , but the article would probably need to be extensively rewritten to cover it. Supreme court cases are likely to satisfy GNG, but there is no explanation why oral decisions of the court should be listed separately from reserved decisions, and I cannot think of one. The page is a plausible redirect, and draftification never results in improvements. James500 ( talk ) 06:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist to decide between Draftification or a Redirect/Merge combo. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:03, 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

VR privacy concerns : Any valid information is in the article for Virtual reality or can easily fit there. D r e a m Focus 18:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 18:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Virtual reality . I don't think it merits more than a section in the Virtual reality article. Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 18:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect for now to Virtual reality . I was able to access most of the sources in the article, and they do not seem to mention virtual reality, as such, I am concerned about WP:OR . It seems very likely that the topic is notable (super quick dump: [41] [42] [43] [44] ). If it can be verified that what's here is not OR, and is just poorly referenced, keep is fine. — siro χ o 19:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All of those are the same. They mention that information can be gotten by monitoring someone's eye and hand motion. This is already mentioned at Virtual_reality#Privacy . D r e a m Focus 11:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Virtual reality#Privacy -- The parent article could use a little more beef, but there is no GNG (yet) for this topic as a standalone article. It lacks WP:SIGCOV completely, especially if you attempt to find sources specific to the security/privacy vis-à-vis VR in general. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 15:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . Don't oppose redirect, though. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 13:03, 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

First day of school : Almost entirely unsourced. There's nothing here that enages with broader cultural or historical importance of the "first day of school" and instead is just original research noting when different countries happen to start their school year. While some of it might be common knowledge (the fact that most northern hemisphere school years start in early fall) that very fact makes the usefulness of an encyclopedia article in question. Zim Zala Bim talk 03:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm inclined to agree, the current article has no useful value whatsoever. It's a real pity, because a good article could be written. In Germany, for example, there is a lovely custom that on their very first day of school, in what we in the UK would call reception year, the kids take enormous paper cones with them, filled with goodies to share with the other kids. This sort of custom is of genuine encyclopaedic interest, and similar things must exist in other countries (and could be sourced). If anyone wrote an article like that, I'd be delighted. Elemimele ( talk ) 07:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Purely for reference, here's a not-great source that would provide someone with a foot-hold into useful ideas of how a valuable article could have been written: [61] Elemimele ( talk ) 20:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, poorly-sourced and likely contains OR, and topic seems unlikely to have significant secondary analysis. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I would support keep provided the article is completely rewritten with a different focus, as discussed on the article's talk page. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 18:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:DINC . The article is largely unsourced and poorly written, but per WP:BEFORE C1-3 and all of D, those problems are not valid reasons for deletion. Source do exist (some of them in the article, others on a quick BEFORE search), and the article can be used as a baseline for creating something better. As Elemimele points out, a good article could be written [that is] of genuine encyclopaedic interest...and could be sourced . Once that is shown, an AfD is no longer the right venue for improving Wikipedia. We need to remove unsourced info and WP:OR , not delete the article. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've started a discussion on the article's talk page as I think this is an exceptional situation where it might be appropriate to delete nearly everything in the article and repurpose it, which might satisfy everyone. I'm suggesting we discuss there rather than here to avoid cluttering this AfD, and keep the ! votes clear for the closing admin, but if anyone wants to discuss here, we can shift it. Elemimele ( talk ) 16:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to academic year . There's very little here about the first day except insofar as it's describing variation in the academic year across countries... and we already have an article about that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merging any notable and sourced material into academic year is sensible. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 04:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge seems ok, the list as it stands now doesn't really explain why this day is important. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to academic year . Reasonable search term and possibly a reasonable topic for spin-out at a later date. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 00:35, 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

Camp Manitou-Lin : Fails WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Michigan . UtherSRG (talk) 19:16, 22 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! 21:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Middleville, Michigan . There's a fair share of verifiable info out there, but I do not see SIGCOV. — siro χ o 05:03, 30 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

2010 Pacific Rugby League Tests : CONCERN: Information here has now been merged with International rugby league in 2010 . Pacific games don't need there own page, especially how small it is per size split policy . Please also see deletion discussion for Pacific Rugby League International . Mn1548 ( talk ) 17:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:12, 24 August 2023 (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/2023 August 28 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Oceania and New Zealand . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/Merge with International rugby league in 2010 . No need for a separate page. J Mo 101 ( talk ) 09:36, 29 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

Ebarat I : All that is known is basic geneological facts, sources mention the name in lists, however there is nothing from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. No objection to a consensus redirect target. // Timothy :: talk 08:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Iran . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 09:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Automatically notable, because he was a king. See Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges , which can also be reached at WP:POLITICIAN . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 09:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Presumed does not mean automatically. Likely doesnot mean always. The opening section of this SNG states, "People are likely to be notable..." Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria The presumption in this case is false, this semi-historical figure does not meet GNG or NBIO, or even have verifiable basic biographical information. Having a name in a list does not meet notability. The presumption this is likely notable has been challenged and sources with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indpeth are needed, otherwise a redirect is appropriate if possible target finds consensus. // Timothy :: talk 09:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ebarat I is the principal character of P.Steinkeller article (quoted in the artcicle), and the central figure for understanding the relations between Ur III and Shimashki dynasty rulers. I am not sure what is GNG criterion - coul dyou please explain? Thanks, YX Ykhramov ( talk ) 22:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : WP:ATD is a redirect/merge to Shimashki Dynasty . WP:NOPAGE seems to apply. Curbon7 ( talk ) 09:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Kings are clearly notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep : should be classed as notable as a king, although a lot more work needs to be done. Azarctic ( talk ) 23:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Kings or Rulers are definitely notable. 188.240.216.10 ( talk ) 16:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of

merge

Celtic reconstructionism : Self-claimed druids and pagans' self-published works don't count, and stuff that could potentially be secondary doesn't seem to directly refer to Celtic reconstructionist paganism as a thing; beyond that, the sources used are sometimes done in blatant contradiction to what they say. For instance: the passage Language study and preservation, and participation in other cultural activities such as Celtic music, dance and martial arts forms, are seen as a core part of the tradition.[6][19] Participation in the living Celtic cultures[20][21] – the cultures that exist in the "areas in which Celtic languages are actually spoken and in which Celtic traditions have been most faithfully handed down to the present day"[22] – is a vital part of their cultural work and spiritual practice. references Gaelic Nova Scotia: An Economic, Cultural, and Social Impact Study , but the quote supplied argues the exact opposite of the text—that the druid groups have little connection to actual Celtic traditions, language, or culture. I suppose you can argue that the article is saying that's just druids, not Celtic reconstructionism, but the problem is then that once again the rest is referenced to the same bad source. There's nothing that can be salvaged from this article; if it's a notable thing it has to be built ground-up on reliable secondary sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. There are plenty of independent sources and I've already removed the use of the self-published Lulu.com book as a source. Skyerise ( talk ) 16:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You mind pointing out which independent sources significantly cover this topic? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure, here's two books from Princeton and Cambridge UPs that discuss the topic. Skyerise ( talk ) 17:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Williams, M. (2018).  Ireland's Immortals: A History of the Gods of Irish Myth.  Princeton University Press. David J. Collins. The Cambridge History of Magic and Witchcraft in the West: From Antiquity to the Present.  (2018).  Cambridge University Press. I don't have full text access to Collins 2018, but it along with Williams appear to be glancing mentions not SIGCOV . Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 16:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ireland , England , Scotland , and Wales . 17:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC) Delete As as far as I can tell it's all based on WP:PRIMARY - Celtic Reconstructionists writing about their religion. I don't think the SELFPUB has all been removed, but I can't see that there is any genuine "third party" RS in there. I note the above comment that there are a couple of "proper" sources on this - may be they do address this topic but they are not cited in the article. One of the 2 main authors of this article is inteviewed here . In the interview she says I am one of the people to blame for the Celtic Reconstructionist Pagan (CR) tradition and community...In addition to being involved in CR since the proto-CR period in the '80s, I am a co-author of our tradition's two defining documents . The article has been constructed by her and her friends to promote their views. Maybe it's a legitimate topic - at best it's a candidate for WP:TNT . DeCausa ( talk ) 18:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ DeCausa : For what it's worth, I removed two paragraphs based mostly or entirely on NicDhana's and others articles in the pagan zine Harvest . One para promoted NicDhana as the originator of the term and the other made she and her Harvest buddies the definitive view . Ima gonna quit for now cause I hate wasting more effort if its justa gonna be deleted. But I think it's a real thing and notable enough to keep, and entirely possible to remove further primary sources and add material from better sources. Skyerise ( talk ) 18:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To be honest, this is not a topic I have much/any prior knowledge...and I'm trying to avoid being too prejudiced by some of the dreadful editing and behaviour I've seen having spent quite a lot of time going though the edit history of that article and its talk pages. But looking at google results I'm only turning up cranky website forums and a very small number of books written by the group's (the very small group's) advocates. David Fuchs says the 2 "proper" sources you referenced don't have SIGCOV. I'm not sure where else to go with this. DeCausa ( talk ) 19:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, you may be right. It's quite possible no source would even have mentioned it had there not been this Wikipedia article, so it may be a case of WP:CIRCULAR . Skyerise ( talk ) 19:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Of course no source would've ever mentioned it if not for the article, but that's also true of Genie (feral child) and Tarrare , which are both incontrovertibly notable and both have ~100% of their 21st-century coverage because of Wikipedia. It's a gravity well. The corollary is that it's possible an article that didn't have enough sources, then existed for fifteen years, could've acquired sources for it. (I'm not sure I'd say that happened here given what Ireland's Immortals cites, but I'd be shocked if it's never happened, even if you don't count the "became notable from an AfD"-type cases.) Vaticidal prophet 19:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I land around weak keep , but it's tricky and might be better covered as not-a-standalone-article. I'd not give the Cambridge History as a fantastic source -- it's a bit of a passing mention -- but Ireland's Immortals is legit just-barely-sigcov, and cites The Apple Branch: A Path to Celtic Ritual as definitive, which, eh, I don't know if everyone would say that :) but does make it 'good enough for Wikipedia', even if I imagine some Reconstructionists might quibble with the idea it's any sort of definitive take on their practice, and it's certainly a highly in-depth source on something it calls Celtic Reconstructionism. Maybe that's enough. The irony of it all is, as well as those two I also own the book this whole debate is about, and put serious thought a while back to doing work on this article as part of a general "huh, what if I GTed the Celtic paganism suite" playing-around-with-ideas, but after things on a certain other article got weird I decided that might not be the wisest of ideas at this junction. Vaticidal prophet 18:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - as per David Fuchs, Collins (2018) and Williams (2018) only have passing mentions and are not significant coverage. Williams is the longer, in fact, with Collins merely mentioning Celtic Reconstructionism in a single sentence in a larger paragraph on page 653 that is generally about Reconstructionism. Incidentally we have Polytheistic reconstructionism and Collins might be a source for that, but even then, it is just a paragraph. In any case, whatever could be said about this from reliable secondary sources (and there is not much), this is not it. This article needs WP:TNT per DeCausa. I would suggest that the very little that could be written from suitable sources would be better focussed on a general article. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 22:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Polytheistic reconstructionism - I've struck my keep ! vote above and suggest that whatever can be salvaged be merged to the article Sirfurboy brought up. Skyerise ( talk ) 22:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I believe there are reliable sources for this and do not believe that thorough attempts to find them will fail. I think that a lot of existing material will need to be verified or removed - but my understanding of the deletion policy is that is preferable to removing a valid topic. I do not believe that Polytheistic reconstructionism is a good merge target, as there are no other specific types of reconstructionism currently included as part of that article. Druidry (modern) might be a potential merge target due to overlaps - but I think that would involve conflating related-but-not-the-same things. Darker Dreams ( talk ) 22:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] comment: Modern_paganism#Reconstructionist is basically a series of links to similar pages. Also, for clarity, while I do not think the article should be deleted I do support reducing it to a stub or whatever level is supported by the existing, valid citations. Darker Dreams ( talk ) 23:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe there are reliable sources for this and do not believe that thorough attempts to find them will fail. We don't require that sources be in the article to establish notability, but we do require evidence that they exist, and not just a belief that they will be found if someone looks. The time for looking is now. My searches came up short. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] comment: Merging with Celtic neopaganism per user:Ffranc would be far superior to deletion, and the best of the currently proposed potential merge targets. Darker Dreams ( talk ) 11:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] note: WP:STUBIFY vs WP:TNT . Darker Dreams ( talk ) 20:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep * Fascinating. Last I saw the article, it had substantial WP:RS and WP:V sources and citations. I wonder what happened to them and when they were stripped out? Cheers, Mark Ironie ( talk ) 01:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin : Mark Ironie ( talk • contribs ) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [ reply ] Can you identify what these "substantial WP:RS " are? As far as I can see, the main source to come out is the so-called "CR FAQ" which was cited 15 times. It was WP:SELFPUB - both on the net and via "River House Publishing". DeCausa ( talk ) 06:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Certainly. I think this version , directly before User:Skyerise essentially gutted the article. Cheers, Mark Ironie ( talk ) 20:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think that anyone would be surprised that that is your opinion. However, you have said that "substantial WP:RS " have been stripped out and haven't answered the question of what those were. The main change of significance I can see results from the removal of 15 citations to a WP:SELFPUB source. DeCausa ( talk ) 20:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The article is written well enough (in terms of language) and at least doesn't seem especially promotional, even if it was written by someone with a conflict of interest. Completely deleting it and starting over sounds extreme given it appears participants here have only looked at the article's current sources and haven't yet had the chance to look to see if other sources exist and whether they affirm enough of what the article says to warrant the effort of reviewing/replacing the sources. Some participants have expressed an interest in reviewing or improving the article, so at the very least it's surely worth trying to look for some new sources before considering deletion. Without at least checking for other sources, I don't think it's reasonable to say that absolutely none of this article is worth keeping in any form (whether it's kept and pruned, or merged elsewhere). It may well be the case that secondary sources exist and say much of the same. However, if an effort is made and still no decent sources can be found then this becomes a case of failing the general notability guideline and the appropriate action is clearer. – Scyrme ( talk ) 01:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Looking briefly myself, I found: Lewis, James R. (2009). "Celts, druids and the invention of tradition" . In Pizza, Murphy; Lewis, James (eds.). Handbook of Contemporary Paganism . Leiden: Brill. pp. 479–496. doi : 10.1163/ej.9789004163737.i-650.135 . ISBN 978-90-474-4235-6 . It takes a very critical view of the topic and is more than just a passing mention. However, it appears to take a much broader and more inclusive view of what "Celtic reconstructionism" means than is presented in this article. Like this article, it refers to neo-druids, Isaac Bonewits, and Ár nDraíocht Féin but otherwise there's not much overlap, though it does appear to imply a distinction between reconstructionism and neo-druidry: " Advocates of Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism tend to embrace the same kind of paradoxical attitude we noted among contemporary neo-Druids. " While searching, most of what I saw that did appear to discuss "Celtic reconstructionism" in the same way this article does also appeared to be involved in some way, being authored by insiders/participants/practitioners such as Kathryn NicDhàna, Morgan Daimler, and Aedh Rua. The exception to that is Ireland's Immortals , but looking at it myself, the content about reconstructionism in it seems scant consisting of a summary paragraph. Notably, it includes this footnote: Published material on the subject of Celtic Reconstructionism is limited, as most discussion tends to be online; but see A. Kondratiev, The Apple Branch: A Path to Celtic Ritual (San Francisco, CA, 1998). Alexei Kondratiev is evidently himself a neopagan. I encourage others to look for themselves. – Scyrme ( talk ) 03:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I appriciate the review and summary. I am confused why an author being Neopagan is considered relevant. Darker Dreams ( talk ) 04:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It may be relevant if he is writing as a participant/practitioner rather than as an observer. – Scyrme ( talk ) 04:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:PRIMARY seems like it would allow it if he were a participant/practitioner purely as a record of facts, but not for analysis. If we're looking for observer consideration we'd need to read it. Without being able to do that how it's published (known vanity/slush publishing vs "respectable" or even academic) and treated by other sources is probably a better sign than author religion. I just feel really sketchy about making hay out of authors' religions, whatever they are. Darker Dreams ( talk ) 05:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why is WP:PRIMARY relevant? I thought the concern was about independent secondary sources. It seemed like a detail that might be relevant for anyone who does what I suggested: to go look for such sources. Practitioners are unlikely to be a helpful lead. Probably better to look somewhere else. If you don't agree, then you can look into The Apple Branch if you want. – Scyrme ( talk ) 06:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Scyrme, thanks very much for this look at the sources. I had a look at what Lewis (2009) says, and you describe it well as a very critical look at the topic, but I am not sure if it is more than a passing mention of this page topic, because this page is about a particular approach to celtic paganism, but Lewis is talking about all approaches. All Druidism is reconstructed (although some of the adherents of some forms will debate that). So when Lewis is talking about the reconstruction he is not necessarily focussing on a thing called CR as a particular approach, but as what all of these are doing. However, despite that doubt, I think we could perhaps assume that the discussion on page 487 is specifically about a primary topic of Celtic reconstructionism, but if that is one source addressing the notability, it suggests the article that we have here is not the article that is supported by the sources. That source, as you point out, is very critical, both on the reconstruction (with its assumptions and borrowings), and also on the appropriation of the term "Celtic". That should be what the article is about. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 08:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Celtic neopaganism , where the term is covered, with the risk of getting endless discussions about that article's title. I oppose merging it with polytheistic reconstructionism , which is a mess of an article and doesn't reflect the reliable sources on the subject. The main source about polytheistic reconstructionism is five pages by Michael Strmiska in the book Modern Paganism in World Cultures , where it is described as a continuum together with eclectic paganism, not as something that really exists on its own, in pure form. The other sources that exist are mainly papers about individual neopagan organisations, where the authors summarise Strmiska's description of the continuum and then go on to explain why it's not really a useful terminology when discussing the groups in question. The term can exist within the rhetoric of certain groups, but the actually existing neopagan practises are neither reconstructionist nor eclectic in the way those words are used here. Ffranc ( talk ) 09:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sources now present in the article are sufficient to establish that the topic has been discussed in scholarly sources, albeit largely in contrast to eclectic paganism. . I saw no mention of other than the US, so I added a mention in an article by Jenny Blain. More of the increasing body of academic work on neo-paganism, including pagan theology, could usefully be brought to bear to update what Bonewits published in 2006. Yngvadottir ( talk ) 10:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC) Changed to Merge (redirect with rewriting of section at target) to Celtic neopaganism ; see below. Yngvadottir ( talk ) 12:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per TNT with no prejudice to its recreation by users in good standing and with a solid reputation for sourcing. SN54129 12:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete per TNT - after reading about attempts to find SIGCOV, I may be wrong about the subject's notability. In any case, completely removing the COI sources would pretty much leave nothing but Bonewitz, and he's not really an uninvolved source. Skyerise ( talk ) 16:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC) Updated to strong. Skyerise ( talk ) 20:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:TNT given the massive WP:COI issues. If independent SIGCOV can be found, let other editors build it. starship . paint ( RUN ) 03:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : while I appreciate the work Yngvadottir has done on the article, I've also been following discussions elsewhere and am sympathetic to the concerns about safety arising due to the identification of old and new usernames. Yet since that connection is easily discernible (since the accounts were simply renamed) from their activity on this article, and this article is most likely the reason any external threats arose in the first place, I think it is best to protect those editors by deleting the article and starting over, rather than leaving that edit history for any external parties to peruse, providing them with all the information necessary to determine the current usernames of those parties. Skyerise ( talk ) 14:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I've now given the article a couple of stiff edits, adding several new sources and broadening the focus based on what I found. Discussion has been happening on the talk page, most recently over whether to include the CR FAQ (i'd readded it). I'm tempted to ping those who advocated TNT above, but have decided not to. I disagree with Skyerise's above suggestion: IMO we'd be cutting off our noses to spite our faces if we deleted this article for any reason other than that we decide there should not be an article on this topic; and that's why I just spent a lot of time rewriting it, hoping to clearly demonstrate notability. Any new article would be some sort of re-creation; unless someone else wants to WP:HEY it in a different manner from my recasting, and I followed the sources I found. Revision-deletion of editors' names in the history and on the talk page and its history would be radical but would achieve the same concealment. (And I hereby give permission for redaction of my previous sentence for further concealment.) Yngvadottir ( talk ) 09:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Yngvadottir : thank you for all your work on the article. It's significantly better written than before, more encyclopedic and interesting to the general reader and better sourced, with the COI issue now removed. I'm on the verge of switching to Keep. However, I'm still hovering on notability. The previous concern was that the original creators were writing about their own (what appeared to be) insignificantly small group, using their own and their friends' publications as sources bolstered by WP:SYNTHing in mainstream sources discussing neo-paganism and Celtic religion generally. It would help if you could identify which references are the good quality SIGCOV sources now in the article. I started to look for them in the Practices section but accessing them wasn't straight forward. I did look at the current cite 11 (Bittarello) and that seems to be talking about neo-pagans generally. Cite 12 (McColman) is an e-edition so I had trouble finding the cited page - but couldn't see a specific reference to "Celtic reconstructionists" in its vicinity. Cite 13 (Davey) appears to talk about "some pagans embrace the idea of a pan-European Celtic culture". At that point, I thought it might be quicker to just ask you the question! DeCausa ( talk ) 11:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Like DeCausa, I would like to thank you for your efforts here, and if the article can be shown to be notable, WP:HEY could apply just as much as WP:TNT is a valid argument here. But I also remain sceptical about the notability of the subject for a page. It may be down to sourcing, but we need to look at the sources. A good example of the issue is the clause in the opening sentence: emphasizing historical accuracy over eclecticism by which we assert, in wiki-voice, that CR emphasises historical accuracy and, by extension, other forms do not. It is in the lead, so I looked for support in the main, and found: During the 1980s, some of these reacted against the eclecticism and the focus on the "spirit" of the ancient religions in favor of "reconstructing what can be known from the extant historical record". Sourced to: Gallagher, Eugene V. ; Ashcraft, W. Michael (2006). Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America . Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood. p. 178. ISBN 0-275-98713-2 . Only that title is a five volume set. The ISBN number resolves to volume 5, which makes sense as that volume is on American traditions. Yet page 178 is talking about Scientology. I checked volume 1 in case it was referring to that - being as no volume number is given - but there page 178 is about Aum Shinrikyo. So then I searched all volumes for the quote, and then, based on the fact that the OCR on open library can sometimes be iffy, I just searched on the word "extant". I did not find that quotation, nor any mention of CR as a thing. Now, what can we make of that? It seems to me that the primary claim that CR is a thing, distinct enough from other druidism and neo-pagan groups to merit a page in its own right remains very much the principle point in doubt here. If CR distinguishes itself at all, it is in this approach. But although it is clear that its adherents believe that they are doing things differently, what we don't have, at this time, is any evidence that anyone else thinks that. To be notable, sources must be independent, and for good reason. Can you bring any sources to bear that we can look at to establish this notability? Thanks once again for your efforts. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 12:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The quotation is actually in vol.iii, Metaphysical, New Age, and Neopagan Movements , from the chapter “Wicca, Witchcraft, and Modern Paganism” by Douglas E. Cowan, pp.176–199. Providing more of it for context: “An introductory essay such as this cannot hope to do justice to the vast panoply of emergent religious belief and practice that constitutes modern Paganism: […] New Druids and Celtic Reconstructionists—the former interested in revitalizing the spirit of what they believe was the religious practice of pre-Roman Britain, the latter only in reconstructing what can be known from the extant historical record; […]” where ND & CR are listed together as one of six broad types. While it does support the latter part of the sentence, it says nothing about the time period (for any of the listed groups) and does not imply that CR developed as a reaction to either ND specifically or eclecticism in general. — Odysseus 1 4 7 9 21:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, Odysseus1479 , that saved me a lot of frustration since it turns out the Internet Archive won't let me see that book. I'm going to run through the more academic sources in the article here in response to DeCausa 's query, but the Practices section isn't the best place to look, since it has to be largely sourced from practitioner accounts (which is the main reason I have just reverted JoelleJay 's removal of both Green Triangle interviews; let us recognize that a subset of a kind of paganism is by definition a "fringey" topic!) In any case, this AfD will decide on whether it's worth going into that level of detail at all. There's been a little confusion arising out of the way the article was originally written and expanded, by members of one group. In rewriting the article I've sought to demonstrate that Celtic reconstructionism is not solely a US thing, let alone just a single group. (Although the CR FAQ was written collaboratively by many people on LiveJournal, and participants there may not have been aware of others out of their orbit, just as some Celtic reconstructionists have said they only realized that's what they had been doing when they ran across references to the FAQ.) That said, other than Bonewits, the more scholarly sources are scattered and shallow. None of them except Bonewits can be said to focus on describing Celtic reconstructionism. Two (Galtsin and Vencálek) are cited just for its existence in Russia and the Czech Republic, respectively. Two have a different focus but characterize Celtic reconstructionism and locate it within neopaganism in the US: McCoy with respect to how it coalesced online as a movement, but the article is about music, Harris, Panzica, Trotter within a nice overview of types of paganism, but the article is about counseling pagans; and the cited fact, its being the third largest strand of reconstructionism in the US, I now see is cited to McColman, Carl. The complete idiot’s guide to Paganism . Indianapolis: Alpha Books, 2002—so it may be out of date or unreliable. ( Voices From the Pagan Census , 2003, does not appear to have asked about reconstructionism.) The academic discussion about reconstructionist paganism is overwhelmingly about Asatru/heathenism. Partly because of the concern about ethnocentrism / white power. This is particularly true of the conference volume Paganism and Its Discontents: Enduring Problems of Racialized Identity ; the Strmiska citation is to the keynote address there, where he defines reconstructionist paganism as ethnic: "The first, more open-ended form of Paganism has been variously labeled by me and others as eclectic or universalist, and the second, more consciously restricted form as reconstructionist and ethnic." (p. 8); he goes on to take reconstructionists to task as "probably much more strict about religious orthodoxy and orthopraxy than their medieval or ancient forebears ever were" (p. 18) and ends by advocating admixture of practices / concepts from other cultures to alleviate the risk of racism. The contrast between reconstructionism and eclecticism is one of two focuses in academic mentions of Celtic reconstructionism. Jenny Blain, whose focus is heathenry, provides the best cites on the nature of reconstructionism and on the fact that practitioners vary in strictness: the second Blain citation, from that book: "Today's practitioners point out that they are attempting to reach what they consider the centrally important points of religion ... and work with this to create something that 'works' within today's environment. The extents to which they base practice on 'evidence' (from literature or archaeology) vary considerably." The first Blain citation ( Modern Paganism in World Cultures ): "Basically, reconstructionists work from the principle that documents or artifacts from the past hold clues [to] practices and worldviews and relationships [that] can be used or adopted meaningfully within today's world. Reconstruction of this sort is different from reenactment ..." Both citations of Blain, who is British, also attest to Celtic reconstructionism in the UK—second Blain citation, following paragraph: "The reconstructionist groups I've engaged with are mostly Heathen, with some input from Celtic and Roman reconstructionists."; 1st Blain citation, also following paragraph: "In Britain, such reconstructionists include, in addition to Heathens, people following various Celtic or British, Roman and Greek, Eastern European, or other paths for which evidence can be found, including some Druids." But both of her articles are about heathenry. (There's also a good definition of reconstructionism in Blain's article in Handbook of Contemporary Paganism , pp. 413–14; I was able to download the book off one of those copyright-defying sites.) The other focus of academic mentions of Celtic reconstructionism is the romanticization / cultural appropriation issues arising from "elective affinity" (a phrase used in several of the sources). Here the focus is on the Celtic rather than the reconstructionism; for example Bowman, and also Lewis, in the Handbook of Contemporary Paganism but Lewis' article, as Scyrme notes above, is really talking about Celtic paganism as a whole. The passage reads: "Thus, in addition to adopting ideas and practices from contemporary indigenous groups, attempts to reconstruct ancient Celtic spirituality also sometimes draw on materials from other ancient Pagan religions. [para break] A more serious issue with contemporary Celtic reconstructionism is that making Celtic identity a matter of 'elective affinity' is ethically problematic because of the existence of contemporary Celtic peoples." Either something was omitted here in the editing process or the author equates "reconstructing Celtic spirituality" with "Celtic reconstructionism". The quotation that follows is from an essay by Ann-Marie Gallagher, "Weaving a Tangled Web? Pagan Ethics and Issues of History, 'Race' and Ethnicity in Pagan Identity", p. 580 in the same book, where the section header is "What does this Fine Disregard for Cultural and Historical Specificity Signify?" So there is not much depth here, and the general tendency is to cite it in contrast to other things. Also, since non-reconstructionist Celtic-focused forms of paganism are vastly more prevalent, and Celtic reconstructionism does not appear to have produced many scholars of its own (unlike heathenry, exacerbating the imbalance in essay collections), I'm having second thoughts as to keeping the article versus redirecting it to a better written and referenced section within Celtic neopaganism . The gutting of OWNSOURCE sources that has continued while I was working on this has tipped me over; we shouldn't have an article on a religious denomination that removes sources about what adherents believe and do simply and solely because they're hosted on their own websites. So I'm changing my bolded position above and will let others use my work or not based on the consensus reached here. Yngvadottir ( talk ) 12:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just to respond to the ping -- the main reason I removed Green Triangle was because it's an SPS by non-experts. Going through various archived versions of the site, I couldn't find any mention of editorial policy (let alone by people with any relevant qualifications). Practitioner accounts should really be limited to those which are published in RS, otherwise we are emphasizing facets that may not be accurate or relevant to the system (and with such a long , open-ended, personal interview I think it would be very difficult to identify salient points without engaging in OR). JoelleJay ( talk ) 17:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Celtic neopaganism, per above discussion. JoelleJay ( talk ) 17:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Celtic neopaganism, merging the best of Yngvadottir's findings. But it does appear that Celtic neopaganism is the "real" topic here, with this title being something of a fork article. SnowFire ( talk ) 00:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - into Celtic neopaganism , there is enough useful material here that merging the content rather than simply redirecting is a more positive outcome and a valid alternative to deletion. Thanks to those who cleaned up primary sources and/or COI content. Netherzone ( talk ) 19:30, 18 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

2017 Pacific Rugby League Tests : CONCERN: Information here is just a copy of International rugby league in 2017 and has no unique information. Pacific games don't need there own page per size split policy . Please also see deletion discussion for Pacific Rugby League International . Mn1548 ( talk ) 17:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:13, 24 August 2023 (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/2023 August 28 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and Oceania . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/Merge with International rugby league in 2017 . No need for a separate page. J Mo 101 ( talk ) 09:34, 29 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