Datasets:

hsuvaskakoty

/

wide_analysis

like 0

Arab Canadian identity : WP:SYNTH + WP:REFBOMBED issues where the article just references random articles with the phrase "Arab Canadian" or "Arab-Canadian (identity)" in it. NLeeuw ( talk ) 08:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions . NLeeuw ( talk ) 08:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Politics . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 15 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! 05:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : More than enough study of this cultural identity [18] , [19] and multiple papers such as [20] , [21] . This is also a book review on the subject [22] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Arab Canadians , which doesn't have a lot of prose; this content could improve the parent article. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or merge to Arab Canadians per above. Aldij ( talk ) 18:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - There are many sources on this identity. The article should be expanded, not deleted. Brat Forelli 🦊 01:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Arab Canadians , which covers the same topic. Ethnic group articles X do not typically have a separate article for "X identity". signed, Rosguill talk 13:12, 30 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

Nelson family : I would agree that the main source, [30] , a family member's own work building a family tree, is not independent or adequately reliable. The other sources are about individuals, not the family as a whole. The notable members are several generations apart and likely did not know each other, so this is really just a non-notable genealogy page rather than a cohesively notable family discussed together. Reywas92 Talk 01:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not sure if I'm allowed to nominate a template here, but also nominating Template:Nelson family . The people listed here are merely distant cousins of each other so a navbox is not warranted. Reywas92 Talk 01:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . Reywas92 Talk 01:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Failure of GNG and NOTGENEALOGY. Depending on your definition of a list, failure of WP:NLIST as well. IceBergYYC ( talk ) 01:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with List of United States political families (N) I'm not seeing any sources that establish the notability of the family to warrant a separate article. Since many of the members were politicians, I think that merging to this list of other political families is a valid ATD. Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 12:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The notable ones were second cousins of each other, not sure that belongs as a "political family" where most listed are more closely related. Reywas92 Talk 14:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Looking at the proposed merge target and other letters, there are several people listed whose relationship is given only as "cousin" (no indication of to what degree of kinship). Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 18:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete not really evident that the Nelson family has formed a cohesive unit (passing down resources, influence etc.) except in the strictly genealogical sense. Choess ( talk ) 18:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to determine whether to Delete or selectively Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge selectively to either Polycarpus Nelson or perhaps List of United States political families (N) . Best to use an ATD here to save history because many of the minor (verifiable) details could be useful an across a variety of biographies. — siro χ o 03:09, 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

White Cloud (steamship) : From the same sockmaster that brought us CSS Ida ( AfD discussion ) and CSS Manassas (clipper) ( AfD discussion ). A sock was responsible for CSS Jeff Davis (1863 steamship) ( AfD discussion ). As it is, we have no context for this vessel except for the three sentences taken from DANFS. Silverstone's Warships of the Civil War Navies devotes a single sentence to this vessel. Lytle's "Merchant Steam Vessels of the United States 1807-1868" lists 5 White Cloud s and a White Cloud No. 2 ; this is apparently a different White Cloud as that one was in Union service during the 1862 Ft. Donelson campaign but this one was not captured from the CSA until 1863. There's so little to work with her that I think expansion would be almost impossible due to the inability to distinguish this ship from others with the same name. Hog Farm Talk 01:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Transportation . Hog Farm Talk 01:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Redirect If significant coverage in reliable sources (and, no, including it in a registry book doesn't count as significant coverage) can't be shown, then it fails to meet WP:GNG , the basic notability requirement considered before even any possible higher requirements, like WP:CORP for corporation articles. I feel like there's quite a few insignificant ship articles that are sourced only to single lines in registry books floating around that should be redirected to some list article instead. Silver seren C 01:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , United States of America , and Illinois . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of ships of the Confederate States Navy . Too little sourced info or notability to justify a standalone article. Merging to the list page would allow retention of a sentence or two of referenced info, and put this vessel in appropriate context as one of dozens of similar craft that saw similar Confederate service. -- Euryalus ( talk ) 01:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The tricky part is that it would be problematic to leave a redirect pointing to the CSA ships page at the current title. There were other steamships of this name, including the apparently distinct Union one referenced at the Battle of St. Charles article so there's no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here for the leftover redirect. I also have concerns about WP:DUEWEIGHT ; there were scores of ships used in this fashion by the CSA and there needs to be some sort of inclusion criteria for the list. Hog Farm Talk 01:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I guess, though there's probably not an infinite number of such vessels. Might be an interesting starting point for a future Confederate steamship editor? But perhaps I'm too optimistic. As a second choice, we could merge the one or two lines of additional info on this article into USS New Era , where the capture is already mentioned. -- Euryalus ( talk ) 02:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - See AFD CSS Manassas (clipper) Same blocked sock master. Not enough content to keep this. — Maile ( talk ) 02:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of ships of the Confederate States Navy unless proper sourcing can be found. Article is completely unsourced and fails WP:V . - Ad Orientem ( talk ) 19:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge content to List of ships of the Confederate States Navy per Euryalus , with or without redirect - the sourcing for that is fine. If there are multiple targets, better to replace with List of ships named White Cloud if other targets materialise. Davidships ( talk ) 15:20, 29 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

P05 : It also conflates different issues (i.e. mentioning a laundry list of Healy's past "controversies", Banks' comments), and tries to connect it to the episode with much editorial bias, and even links it to other pages (i.e. Olivia Benson). Some examples below: Laundry list of past "controversies" irrelevant to page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=P05&diff=prev&oldid=1165736302 An example of original research foung on page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=P05&diff=prev&oldid=1165736789 An example of conflating one issue to another to aggravate "issue": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=P05&diff=prev&oldid=1165736614 There was also an attempt to shoehorn the page to another page the editor created with the same conflation and bias: Linking the page despite its irrelevancy: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Olivia_Benson_(cat)&diff=prev&oldid=1165738222 Original resarch: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Olivia_Benson_(cat)&diff=prev&oldid=1165738378 Just because "puss" was mentioned doesn't mean you have to connect it to a cat's page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Olivia_Benson_(cat)&diff=prev&oldid=1165738475 The editor even self-nominated himself for a "Did you know" feature and linked these two pages he created for a bit that is conflated and based on original research: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Olivia_Benson_(cat) This page is unnecessary as material for this page has already been discussed at length on Matty Healy's page. This should be deleted / redirected to The Adam Friedland Show instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiasedBased ( talk • contribs ) 03:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC) — BiasedBased ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] Keep : per WP:GNG and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP Laun chba ller 08:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would like to express my amazement that in six days, no other editors from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matty Healy (2nd nomination) or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross MacDonald discussions have chirped in on this. (I'm not planning on pinging anyone, as that would be WP:CANVASSING , although I see that 119.94.172.56 has done just that .) The then-bloated Background section I included due to the wealth of "what is the Matty Healy controversy" style articles that came out in May such as [39] [40] [41] , though I suppose it is already covered in the parent article, and the Banks section is well within scope as a reliably sourced direct response to Healy's comments on the controversy. To expand upon the above, I would like to point out to the closer of this nomination the following: that purported bias is a surmountable problem and therefore not a reason for deletion, that WP:ATTACK does not apply here as all content requiring reliable sources has them (i.e., not the WP:LEDE or MOS:PLOT - although I'd really like to see better sourcing for what's left of the Background section), that plots are supposed to be primary sourced per WP:PLOTCITE (which is what I meant by "what I heard"), and that with five months of coverage, this article makes mincemeat of WP:GNG . WP:DUE "requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources", and I am satisfied that I have done so. -- Laun chba ller 12:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete / Merge : This does not need its own page per WP:NOPAGE as this page is mere WP:NPOVFACT -- "an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted on Wikipedia." The page's original title before move was Matty Healy's appearance on The Adam Friedland Show The page move with the podcast title can be argued as another evasion of WP:NPOVFACT given its content. The content of the page has already been covered in Matty Healy's page (after disputes, and eventual consensus by several editors), as well as the podcast's page . * Evidence of content forking to evade neutrality * (1) The creator of this page has a history of editing Healy's page repeatedly about the podcast episode like here and here among a few, and even listed all of the things Healy has apparently been accused in the page's lede despite claims not being reflected with WP:NPOV in the body. (2) Violates WP:NOTSCANDAL / WP:NOTOPINION , giving undue weight and rehash upon rehash of the topic. A cherry-picked list of Healy's perceived past indiscretions included by the creator to serve as "Background" section of this page even though sources cited do not relate it to the podcast is an attempt to establish notability and highlight negative viewpoints. Pages should be WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIARY with the page creator having also done this in Healy's page previously like here . This page is a patchwork very loosely sewn together to appear notable in itself. (3) Page also does not pass WP:NOTESSAY especially after a particular mass revert by the page creator after another editor's cleanup with an Edit Summary stating "Sorry, but I know what I heard." despite The Guardian explicitly saying: "It’s worth noting that a lot of fans are incorrectly attributing a lot of the co-hosts’ comments to Healy." [1] And The New Yorker recounting: "Later, he laughed as the hosts did impressions of hypothetical Japanese guards at German concentration camps." [2] ThijsStoop ( talk ) 15:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] MERGE OR DELETE Using WP:DEL-REASON , there are three reasons why this page should be deleted (tho, personally merging it with the podcast would suffice). One, this is basically an WP:ATTACK page based on the point of view it was written, content (full of editorialising, original research, sourcing bias, indiscriminate inclusion of irrelevant incidents to put the subject in a worse light), and intolerance of the creator in revisions by other users as pointed above. The tone has already been an issue on Matty Healy's page for so long (one editor was even named "I Hate Matty Healy" lol), and his page just recently became stable WP:STABLE . Which leads me to... Two, conveniently, after Healy's page reached its stable version after much content disputes and edit warring, this was created. This is simply content forking for WP:WEIGHT to what was already covered extensively in Healy's page. Three, again, this is riddled with original research. Maxen Embry ( talk ) 11:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete due to the biased language and sources which put Friedland and Mullen in a worse light, per WP:WEIGHT , although I think adding a section dedicated to this episode under the Adam Friedland Show page wouldn't be too bad of an idea. ChessPiece21 ( talk ) 13:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/30/taylor-swift-matty-healy-fan-culture ^ https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/06/05/who-is-matty-healy Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as I'd like to hear from other editors whether or not this article could be seen as an attack page. I do know I've never seen 29,303 bytes written on ONE episode of a podcast series so it clearly is overly detailed in relation to its significance. The question is whether the bias that is argued is in the article is inherent in the article's existence or whether it can be corrected through editing. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I'd selectively merge to the Matt Healy article. This is perhaps too recent to discuss at this point; it appears to have had the normal celebrity news discussion cycle (entertainment news sections of the various media), not sure this has much of a lasting consequence. TOOSOON, perhaps revisit in a year. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have to admit, notability was the one element of this I wasn't expecting to be questioned. Five months is a pretty long news discussion cycle, more than enough I would have thought to satisfy WP:SUSTAINED . -- Laun chba ller 11:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge selectively to Matty Healy . Big POVFORK issues here. There shouldn't be a beat-by-beat description of the podcast episode. We should veer away from celebrity gossip and all quotations as much as possible. There are some middling-quality sources that are not good for sensitive BLP content: Forbes contributors are a bad source in general; Insider , HuffPost and Rolling Stone should be avoided for these claims. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:51, 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

Farnborough International Airshow Radio : It seems like this radio station may be defunct (its website is unavailable) but suggest a merge of any information which can be properly sourced into the article about the airshow itself. Flip Format ( talk ) 13:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio , Aviation , United Kingdom , and England . Flip Format ( talk ) 13:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge – Not really notable in its own right, and it can be easily accommodated in the Farnborough International Airshow article (those parts that can be sourced, as currently none is). -- Deeday-UK ( talk ) 11:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above. Subject fails for a stand alone article, is an unneeded CFORK which only serves to make readers chase links. // Timothy :: talk 07:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom, although it doesn't look like much of it is referenced anyway and I suspect it will be difficult/impossible to source retrospectively - so in effect, delete . W a g ge r s TALK 13:52, 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

2023 Christiana Mall shooting : Any details about the shooting can be covered in a section of the shopping mall article. Dough 4872 03:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose : SIGCOV exists through the collective coverage provided by CBS, Fox, and Yahoo Sports, already linked. Merging the full details of this shooting to the Christiana Mall article would cause undue weight issues Jack4576 ( talk ) 04:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Why would we care about coverage of a mall shooting from...Yahoo Sports ? Nate • ( chatter ) 21:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Although the article does meet notability guidelines as it stands, it's not that notabile with only a few sources, and really could be covered by a short paragraph or two in the main mall article without losing any detail. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 04:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Fails WP:LASTING , WP:GEOSCOPE , etc. News reports during or shortly after the incident are not WP:INDEPTH and do not amount to significant coverage. The mall's main article is an acceptable place for a few sentences about this. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 06:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Unless this event takes on wider significance, it seems like a textbook WP:NOTNEWS . -- Tserton ( talk ) 13:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete More NOTNEWS from the 'every firearms discharge in public deserves an article' side of en.wiki. Mention of it in the mall article in a short summarized form is appropriate and a redirect is fine, though not required. Nate • ( chatter ) 21:43, 14 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

Our Lady Of Velankanni Church, Shoolagiri : Fram ( talk ) 08:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , Religion , and India . Fram ( talk ) 08:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Tamil Nadu . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge (partial) to Shoolagiri , as this seems a prominient feature of the place. Djflem ( talk ) 11:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : based on the limited sources to help it meet notability, I agree with the suggestion to merge. Rublamb ( talk ) 20:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge properly sourced material to Shoolagiri . Fails GNG and NGEO for a stand alone article. // Timothy :: talk 04:46, 27 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

Yummy (company) : Refs are routine business news. scope_creep Talk 16:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies , and Indonesia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to parent company IDN Media . It's hard to evaluate the Indonesian sources, and there's a lot of cross-reporting between the IDN media properties, but [9], [10], and [12] are probably independent. Are they based on anything other than an IDN press release announcing the app though? Based on their content, probably not. ~ A412 talk! 07:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to IDN Media – I noted that there's a lot of circular referencing in the earlier nomination from IDN Media properties. As A412, the independent content might just be churnalism. However, because I'm not familiar with the Indonesian language, I might be missing something so I'm okay with a weak keep as well. TLA tlak 03:55, 6 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

SCSI standalone enclosure services : Chidgk1 ( talk ) 06:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I couldn't find any sources at all, everything web search shows appears to be based on this article. Merge into SCSI Enclosure Services , see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SCSI Enclosure Services . NicolausPrime ( talk ) 11:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with merging. DFlhb ( talk ) 05:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into SCSI Enclosure Services per above. Mooonswimmer 23:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per NicolausPrime . Owen× ☎ 00:07, 8 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

Palace Entertainment : 90% of the source is already rehashed at the target. The question here is NOT NOTABILITY so there is no need to delete Palace Entertainment or to look for sources! RATHER, the question is that of information governance. Thank you all for considering how each one of our articles could become sensible to carry so articles won't overlap and insult the intelligence of the reader! gidonb ( talk ) 16:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Adding that Palace Entertainment , while probably still operational as an intermediate holding company, has been fully integrated into Parques Reunidos . For example, there is no longer separate web presence for Palace Entertainment . gidonb ( talk ) 17:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Companies , Spain , and United States of America . gidonb ( talk ) 16:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions . gidonb ( talk ) 16:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This really ought to be a proposed merge as described at WP:MERGEPROP rather than a deletion proposal Garuda3 ( talk ) 23:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment the Palace Entertainment page's notability is justified due to its historical value and long list of property ownership with dozens of tourist properties having their own Wikipedia pages. The issue with multiple reliable citations is still there and the continent is not easily verifiable. However, the chance is that some books, magazines, etc contain the necessary information. If merging, much information should be removed due to lack of sufficient reliable citations. Old-AgedKid ( talk ) 08:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , I saw this on the WP:APARKS tab. It may be more appropriate to start a discussion via WP:MERGEPROP rather than WP:AFD per the nomination. AFD's are usually for deleting articles not meeting our notability criteria . If there is a belief the subject has notability but possibly a lack of information it should either be improved or merged if indeed the subject is the same as the target article. I would suggest closing the AFD and starting a discussion on the talk page if that was the intention. Adog ( Talk ・ Cont ) 04:03, 20 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! 23:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : per nom. This should have been proc closed and taken to PAM, but we're here, so... C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE 05:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom per ATD. HighKing ++ 14:50, 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

Uttara Cricket Club : They played only first division cricket league and haven't ever been promoted to Dhaka Premier Division Cricket League . The only mentions are in a match report, which says that the team had won a match in the first division league. Couldn't find any independent coverage about the team to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NORG Robo Cric Let's chat 14:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Sports , Cricket , and Bangladesh . Robo Cric Let's chat 14:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Uttara Sporting Club which seems to be the main club, this just seems to be a random offspring that has played non-notable matches for the same club, in the same way a Second XI does. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Rugbyfan22. AA ( talk ) 19:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Otomate : Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 19:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies . Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 19:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Idea Factory . Possible search term. TarkusAB talk / contrib 19:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect to Idea Factory . More appropriate as a subsection there. (There's hardly a subsection's worth of info in the article anyways.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Idea Factory per others due to lack of notability/content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 02:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Idea Factory per above -- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:23, 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

Edgar Allan Poe and music : BD2412 T 02:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions . BD2412 T 02:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Edgar_Allan_Poe_in_popular_culture . killer bee 05:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Merging this content into the featured article on Edgar Allan Poe would only invite cruft, though I do think the sourcing here is somewhat better than other similar lists. The already-created Edgar Allan Poe in popular culture article is focused on fictional depictions of the historical figure and probably not an appropriate dumping ground for this content either. -- Midnightdreary ( talk ) 13:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Roughly 80% of the lines on the page are completely unsourced. The ones that are I would say are a mixed bag. BD2412 T 13:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Stubbify to a prosaic article rather than a list. see Poe and the Idea of Music and Romanticism in a New Key and the Case of Edgar Allan Poe . Mach61 ( talk ) 14:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – The article appears to be old and requires improvements, but Edgar Allan Poe's influence on various types of music is considerable. Svartner ( talk ) 04:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith Talk to me 04:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merger is silly. There is a huge overlap between this random pile of factoids and Allusions to Poe's "The Raven" , Annabel Lee#Adaptations , A Dream Within a Dream#Adaptations , and the many other Poe-related articles where adaptations and suchlike are listed. In fact, let's see what happens if we remove those, for starters. Uncle G ( talk ) 07:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Eliminating the overlap eliminates almost half of the article, with lists already in the other articles, often containing much the same items. Even this article has duplicates. It's possible that with all of that removed there is a form taking shape, here, but the problem still is sourcing. A couple of experiments trying to source some of the items left reveals that it is very difficult to confirm much more than song titles in some cases, let alone the detailed claims about the works. Uncle G ( talk ) 13:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is not necessarily a part of Edgar Allan Poe in popular culture because not all music is "popular music". More important, it is large and significant enough to be a separate (sub)page. My very best wishes ( talk ) 17:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Virtually none of this is cited; it's an original research essay that has ballooned into an uncited WP:COATRACK . Any noteworthy musical adaptation of, or noteworthy reference to, any of Poe's works belongs on the wiki article for the work – and even then only if cited reliably. If there is no article on the Poe work, then the information belongs on the wiki article for the music piece, but only if reliably cited . (If there is no wiki article on the musical piece, then it likely lacks sufficient notability to mention anyway.) If for some reason this article is kept, all of the uncited material should be wholesale deleted. Softlavender ( talk ) 04:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : a common case of the indiscriminate "In Popular Culture" style with no sense of perspective . While some allusions should be mentioned at the subject's article (e.g. " Who the Hell Is Edgar? " should talk about Poe), few are important derivative works or substantially enduring, so should not be mentioned at an article about Poe. Anything comparably well-known to the original work could be reintroduced at Edgar Allan Poe in popular culture or the articles on Poe's original works. — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What do you think of my suggestion to focus the article on sources which analyze his impact on music broadly, rather than listing individual trivia? Mach61 ( talk ) 17:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That sounds like writing a new article entirely, ergo, WP:TNT . BD2412 T 20:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that TNT applies as I cannot see how the current article would help you in that task. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Edgar Allan Poe in popular culture : Per WP:DUE बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 01:38, 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

Battle Cat : 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 ( 🔔 ) 11:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , Television , and Comics and animation . 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 ( 🔔 ) 11:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters#Battle Cat / Cringer , it does not appear standalone notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 04:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect to Battle Cat's section on the character list. The only things from the article that seem worhty of transplanting there is the "Origin" section as it provides some details on the character's creation. -- PanagiotisZois ( talk ) 19:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect per PanagiotisZois. There are some very limited reliable sources about the origin that can be WP:PRESERVEd . But much of this article is unsourced, making it inappropriate for an article of its own. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 20:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters#Battle Cat / Cringer per the above discussion. Aoba47 ( talk ) 23:16, 16 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

Garsa Fwip : I'm not even sure why she has a page to begin with. Unnamed anon ( talk ) 01:20, 14 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 14 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 01:42, 14 August 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 . Shellwood ( talk ) 08:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The articles on creation and development, not just reception, counts towards GNG. Jclemens ( talk ) 19:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jclemens : All of the creation and development articles can easily be moved to the casting section of The Book of Boba Fett#Production . Unnamed anon ( talk ) 00:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Of course they can. But you've proposed an AfD-enforced outcome. I have no objection to a merge discussion on a talk page concluding this, but is it a policy-mandated outcome? It is not. Jclemens ( talk ) 22:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This AfD was long overdue for an entirely non-notable character, both in terms of her impact in the show and in real life. It might not be policy-mandated to delete this article, but its mere existence is eyebrow raising. If you have no objection to a merge discussion, then why advocate for keeping this page? Unnamed anon ( talk ) 23:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But she's not non-notable, so I'd recommend you go read up on the Wikipedia concept or be more precise in your usage. Non-notable things get merged at AfD. Notable things better served by merging get merged in merge discussions if there's consensus to do so. Maintaining this distinction is important to keep things in perspective and document the right level of consensus: un-redirecting a notable character for improvement should be something everyone is free to do whenever they think they can make the encyclopedia better. Jclemens ( talk ) 00:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to The Book of Boba Fett . The information here can easily be covered in the Production and Reception sections. Some Reception info can also be merged to relevant episodes if need be. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 16:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you Pokelego999, finally somebody who realizes that the few actual good sources can go on another page instead of the a ridiculous page for a seldom talked about bit character. Unnamed anon ( talk ) 04:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The character is one of relatively few standout female characters in the Star Wars franchise, portrayed by a notable actress with decent coverage. The topic reached Good article status, and is interesting. No, the character may not be as notable as Princess Leia but she does not have to be. Worst case scenario, we can redirect to List_of_The_Book_of_Boba_Fett_characters#Garsa_Fwip and merge in some of the pertinent information from here that is not covered there. — TAnthony Talk 18:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ TAnthony : "Relatively few standout female characters" is false on both fronts, as this character is not standout at all, and there are plenty of other standout females like Mon Mothma, Padme, Ahsoka, Bo-Katan, Rey, Jyn Erso, Rose, Qi'ra, the list goes on. The "good article" status is something I disagree with, and "interesting" is entirely subjective and something I also disagree with. The notable actress can easily go under the casting subsection in The Book of Boba Fett#Production . Unnamed anon ( talk ) 06:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep as the in depth development and the casting and reception section show notability. It qualifies as a stand alone article. The GA status also already illustrates its importance and how it should not be deleted. It does not matter if the character is "minor" – a character can be minor but still make a big impact/be talked about in sources, as done so here. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 09:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ DaniloDaysOfOurLives : I can maybe see an argument that the casting section can prove notability, but the reception section is horrid. Only three sources are in there, and two of them are just lists of Star Wars characters the sources like. Unnamed anon ( talk ) 10:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That doesn't make the section "horrid". 3 sources is better than 1 (and better than 0) and lists are also perfectly acceptable. I think the creature of the article should feel very proud DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 12:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ DaniloDaysOfOurLives : Lists are not acceptable sources for reception, and 3 sources are too little. I'd like to ping Kung Fu Man , who recently has redirected many pages because of this very reason. Unnamed anon ( talk ) 02:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Where in the MOS does it say that lists are unacceptable? Pages have been using them for reception for years and no one has said that it's unacceptable. .? DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 02:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't believe it officially says anywhere in the MoS, but it should be obvious why lists aren't ideal sources. It's because they don't actually fully detail the character the Wikipedia article is about, and usually are simply saying "this character exists", with very little other substance, and the Garsa Fwip "article" reeks of that. Unnamed anon ( talk ) 02:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some listicle articles are viable sources on Wikipedia. While they should be shied away from and not used as primary backing, they can be used as additional sources if they have something to say about the character. Many articles on Wikipedia use these listicles effectively, it's just a matter of knowing which to avoid and which to use. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 03:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I feel the discussion here is based around notability, when it really shouldn't be. Yes, we can verify that she passes GNG, but the real question is whether or not that justifies a separate article or not. What the article says can be covered by other articles extremely easily, and Garsa herself doesn't seem to garner enough individual reception beyond that to justify a separate article. I actually missed that a List of The Book of Boba Fett characters article existed, but a lot of Garsa's information already seems to be covered there from a glance, and the reception can easily be slotted in without issue, alongside any information not already there. A lot of this information can also be, as mentioned earlier, either moved to the main article or respective episodes, depending on what works best. Though, yes, it is notable, there just isn't enough in the article to justify its separation from the other various Book of Boba Fett articles, in my view. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 15:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I've been pinged into this and I would like to blatantly say I not only don't appreciate words being put in my mouth, but I also don't care for being pointed at an AfD like this and asked to give my opinion. That feels like canvassing. I would have likely given my two cents on my own over time, but I don't feel comfortable offering my opinion on this with that considered now. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 03:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Kung Fu Man : I sincerely apologize if I put words in your mouth; that was not my intention at all. I also did mot mean to canvas; the reason for pinging you was because this article, which is full of cruft and honestly poorly written, seems very similar to many the articles you redirected from my viewpoint, and I wanted advice from somebody with more experience than me in redirecting on when it what qualifies as good or poor sourcing, as the past few times I have WP:BLAR 'd it has been reverted and contested even if the article was obviously crufty and problematic; whether you proved me right or wrong was irrelevant. If you still wish to not give your opinion on this article, that is all right, I just hope you know that canvassing/putting words in your mouth was not my intention. Unnamed anon ( talk ) 04:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then by all means, please learn to improve articles appropriately and expend effort in that direction, rather than trying to use AfD, a blunt instrument, to force outcomes not demanded by policy. Hit me up on my talk page if you want some coaching on how to do this effectively. Jclemens ( talk ) 22:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jclemens : Normally, I would agree that improving an article would be good, but in this case this is an extremely minor character. In my opinion, minor characters should only get wikipedia articles either if sourcing can prove that the character has had a real-life impact or was a giant breakout character in terms of reception on par with the main characters, for example Howard and Harold McBride or Edna Mode . There is nothing of that sort for Garsa Fwip, and even a simple google search shows nothing notable about this character's reception. I was always questioning why this page even existed, this AfD was very long overdue. The few good sources can be merged, as Pokelego999 and I have been talking about. Unnamed anon ( talk ) 22:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's nice, and thank you for sharing, but that's not policy. Learning to fix stuff is important, and I would prefer that AfD initiators who nominate something for deletion that is kept immediately become responsible for adding in all the improvements and sourcing brought up in the AfD before they're allowed to start another. That's not policy either, but I like it much better than your proposal. Jclemens ( talk ) 00:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there is currently no consensus and certainly no consensus to Delete. I encourage the nominator, User:Unnamed anon to refrain from commenting on every remark in this AFD discussion or you could be blocked from participating in this discussion due to bludgeoning. You've made your nomination and views known, you don't need to counter every opinion that disagrees with your own. It certainly won't convince anyone to agree with your perspective. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . Very unimpressive Reception section that consists mainly of notes that she was 10th or so on some listicles. She is not named in the heading of any ref cited. Fails WP:GNG IMHO. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete / Merge to List of The Book of Boba Fett characters This never should have been given Good article sourcing. The character appears in four scenes of four episodes in what all reviews call a cameo, most reception being over fans of the actress happy to see her in Star Wars , not about the character herself. Everything Pokelego999 said is correct. 113.30.191.65 ( talk ) 13:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep coverage seems to establish notability. – Meena • 14:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . This fictional character is not notable. All encyclopaedic information about her should be given in the television series and character list articles to the extent appropriate per WP:DUE . PatricePatricia ( talk ) 15:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Most of the sources appear to be WP:PRIMARY , others content farms, and others only tangentially related, therefore, I am having difficulty seeing how it passes GNG. The nominator's argument is not necessarily disqualifying for an article, and their further commentary verges on WP:IDONTLIKEIT , but upon further inspection, notability is seriously in doubt. The Keep ! votes seem to be along the lines of WP:ITSIMPORTANT without demonstrating evidence of the supposed SIGCOV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 09:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Fails WP:GNG . Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 13:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I may well have ! voted differently if this were a merge discussion, but if the question is whether this article is policy-compliant, I feel it unambiguously is. The article is about the entire topic of the fictional character - its role in the series, its creation and portrayal by a notable actress, and its reception. All of these elements are sourced, taken together reflect a notable topic. If editors wish to take this information and organize it in a different manner, that can be decided on the talk page. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:24, 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

Bihar Times : It Fails WP:NMEDIA and WP:GNG . Furthermore, the initial website that was mentioned in article 'bihartimes.in' redirects to an unknown spam link, casting doubt on its legitimacy as a reliable news portal. Saurabh {Talk} 00:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , India , and Bihar . Saurabh {Talk} 00:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment At first I thought this was going to be a no-brainer delete, but their official website appears to be Bihartimes.news , not bihartimes.com or bihartimes.in. It's real, now we need to see whether it's notable. EDIT: Okay, I checked around and it looks like a newspaper called Bihar Times has been around since 1894 but fell into disrepair in recent years: [20] But according to the Wikipedia article's current sources, these might be two different publications [21] . This one's complicated. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 14:31, 31 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! 00:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I found this link to a more reliable Bihar Times Site: https://www.bihartimes.news PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 03:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There may have been a newspaper called "Bihar Times" in the 1990s. However, recent news websites like "Bihartimes.news," etc., are not the same publication and appear to be unreliable. Apart from that, no sources have been provided in the article to claim the news portal as unbiased and reliable. Saurabh {Talk} 03:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Media in Bihar § Internet , which currently has a mention, as WP:ATD-M . — siro χ o 07:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above. Aydoh8 ( talk ) 04:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge not that notable news portal. Citadeol (talk) 10:05, 14 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

Ossanda Liber : There has been another nationwide election since then and this candidate is still getting under 0.5%. There are sources about her, yes, but they're mainly discussing her candidacies and are part of a WP:ROUTINE coverage expected in a democracy. Some other parties are mainly based around the founder, such as Vox and Chega, but those parties have hundreds of other office holders and the founders have their own individual notability as office holders and nationally recognisable figures. Apart from being an unsuccessful candidate, what can be said about Liber that isn't about her party? The page used to have information about education and children, which I removed as unsourced per BLP. I also removed the blow-by-blow of setting up a political party, as that's obviously more about the organisation than about her. But the thing is, would we ever need to know personal information about someone this notable? I saw the comment before that Liber is notable as a founder and leader of a political party, but in a democracy it's reasonably easy to set up a party, and extremely easy to be the leader of your own party. Unknown Temptation ( talk ) 16:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Liber's electoral history: 2021 Lisbon local election (0.36%), 2022 national election (voters in other European countries constituency) (0.08%), 2024 national election (Lisbon constituency) (0.18%), 2024 European election (0.18%). Not sure at which point someone becomes notable the hard way, like Bill Boaks . Unknown Temptation ( talk ) 16:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Tagging all previous commenters: AusLondonder Moondragon21 PamD SportingFlyer BlakeIsHereStudios Prima.Vera.Paula Unknown Temptation ( talk ) 16:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I translated this article into English from Portuguese as part of Women in Red . This page could potentially be merged into Nova Direita as it is considerably larger. 18:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Women , Conservatism , Angola , France , and Portugal . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete We do not keep articles on failed political candidates for a variety of different reasons under WP:NOT , and she's not notable for being the leader of a very small political party either. It's not impossible she'll be notable in the future, but at the moment I think this is an easy delete. SportingFlyer T · C 19:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Nova Direita - there isn't enough coverage to justify a separate article, a slightly-longer description of her in the party's article is sufficient. Not impossible this would change in the future. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 19:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and merge to Nova Direita : That way the page info would be stored in the redirect's history and a portion of the content could be placed in a section in the Nova Direita article. Prima.Vera.Paula ( talk ) 16:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Tucker Carlson Network : Esolo5002 ( talk ) 19:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Tucker Carlson . In future it might have the notability for an article but I don't think it does at the moment. The coverage is either the launch announcement, or mentioned as part of his Vladimir Putin Interview . It's worth merging to Tucker Carlson in my opinion but is too soon for it's own article. Shaws username . talk . 20:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Tucker Carlson for reasons given above. Doesn't really have an identity independent of Carlson at this stage. Jbt89 ( talk ) 21:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Tucker Carlson per nom. and Jbt89. Sal2100 ( talk ) 21:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect per above; this simply is not a 24/7 television network and should be written currently as if it is one. This is the 'one guy with a podcast and a website' type of network that should not be using WP:TV templates. Nate • ( chatter ) 22:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Internet . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not worth it spreading the Russian propaganda Kasperquickly ( talk ) 05:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect with Tucker Carlson - WP:TOOSOON , it could possibly warrant a its own article in the future if it really blows up. However, no way to know that right now. Grahaml35 ( talk ) 03:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Tucker Carlson : it's not "not" notable, but it's only notable within the context of tucker carlson. per above, WP:TOOSOON . Password (talk) (contribs) 20:04, 20 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

Spirit of '76 (Marvel Comics) : BEFORE is no giving much except a few mentions in passing; realistically any reception we could write would be "this character, like several others, was inspired by Captain America"). I am afraid this fails WP:GNG . The best WP:ATD I can think of would be a slight merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: S . (The character is also mentioned in Alternative versions of Captain America , but I don't recommend merging there as that particular article likely fails GNG itself). He is mentioned in passing in our Captain America article, and I am afraid that, plus a brief plot summary in the list, is really all this minor character deserves. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:37, 14 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 03:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge: to List of Marvel Comics characters: S as per nom. Off-chance of more out-of-universe material in Amazing Heroes or Back Issue! articles on Invaders (comics) (will try to have a look later, I think I had these hooked out before I realised editing Marvel articles was pointless) but most likely passing mentions only (IIRC the character's awful name was occasionally commented on). BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 07:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: actually had this closer to hand than I thought. A 'Hero History' overview of The Invaders in Amazing Heroes #97 (June 15, 1986) posits the character is an expy of DC's Uncle Sam but mentions little else about the character beyond the bald minor facts that a) he existed and b) the later Captain America retcon, maybe two sentences total across a 10-page article. A similarly themed article in Back Issue! #37 mentions him even less, merely stating that the Crusaders were a "team too many". And that's pretty much it; other articles on the Invaders don't mention the character at all beyond the passing trivia note that it was Naslund's codename before he was retconned to be Captain America (a plot angle that has even less secondary coverage). So, in short, nothing to change my vote has turned up in the places this stuff usually does. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 07:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: S per improvements made and sources added to the article and WP:PRESERVE . BOZ ( talk ) 15:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: S in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE just as @ BOZ : suggested. -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 23:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I'll note that since this AfD started, User:Higher Further Faster has added a tiny reception section. Sadly, it seems to be based on WP:SIGCOV -faling mentions in passing in listicles. But it is nonetheless somethng worth considering for merging as suggested above. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 23:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dealing with that kind of thing is why I gave up editing Marvel articles. As you say, both of those sources are questionable beyond being trivial mentions and I don't seem anything to change the idea that it should instead be merged. Seeing as a merge would effectively mean just dropping the entire article into the correct place on the list it seems to be another case of the fannish|arrogant|vain assumption that all Marvel characters are somehow entitled to their own pages and that in-universe notability (he fought Nazis in WW2 and was Captain America for years) is the same thing as real-world notability (he was a guest-star in some largely second-tier comics a couple of times). BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 08:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Visitors to Israel during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war : This war is hugely important but not everything necessarily needs a spin off. BuySomeApples ( talk ) 22:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Travel and tourism , and Israel . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war per nom. Longhornsg ( talk ) 23:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to International reactions to the Israel–Hamas war would be sufficient, given the content and sources. I strongly agree with nom that not everything necessarily needs a spin off . gidonb ( talk ) 10:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war per Gidonb. Marokwitz ( talk ) 13:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war per above, doesn't appear to warrant a standalone article. Alextejthompson ( Ping me or leave a message on my talk page ) 18:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment So, International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war is now a redirect and I think the proper target article is International reactions to the Israel–Hamas war . L iz Read! Talk! 01:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment If this AfD is closed as "keep", please move this page to Visitors to Israel during the Israel–Hamas war , per Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 12 January 2024 . InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 04:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war Leaky.Solar ( talk ) 20:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This article can't be Merged or Redirected to International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war as this page is a Redirect. L iz Read! Talk! 08:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into International reactions to the Israel–Hamas war — The Anome ( talk ) 09:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - this is not close to Wikipedia-worthy. Llajwa ( talk ) 20:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war per above. A one paragraph stub is an unneeded fork of other articles. // Timothy :: talk 06:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Z800 3DVisor : Possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect or redirect to eMagin but it currently hasn't been considered notable enough for a mention in that article. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk ) 14:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Article had poor sourcing. Nominator should have done a better research. I have added 7 new sources including CNET and PC MAG. Bikerose ( talk ) 20:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] CNET: Situational (per WP:RSP ) PCMAG: Reliable (per WP:VG/S ) New Atlas: (Presumed) reliable (per RSN archive 375 ) Don’t see anything about SimHQ, oled.com. The rest are probably primary sources. Based on the sources @ Bikerose gave, I’d lean Weak Keep . However, CNET can be replaced with a better source. Brachy 08 (Talk) 00:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to eMagin ; the article on the company is very short, and this is the only product by the company for which we have an article; there is no need for separate pages. BD2412 T 01:10, 30 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

Sportscenter AM : As it shares the same name as certain editions of SportsCenter , I oppose a redirect. Let'srun ( talk ) 23:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Sports . Let'srun ( talk ) 23:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge a sentence or two to SportsCenter § Other editions , which already covers radio programming. This avoids nom's concern about similar names because SportsCenter:AM is also covered in that article. (I just set up that redirect after investigating this article, the coverage was already there). — siro χ o 23:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to SportsCenter § Other editions and redirect to SportsCenter : in terms of whether there should be a redirect or not, the ambiguity with the similarly-titled SportsCenter:AM TV program (which some sources actually refer to as SportsCenter AM as well), which is why the redirect should not necessarily be to a separate section (the TV version is covered in SportsCenter § History instead) is all but canceled out by the fact that neither program has any truly separate notability from the wider SportsCenter franchise anyway. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:35, 25 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 Gwadar labourers shooting : No WP:LASTING coverage to meet WP:EVENT . LibStar ( talk ) 23:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge /redirect (partially) to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017 . If there is later coverage it likely isn't in English so this is difficult to evaluate. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 23:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Terrorism , and Pakistan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017 . No apparent sourcing beyond reporting as it happened. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 18:46, 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

Conversations with Bill Kristol : TipsyElephant ( talk ) 01:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Radio , Entertainment , Politics , and Economics . TipsyElephant ( talk ) 01:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here are the reasons why it does pass WP:GNG. Significant Coverage: "Conversations with Bill Kristol" has been referenced and cited by multiple independent and reliable sources: - The Hertog Foundation, an institution dedicated to political education and leadership, has provided coverage of the program. - The Jack Miller Center, an academic organization that supports the teaching of America's founding principles and history, has also referenced the series. - The American Enterprise Institute, a well known public policy think tank, has covered topics discussed in the program. Such coverage from multiple independent and authoritative institutions demonstrates that the series is not only recognized but also considered influential in its discourse. Contribution to the Field: The show provides in-depth interviews with leading figures across a spectrum of disciplines - politics, political philosophy, history, foreign policy, economics, and culture. The depth and breadth of topics discussed make it a valuable resource for those looking for substantive and thoughtful discourse on pivotal national issues. Notable Host & Production: Bill Kristol, the host, is a recognized figure in American politics. As a founder of The Weekly Standard and a significant voice in political analysis for decades, his association lends credibility and notability to the series. Notable Guests: The program has hosted a range of prominent guests like Garry Kasparov, Anne Applebaum, Harvey Mansfield, and Larry Summers. Their participation indicates the program's standing and respect within intellectual and political circles. Duration and Frequency: The program has been running since 2014, indicating sustained interest and relevance. A biweekly release schedule further highlights its active status and ongoing contribution to public discourse. With these points, the "Conversations with Bill Kristol" article not only meets but exceeds Wikipedia's notability standards by showcasing significant coverage in reliable sources, contribution to the field, and association with notable personalities and institutions. Dillion3384 ( talk ) 14:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete despite the bludgeoning by the creator with irrelevant non-policy and accepted norms, this isn't notable on its own and can easily be covered in the article about Kristol with a redirect. It lacks significant in depth coverage and the normal show coverage required. PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi PICKLEDICAE🥒, Thank you for reviewing the "Conversations with Bill Kristol" article and sharing your perspective. I've made an effort to highlight its notability through evidence and sources from respected institutions, underscoring the show's significance in public discourse. I also wish to mention that, as time permits, I would like to expand the article to delve into individual episodes. Such expansions will provide greater context and depth, emphasizing the show's unique contribution to various discussions and debates. This would further establish its distinction from merely being an offshoot of Bill Kristol's contributions. If you have concerns about the article's current state or its adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines, could you please reference specific policies or provide examples? Best regards, Dillion3384 ( talk ) 13:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/redirect to Bill Kristol per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion . I did not find significant coverage about the subject in my searches for sources . The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline to support a standalone article. I support a selective merge of any content that can be reliably sourced to Bill Kristol . I support preserving the history under the redirect so that the redirect can be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard ( talk ) 06:27, 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! 05:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Bill Kristol . It seems fair to highlight on the merged page that there were some important guests and that the series had a bit of wider influence. But going into a whole lot of depth about individual episodes in a separate page just isn't supported by the RS and therefore does not (at this time) meet the notability criteria for inclusion here. JMWt ( talk ) 08:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Bill_Kristol#Media_commentator . No significant coverage or analysis of the program, doesn't warrant a standalone page. Mooonswimmer 13:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Bill Kristol , no sourcing to demonstrate notability in and of itself. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 02:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Bill Kristol : per virtually everyone else; that's the standard alternative to deletion when the host is notable but the show doesn't have its own independent notability. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 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

Intifada – The Long Day of Rage : As I do not believe that both sources can be counted towards the notability requirement, and as the original editor is unavailable, I would suggest a deletion. Additionally, the use of RFC: Electronic Intifada by an author who does not appear to be an authority in their respective field as the primary source for the content of the book, meaning that the content cannot be sourced well. FortunateSons ( talk ) 16:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This is my first AfD, so anyone with more experience is very welcome to correct any errors made. Thank you in advance :) FortunateSons ( talk ) 16:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ FortunateSons : I believe you've performed all the steps correctly. In the future, you can try using Twinkle , which greatly simplifies the process. ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 18:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you, I will. Does it work on mobile, or do I need a desktop? FortunateSons ( talk ) 19:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Quoting link above: "Twinkle is not yet compatible with the mobile skin Minerva Neue . However, someone has written a third party patch that you can install. Please follow the directions at User:Plantaest/TwinkleMobile ." and also: "You must use a supported web browser." and "If you're using Windows, and you're using a touchscreen, you may need to tap and hold the "TW" button in order to get the options to come up." (from Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc ) - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, I’ll try that next time, thank you! FortunateSons ( talk ) 19:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you! FortunateSons ( talk ) 19:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to David_Pratt_(Scottish_journalist)#Selected_publications if the reviews are judged insufficient. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not opposed To Keep in light of the review mentioned below. (Yet another one would indeed help but, above all, the redirect and merge could allow expanding the page about Pratt. As other users wish, really. Both are OK, I think. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into David Pratt (Scottish journalist) (selectively) as a totally improper SPINOUT. Regardless of notability, the bio article is short and it does not discuss this book. Much of the book article content will be a welcome addition to the biography. gidonb ( talk ) 15:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I found another review in ProQuest , from Reference and Research Book News; Portland Vol. 22, Iss. 4, (Nov 2007). WP:NBOOK only requires two reviews, so if just one of Frontline Club or anphoblacht is considered reliable, that is an NBOOK pass. If neither is considered acceptable I can keep looking; I suspect there are more reviews out there in the databases. ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 00:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not knowledgeable about the source and cannot access it; could you please elaborate on context and reliability? FortunateSons ( talk ) 18:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect as suggested above. Llajwa ( talk ) 21:14, 25 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

Oskeladden Rock : No reason to think that a named rock in Antarctica is notable. JMWt ( talk ) 16:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions . JMWt ( talk ) 16:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What do you think, Aymatth2 ? Wohlthat Mountains ? Uncle G ( talk ) 12:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Aymatth2 has a fairly good handle on sorting out Antarctica, from prior AFD discussions, so I go with xem in this case. Uncle G ( talk ) 07:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . Probably to Humboldt Mountains (Antarctica) , which are the westernmost portion of the Wohlthat Mountains. To Nordwestliche Insel Mountains#Oskeladden Rock . I can do that. The subject does not deserve a stand-alone article, but the information is valid as part of the description of the parent. Aymatth2 ( talk ) 13:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . I looked through various geological and environmental databases and could not find any direct mentions for this rock. There is nothing scientifically notable about this rock. Paul H. ( talk ) 20:16, 16 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

WAGMI United : Single event news. scope_creep Talk 14:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Unsure, I was looking for a redirect, is WAGMI United the company setup just for Crawley Town? Then I would simply just redirect to there. Because all indication from the primary source, [7] It's just appears to be the company name setup to manage the club. That's why I suggest a redirect . Govvy ( talk ) 15:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Not even sure what this is. May become more notable in time but not the case now. MaskedSinger ( talk ) 07:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Crawley Town F.C. This company is just the ownership consortium of Crawley that also sells NFTs that grant the right to weigh in on team management (what could [has] gone wrong?); it's not independently notable as a company. Based on the sources cited here, a new section can be written in the Crawley article about its new ownership and how terrible it is . voorts ( talk / contributions ) 00:31, 3 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

ABC News & Talk : Perhaps redirect this to ABC News Radio ? Let'srun ( talk ) 01:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Radio . Let'srun ( talk ) 01:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Cumulus Media Networks — that may be a better target, given that this channel was as much (if not more) about the talk shows that were either syndicated by ABC Radio Networks or originated from ABC Radio-owned stations, than the newscasts produced by ABC News Radio. (The talk shows, their syndicator, and those stations were sold by Disney–ABC to Citadel Broadcasting , which subsequently merged with Cumulus Media ; however, Citadel/Cumulus only acquired distribution rights to ABC News Radio, which otherwise remained with Disney–ABC.) In any event, this is another now-defunct satellite radio channel with no independent notability. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different Redirect targets proposed here. Hoping for more input to determine what is best for this article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting again to settle on a one Redirect target article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into ABC News Radio as its history was mainly under Disney ownership and ABCNR's direction, not that of Cumulus, which had a limited license for ABC's logos and imagining, and its use of the news division until ABC partnered with Skyview for distribution. Nate • ( chatter ) 01:17, 11 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

Mipha : Unlike Prince Sidon who received its popularity for being "sexually attractive" (I guess), meanwhile Mipha didn't. Reception mostly contians only rankings and trivia articles. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 12:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Shellwood ( talk ) 13:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Collectively the sourced content seems to fullfill the requirements of WP:GNG / WP:WHYN . Being a "fascinating, complex character" and "a beloved character" don't seem trivial mentions to me. Daranios ( talk ) 14:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Literally came from a situational listicle source "Breath Of The Wild: 10 Things You Didn't Know About Mipha" that isn't directly talking about the character or being the main topic of the article (= not SIGCOV), but okay I guess. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 15:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Greenish Pickle! : Whatever other considerations there maybe about a source, WP:SIGCOV specifically says to be significant coverage the topic "does not need to be the main topic of the source material." But in this specific case, Mipha IS the main topic, as the title says. Daranios ( talk ) 16:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The source you are talking about was published by Screen Rant , which cannot be used to demonstrate notability per WP:VG/RS TarkusAB talk / contrib 17:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed, and so it seems are Game Rant and The Gamer . Sad that these sources are biased that way, thanks @ TarkusAB : for pointing that out. In that case amending my ! vote to merge to Characters of The Legend of Zelda#Mipha until someone can find more sources. Daranios ( talk ) 19:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not so much being biased (they're perfectly fine solely as sources of info/commentary) as they don't really have a bar in terms of inclusion. Their aim is solely to generate content on niche topics, which is somewhat of the reverse of what the notability policy is intended to do, so they often wreak havoc with people assuming it's evidence something should have an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 20:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Zxcvbnm : Thanks for pointing that out, indeed I meant biased with regard to area of coverage (notability question) not with regard to content of their articles (reliability question). Though I find Haleth 's comments on that interesting that the situation is not quite so clear-cut. However, I have no energy to get into this. Daranios ( talk ) 10:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I don't see any of the solid critical analysis that are in well-sourced character articles. There's a good amount of links to Screen Rant and Game Rant , which do not demonstrate notability. It would not make much sense to keep only this character when we already have concensus to merge Daruk and Revali. The sourcing is pretty similar. TarkusAB talk / contrib 17:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Characters of The Legend of Zelda#Mipha . Can't find much about her outside of content farm-y sources. Seems like a prime candidate for a character list entry, but not a standalone article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Zxcvbnm : Question: how should we do a character list for Breath of the Wild? I feel like Tears of the Kingdom would be included, but would it be something like, "Characters in The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom"? - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 21:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Basically yes. There's not much of a shorter way to put it since, technically, it's still set in Hyrule. Personally, I advocate for the "List of characters..." naming scheme since it's, well, a list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I just don't love it since it leads to list-class assessment, which, IMO, is reserved for content that can't really be judged as Stub/Start/C/B/GA/A/FA. Anyway, do you have any interest in helping with one? - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 21:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I might pop in to fix things, but I wouldn't expect a massive amount of heavy lifting. I'm not a particularly large BOTW fan. It's fine in the general list of characters for now, I simply suggest that if someone's interested, a more specific list can be split off. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Could someone link me to the actual discussion where a group of editors have formed a solid consensus that Game Rant, Screen Rant and TheGamer cannot be used to demonstrate notability? As I recall, the last time I accessed that page just under a year ago, there was no such formalized determination anywhere on the project. I checked the page history and no one has left an edit summary which explained that this sites are now marked as unusable to demonstrate notability, none of the linked discussions for each of the sites on the reliable sources page contain references to this. So it looks like these have been unilaterally added by an editor who may or may not have a bias against Valnet properties (justified or otherwise), and no one has done their due diligence or fact check whether there is consensus about it thus far. Haleth ( talk ) 21:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Haleth : The most recent discussion was 1 year ago here which you yourself participated in, but there was a widespread consensus that GameRant was situational, leaning unreliable. Since ScreenRant and TheGamer are run by the same people in the same manner, the consensus would naturally extend to those as well. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That was 2 years ago actually. Again, there is no consensus in that discussion which says any of the sources cannot be used to prove notability period, only "use with caution". And it wasn't just me who pointed out that ScreenRant and TheGamer seemed to look better when compared to GameRant. We should assess the sources on a case by case basis, not make sweeping assumptions about their reliability just because they are owned by a certain parent company. We don't blatantly call out Fox News as unreliable under all contexts, just because the UK branch of the Murdoch news empire is deemed to be so by other editors. Haleth ( talk ) 01:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I felt like some of the Valnet sources should help notability, thou it shouldn't be irrelevant articles like "Breath Of The Wild: 10 Things You Didn't Know About Mipha" or the rankings. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 22:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There was broad agreement that no Valnet sources should count towards notability. If the idea of a situational source didn't exist, it would have likely have just been called unreliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, please link to the specific discussion/consensus that formalizes the notion that Valnet sources should not count towards notability. Haleth ( talk ) 01:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, there's this . But the discussion is more on sourcing in general, and I don't see a consensus there. Even in that discussion, there's a split whether to ban Valnet completely, or to keep it usable, but not for notability. I would actually have to be in agreement with GreenishPickle. I think something like this should contribute to notability. Something like this , however, not so much. MoonJet ( talk ) 06:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:VG/S explicitly states that Valnet sources cannot be used to demonstrate notability. JOE BRO 64 11:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . I had initial thoughts that this one could be fine, but comparing it to Urbosa , I don't think there is much here to improve. Merge into the Characters of The Legend of Zelda . Though on that subject, I still reiterate that I think Urbosa is notable enough and shouldn't be nominated for deletion. NegativeMP1 ( talk ) 05:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Characters of The Legend of Zelda . Pretty cut and dry case here. Not much else to say. JOE BRO 64 11:18, 24 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

Charmander : Heck there's one in there about a Pokemon toy that's trying to claim it's about Charmander when the toy itself is minor in the story it's about. That's the sort of WP:REFBOMB -ing we're dealing with. There's just no notability, even without considering Charizard by comparison, who still fills in the role of the original trio's ensemble cast. WP:BEFORE also didn't turn up anything of value. The book "Japanese Influence on American Children's Television" offers a recap of Charmander to Charizard's role in the anime, but that can be worked into Charizard proper for the same results, especially the design critique of it going from cute to fearsome. It's not enough to prop up the article alongside the Polygon source when all the bad sourcing is removed. Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 15:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 15:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I agree that Charmander doesn't pass GNG - besides the Polygon article, there are some scattered mentions of the Charmander episode early on in the Pokemon anime in books, but they are all very short. I couldn't find slam-dunk evidence either in the page or in my searches. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 17:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Just the information about his card alone would probably be good enough for an article. KatoKungLee ( talk ) 21:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you might be confusing Charmander with Charizard. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 01:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Zxcvbnm. The coverage is mostly trivial mentions, which aren't enough to pass WP:SIGCOV . There are good lists for this, as WP:ATD . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 16:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge A bit surprised that Charmander doesn't have much coverage due to it being iconic, thou does not pass notability. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 13:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Live band dance : - Altenmann >talk 17:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 20:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I disagree that this is an essay. It's an unreferenced start-class broad-concept article, but given that dance studies is an entire discipline, I imagine that it has received scholarly treatment at some point (I'll leave it to others to find, at which point I'll be more likely to !vote). This is a subtopic of Dance music , so at the very least it could be merged or redirected there (or to Concert or somewhere else relevant) rather than straight deleted, an outcome I'd oppose. Dance-related topics are woefully underdeveloped on Wikipedia (hello systemic bias), but if sources exist then that is a surmountable problem , and in a more developed future I could see this being a valid scope for an article. {{u| Sdkb }} talk 05:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, you may disagree, but the subject is thoroughly unreferenced and I failed to find any scholarly/journalistic treatment of the term. Hence it is original research/essay in my perception. And of course you cannot merge/redirect unreferenced content. - Altenmann >talk 05:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dance-related topics are woefully underdeveloped Yep, <sigh> {{ WikiProject Dance }} is dead. - Altenmann >talk 00:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect (or merge if anyone grabs a source) to Dance party , another broad concept article which currently includes an [also unsourced] paragraph about sound systems, DJs, and live bands that could be elaborated. Doesn't seem like we need separate articles at this point IMO. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:46, 26 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! 16:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Yikes, this is old wikipedia. I don't even know where to redirect. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to dance party seems ok. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:25, 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

Hilary Beirne : Onel 5969 TT me 09:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New York . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Dear Onel5969 , permit me to present an alternate vista upon this rich panorama of sources. The array of evidence available, I argue, draws a vivid portrait of our subject that fulfills, if not surpasses, the parameters of WP:SIGCOV . Reflect, if you will, upon the sheer diversity of contexts in which our subject appears. From being the voice of authority as a parade administrator , to sharing personal insights in a magazine interview , his presence permeates a wide spectrum of discourse. Furthermore, his inclusion in a political committee carries weight, especially when the announcement of such is is accompanied by a profile and direct quotes - an indication of his significance within the milieu Similarly, the honoring by the Westchester County board of legislators and the Aisling Irish Community Centre of New York are not mere passing platitudes, but substantive statements describing a community's recognition of his achievements. Such accolades do not find their way to individuals of ordinary standing, but to those who have made substantial impact. Consider, too, the quality of the sources. The Irish Times, a publication of undisputed credibility, deemed our subject's views valuable enough to include in a discussion of national import . This is not the mark of an individual of passing interest, but rather of one whose insights hold weight. Esteemed colleague, upon a comprehensive and fair evaluation of the sources at hand, it is my conviction that they provide the 'significant coverage' required by our revered guidelines. The collective breadth, depth, and diversity of these sources underscore the subject's noteworthy influence and contributions in his sphere, thereby affirming his rightful place in the annals of Wikipedia. I propose that the evidence at hand is a testament to our subject's multifaceted significance. His influence and the recognition he's earned, coupled with the breadth and depth of coverage across a range of reputable sources, come together to advocate strongly for his retention within our compendium. It is my belief that his journey and contributions warrant our attention, and that his tale should remain within Wikipedia's archives, for the edification of all who seek knowledge. Jack4576 ( talk ) 11:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Fails WP:GNG . Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 13:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/redirect to New York City St. Patrick's Day Parade . While Jack4576 has offered a lengthy opinion above, my own review of the sources (in the article and found elsewhere following a WP:BEFORE ) indicate that much of the subject's notability relates primarily to his connection with the NYC parade/committee. Otherwise, apart from local/regional sources (like the Roscommon Herald and Sligo Champion pieces) most of the sources are either press releases, interviews, and opinion pieces written by the subject (and therefore not independent). Or are mentions by/about the subject in news pieces which are substantively about something else. A redirect (as an WP:ATD ) seems reasonable in this sceanrio... Guliolopez ( talk ) 13:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails GNG, not notable. Hadal1337 ( talk ) 16:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I don't think his contributions are particularly significant , but that's not what GNG measures. They have gained enough international publicity , in the form of in-depth stories about him in multiple reliably-published and independent newspapers and magazines in Ireland, to pass GNG. And some of them are about one thing and some another (his work with the parade, and with the treaty organization) so WP:BIO1E is not in play. The WP:VAGUEWAVE comments visible above do not convince (although neither does Jack's prolixity on the other side). — David Eppstein ( talk ) 06:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – per the well-argued Spiderone and David Eppstein above. The "Delete" votes do not argue why this fails WP:GNG . — Jonathan Bowen ( talk ) 21:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Leaning more towards a delete/merge per Guliolopez's argument. The case for WP:GNG seems weak. - KH-1 ( talk ) 01:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge any relevant info to New York City St. Patrick's Day Parade . The sources don't indicate general notability outside of this context. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 22:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Fails WP:GNG . At most this might warrant a mention at New York City St. Patrick's Day Parade , particularly if that article were to be fleshed out in more detail. – brad v 01:04, 20 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

Wilmer Street Ferry Pier : I couldn’t find a suitable redirect target but a merge or redirect may be possible. Mccapra ( talk ) 10:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Hong Kong . Mccapra ( talk ) 10:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/redirect to List of demolished piers in Hong Kong per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion . I found passing mentions in a search for the English name here and here . The pier's Chinese name is ( traditional Chinese : 威利麻街碼頭 ; simplified Chinese : 威利麻街码头 ). There are a few sentences of coverage in this book . A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard ( talk ) 08:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] makes sense to me. Mccapra ( talk ) 12:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of demolished piers in Hong Kong then redirect, as suggested by @ Cunard . Found a few other mentions: https://archive.org/details/NPCM19600708/page/4/mode/2up - China Mail announcing (briefly) ferry services to Lamma https://archive.org/details/isbn_9782012422087/page/234/mode/2up French-language tour guide saying briefly where to catch a ferry to Lamma https://archive.org/details/NPCM19500825/page/n3/mode/2up China Mail announcing cross-harbor vehicle ferry from Western to Shamshuipo - read liberally, this article approaches significant coverage Oblivy ( talk ) 06:21, 14 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

Idropranolol : Only search results in google scholar are non-significant coverage in a retracted review [22] and listed on a table [23] . The only other sites I can find are database entries with no description. I do not have access to the offline sources, but I am doubtful they are both significant coverage. Darcy isvery cute ( talk ) 07:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions . Darcy isvery cute ( talk ) 07:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Propranolol : sufficient amount of primary sources to justify a brief mention in the target. Owen× ☎ 16:25, 10 December 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! 07:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Propranolol . My very best wishes ( talk ) 01:58, 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

Wriothesley's Chronicle : I personally would prefer a merge to Charles Wriothesley , but given that the apparent lack of independent notability makes this an appropriate venue, I felt it would be more effective to take it here than directly propose a merge. Plus, this way anyone who actually wants it deleted can have a voice. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 07:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and England . RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 07:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Charles Wriothesley . In addition to the lack of independent NBOOK notability, the Chronicle is part of the reason that Mr Wriothesley is notable, and it needs a stronger mention there. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 15:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . Srnec ( talk ) 21:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , as above, seems sensible. Bondegezou ( talk ) 13:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , per Last1in. Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 11:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - as argued above this seems like a sensible way forward for both articles. Dunarc ( talk ) 21:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Locations of Half-Life : No source cited or in my BEFORE covers this topic in a non-game guide form. There is a reception but it is based on passing mention of a location or few in game reviews. Last AfD suggested some merge, and maybe something here can be rescued by merging, but the topic of this article is effectively a lengthy plot summary with a blown up reception section. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , Video games , and Lists . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Half-Life (series)#Setting and any of the "main article" links present in the current article (ie Black Mesa Research Facility ) for any info that isn't WP:GAMECRUFT (it's mostly wikia cruft though.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Half-Life (series)#Setting - the only other individual locale that is probably notable is City 17 while the others either already have articles or aren't notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 17:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Selective Merge to Half-Life (series)#Setting - The few listed locations that actually are notable, such as Black Mesa Research Facility , already have a separate article, and the rest are just in-universe descriptions of minor locations. The reception section is largely made up of cherry-picked quotes from general reviews of the games, rather than genuine significant coverage on the fictional locations themselves. Rorshacma ( talk ) 21:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I suspect most of the details of the individual locations are reflected in the respective game articles (eg I know Aparture's influence and style are mentioned within the Portal articles). Only one that I would think needs to be moved in wholesale is the section on Xen, since that's a well-known part of Half-Life for all the wrong reason. If anything. -- M asem ( t ) 00:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per all. Not every game universe needs its own article, and this sits comfortably in te series page. No prejudice against recreation if there are more sources about the universe itself. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 03:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

The Best of Morecambe & Wise : Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 21:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 21:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Article does not meet WP:GNG , so merge article contents to the end of the "History" section of The Morecambe & Wise Show (1968 TV series) article. Then Delete . Lotsw73 ( talk ) 00:36, 24 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

Fox News Talk : Fox News Radio is a possible redirect target. Let'srun ( talk ) 01:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions . Let'srun ( talk ) 01:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and/or redirect to Fox News Radio : it's hard to imagine any independent notability for the channel from the rest of Fox News's audio operations, and any additional content that can be sourced should go to the Fox News Radio article. (As it is, certain searches make it difficult to distinguish between the channel and material relating to Fox News-produced radio talk shows in general, of which the channel was simply the way those programs were carried on SiriusXM and their predecessors.) The channel is already mentioned there (which is probably all the channel itself needs), and there is a section on Fox News Radio's talk shows that can absorb any sourceable content about the shows themselves. ) WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and/or redirect to Fox News Radio per

merge

Jack Dempsey cichlids in Australia : From what I can see, the topic of Rocio octofasciata occurring in a pool in Australia is not notable enough nor the main article big enough to justify having separate articles. Surtsicna ( talk ) 17:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal , Science , Environment , and Australia . Surtsicna ( talk ) 17:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete on the basis the article is largely sourced to the NSW Government source, so doesn't appear to be a generally notable topic. Other information is a general repeat of the main article, as the nominator points out. Sionk ( talk ) 18:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Jack Dempsey (fish) : the NSW invasion is just about notable enough for a section in the target page. Owen× ☎ 20:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Jack Dempsey (fish) per Owen× . Cabrils ( talk ) 01:07, 26 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! 22:41, 14 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! 23:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge (partial) as suggested above. A fair amount of useful and reliable material that would make a good addition to the species article. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 12:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Watermelon salad : WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV . BaduFerreira ( talk ) 23:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions . BaduFerreira ( talk ) 23:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Watermelon#Culinary or Fruit salad . Just because there are diverse recipes that happen to use a certain main ingredient doesn't mean it needs a stand-alone article. Reywas92 Talk 13:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is another one to selectively merge and redirect as suggested. I would especially keep the New York Times recipe as a good source to keep . Bearian ( talk ) 16:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment – agree. MaskedSinger ( talk ) 20:30, 1 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

Garodia School (icse) : No sources to meet WP:NSCHOOL . LibStar ( talk ) 05:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and India . Shellwood ( talk ) 07:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep There appears to be coverage , this source from Mid-Day has a write up about the school's lack of registration with the authorities [19] , there is more at the Mumbai Mirror about a fee hike and protest from parents [20] this is covered by The Mumbai Mirror as well [21] and a passing mention again in (this one doesn't count for GNG) [22] , these sources have write ups about the school defending a handball title [23] and [24] . The school's "parent organization" Garodia International Centre for Learning also appears to have some coverage [25] . Perhaps we could merge the two and add all available sources to the "primary topic". Bingo bro (Chat) 08:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : it does not meet the criteria of WP:NSCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES . RPSkokie ( talk ) 09:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Garodia International Centre for Learning . There isn't enough coverage about the school for a stand-alone topic, but a merge to the parent organisation seems like an acceptable ATD. - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) Merge - seems like an acceptable solution; if later on people can source enough for a stand along article, separate it out. Denaar ( talk ) 08:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Garodia International Centre for Learning . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 11:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above. - Indefensible ( talk ) 16:23, 1 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

Influencers Dinner : This received some flash-in-the-pan coverage in 2013 and has subsequently not received any meaningful coverage in RS. If there is any content worth keeping, it can easily be merged with Jon Levy (behaviorist) , the person who runs this business. Thenightaway ( talk ) 11:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Organizations , and New York . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge to Jon Levy (behaviorist) . Both articles have a very strong feel of undisclosed paid editing and meat/socking. This one has a single source that would help here, the Forbes is by a "former contributor" and can't be used to support notability. Valereee ( talk ) 15:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge to Jon Levy (behaviorist) - It's hardly what the article claims is a "a secret dining experience" when it has its own website . And not a new concept, considering the entertainment business has been doing such things for over a century. William Randolph Hearst was famous for his gatherings. Heads of government do the same thing - gather a variety of people to a given event. Since the onset of the internet, "Influencer" has become a common label, but there's nothing new about a gathering of diverse dinner guests. — Maile ( talk ) 15:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Jon Levy (behaviorist) . This dinner is secret like Fight Club and thus by definition cannot independently meet WP:GNG. -- Milowent • has spoken 20:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

American Presbyterian Church (founded 1979) : Citations are exclusively to primary sources or to outdated sources of questionable independence and reliability. Participants in the 2013 AfD discussion highlighted the availability of coverage in Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions (8th edition, 2009), page 252 , but the coverage is so cursory that I do not believe it qualifies as "encyclopedic" coverage for purposes of establishing notability. (Citations to the two-paragraph Melton mention were never added in the first place.) The Melton source is based on a list of Reformed entities, most of which are not notable, published in 1999 ( see here ). I cannot identify other independent, secondary, reliable sources that verify the notability of this denomination. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 17:20, 3 April 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 April 3 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and United States of America . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Suggest Merge as a section of Bible Presbyterian Church from which it emerged as a dissident faction. Jahaza ( talk ) 19:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Jahaza -- Jfhutson ( talk ) 20:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete :. There is no comprehensive, non-encyclopedic coverage GQO ( talk ) 7:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Bible Presbyterian Church as it is relevant content there, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:51, 11 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

Central Coast Mariners FC 2–8 Newcastle Jets FC : No aftermath out of the ordinary. More than enough to mention it on a record list, as well as in the F3 Derby . Geschichte ( talk ) 15:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Football , and Australia . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 16:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to F3 Derby , where it can probably have its own section. Giant Snowman 19:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to F3 Derby . Swan505 ( talk ) 03:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete oppose redirect as unlikely search term. Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT . LibStar ( talk ) 14:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agree with WP:SPORTSEVENT about not needing redirect. Add to record list is enough. Spinifex&Sand ( talk ) 00:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to F3 Derby . While I agree with the redirect not being a likely search term, if the content is merged, the history needs to be preserved for attribution purposes. I think there's enough content to merge here to make this the best option. Daniel ( talk ) 12:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect/Merge . While I agree much of the game is not notable, the record of being the "highest scoring-match in A-league history" is. I also see it passing notability (events) in every category and think it passes to a degree via WP:SPORTS at least to the level of the record being notable. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI ( talk ) 14:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

K-pop in Latin America : Even then, I do not think this topic merits inclusion in Wikipedia. I can't recall any articles off the top of my head that goes into genres by country. Since K-pop is a global phenomena, the information here is probably better included in the article on K-pop rather than on a separate page. Also WP:NOR - this appears to be original synthesis interpreting articles than providing sourced analysis. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 15:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . This topic is appropriate under the K-pop article (where it already sits). The page itself is inappropriate for a full article and would fit better as a personal website. Googleguy007 ( talk ) 15:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Latin America . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This article feels like it should have been South Korean–Latin American relations but someone left the window open and their K-Pop fan kid decided to finish it up with details about their music instead. Nate • ( chatter ) 22:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or very selective merge into K-pop#Latin America -- there are secondary sources discussing K-pop in Latin America as a distinct phenomenon (#328, #329, #330 in the main K-pop page, #1 here), but most of the information unique to this article is synthesizing trivia. Gnomingstuff ( talk ) 00:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I agree with Gnomingstuff for their suggestion very selective merge . It fits to be merged with K-pop particularly merge with "Popularity and impact" section after filtering unnecessarily details. Lililolol ( talk ) 19:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with K-pop#Latin American : As there are sourced information that are suitable for the main K-pop article Lightoil ( talk ) 11:39, 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

Tara Carpenter : WP:NOTFANDOM , WP:INDISCRIMINATE , WP:5P1 . Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 15:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Scream (film series) characters#Tara Carpenter would be a fair WP:ATD . BenKuykendall ( talk ) 17:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep No evidence of a BEFORE has been shown, and a simple search yields a wide variety of articles discussing the character in some depth, or discuss developmental info regarding the character, such as the following sources: Jenna Ortega teases 'suffocated' Scream 6 as Ghostface heads to New York | Metro News Scream 6: Taking a Stab at the Big Apple – The Tack Online (bvtack.com) 'Scream VI', Tara Carpenter, And A New Way To Look At Trauma (dreadcentral.com) Scream (2022): How Tara Carpenter Stole the Show (movieweb.com) Scream VI Unveils a Horrifyingly Brief Synopsis (cbr.com) Scream 6's Tara Romance Fixes The Biggest Legacy Characters Failure (screenrant.com) And I've barely even gone past Page Two of GNews hits. I'm sure if a more thorough search was performed than mine, anyone would find a wide variety of information related to the character. This AfD seems highly unwarranted. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 22:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Movieweb, Valnet and Dreadcentral sources doesn't contribute WP:GNG . Metro and Bvtack are unreliable. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 22:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Greenish Pickle! My script for marking unreliable sources just picks up Metro. Can you point me to where the other soruces are marked as unreliable? Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources does not mention them :( In general, I don't consider such soruces to be very reliable, and the article right now is in a terrible shape, but https://web.archive.org/web/20221110200906/https://movieweb.com/scream-2022-how-tara-stole-the-show/ (link to bypass ads) and the dreadcentral article linked above for example do seem to meet SIGCOV (I did not check other, they don't mention the character in the title and likely fail SIGCOV - if someone cares to claim otherwise, please do so, with quotes). Oh, and Screenrant article seems borderline ok too, and you did not call it out as unreliable... Leaning weak keep for now. Of course, tag this article with cleanup templates (I'll do it now). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I seen somewhere before that Metro was marked as unreliable, but I think it was probably at WP:VG . Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 13:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Based on my source assessment below (of the sources linked above), the article could maybe pass GNG if we clear up the question marks. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hey Edward , CBR.com has its own Wiki, and based on my own analysis, the site is blog-based, meaning it is not reliable. MovieWeb mainly relies on WP:TABLOIDs from other sources, which means it is also unreliable. Finally, the Screen Rant source is actually fairly significant. I counted 24 instances of Tara's name appearing. Granted its about her relationship to Chad, but delves into how their romance is shown to us the viewers. Conyo14 ( talk ) 04:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] CBR has been used for articles in the past. Their reliability, from my experience, tends to be dependent on what is written. Granted, it only has a small blurb of info about Tara, so it's not an end of the world scenario if it isn't fit for the article, but I thought it best to include all that I could find from my brief search. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 17:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? Metro News WP:RS/P ~ Barely? Seems to focus on the plot ✘ No bvtack.com ? Greenish Pickle! says it's unreliable, but I can't find any listings on RSN Focuses on the plot. ✘ No dreadcentral Barely. ✔ Yes movieweb ? No RSN discussions; leaning towards unreliable. ? Unknown cbr.com ? No consensus at RSN. Also out of their scope. ✘ No screenrant.com ? ? Unknown This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . North America 1000 08:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Scream (film series) characters#Tara Carpenter . NYC Guru ( talk ) 08:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the list of Scream characters, or Jenna Ortega, I'm not fussed about where it goes. There is no critical discussion about the character in RS, as seen from the source table above. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as usual with most character articles. There is almost nothing to say here outside in-universe lore. Any real-world stuff is more closely related to the films than the character in their own. Andrzejbanas ( talk ) 18:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or merge as WP:ATD . There is a valid target if it helps produce a compromise. As is, there isn't enough WP:SIGCOV to support this as a separate article. Regardless of the outcome, editors can continue to discuss how to cover this at the related notable articles. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 16:56, 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

Thaai Kelavi : Can easily be merged with Thiruchitrambalam (soundtrack) . Charliehdb ( talk ) 10:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs , Film , and India . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Song is from the film Thiruchitrambalam that has a soundtrack page Thiruchitrambalam (soundtrack) where this song is listed. A song from a film's soundtrack does not need it's own separate page. If needed, some information can be merged to the soundtrack page. RangersRus ( talk ) 11:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : possible merge candidate. Song is not independently notable. microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 17:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Thiruchitrambalam (soundtrack) not independently notable. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 17:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nomination and comments above Merge to Thiruchitrambalam (soundtrack) . Sk1728 ( talk ) 10:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Satsumayokuryu : - UtherSRG (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology , Organisms , and Japan . UtherSRG (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote , but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts : {{subst: spa | username }} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed | username }} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry : {{subst: csm | username }} or {{subst: csp | username }} . * Keep . I’m not clear what the deletion rationale is here. If it’s a translation from ja.wiki, add the translation template to the talk page. (The ja.wiki article was created by the same user by the way). If it’s a machine translation it’s not a bad one, but tag it for improvement if you want to. The sources aren’t brilliant but they seem to amount to a GNG pass. Mccapra ( talk ) 16:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC) changing my ! vote after reading other editors’ comments Mccapra ( talk ) 07:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify . Not formally described as a taxon, so WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES does not apply. Any claim to notability would be as an individual fossil specimen (it should be in Category:Specific fossil specimens ), although I'm not convinced it is notable as an individual fossil (I'm also not convinced that several other articles in that category tree are notable). Can revisit notability of the draft if/when it is formally described as a taxon. Plantdrew ( talk ) 17:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are no particular issues with the content of the article. 山登 太郎 ( talk ) 06:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC) — 山登 太郎 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] Keep Once again, being an attributed machine translation (especially of this quality) is not a reason to delete an article about a notable topic. DCsansei ( talk ) 14:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify as for Satsumautsunomiyaryu and as per Plantdrew. This needs a valid classification before it can be a species article. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 09:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of informally named pterosaurs . Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk ) 11:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you mean "redirect" and not "move"? - UtherSRG (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah yeah, will fix. Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk ) 15:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and move to List of informally named pterosaurs where it belongs. FunkMonk ( talk ) 11:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - My preferred WP:ATD here is merge and redirect to List of informally named pterosaurs . - UtherSRG (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Plantdrew and Elmidae : Would this be acceptable? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fine by me - can be split off when formally descirbed and sufficient material available. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 16:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That would be OK. Plantdrew ( talk ) 16:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : and move to Satsuma pterosaur (薩摩翼竜). Asahi Shimbun articles establish notability. Owen× ☎ 00:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Problem is if there is another case of undescribed pterosaur that have page though. Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk ) 04:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of informally named pterosaurs A fossil specimen being covered by newspaper articles is not really good enough to have a standalone article, but enough to be covered in the list. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 20:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Again, this article deserves a sufficiently independent article. 山登 太郎 ( talk ) 07:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Striken - you only get one ! vote, though you may continue to comment and reply... up to the point of WP:BLUDGEON . - UtherSRG (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry. I'll be careful. 山登 太郎 ( talk ) 23:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Basically in English Wikipedia undescribed taxa mostly does not have own article. "Nurosaurus" for example, despite somewhat well-known and have decent materials, does not have own article and just have name in List of informally named dinosaurs . Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk ) 07:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] He's trying to destroy my article. Please take a look at his posting history. The history of the attack remains. 山登 太郎 ( talk ) 08:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Then I present my editing history here . Regarding the request to delete Satoshi Utsunomiya's article, it was just my misunderstanding, but other than that, it was just a report of this user's problematic behavior, a correction to a machine-translated article, etc., and no offensive intent. The reason why many articles by this user remained in the editing history is because there were many mistakes in the content of the articles, which were often noticed after editing. Ta-tea-two-te-to ( talk ) 09:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of informally named pterosaurs as suggested above. Mccapra ( talk ) 07:40, 17 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

Foundation for Jewish Camp : The page was originally created 15 years ago by a COI account, and since then per WP:BEFORE , no WP:SIGCOV found on this organization (beyond fleeting media mentions) that would establish WP:NORG and justify a standalone article. Longhornsg ( talk ) 21:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Judaism . Longhornsg ( talk ) 21:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and North America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Jewish summer camp . Omnis Scientia ( talk ) 11:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above -- Welcome to Pandora ( talk ) 08:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Jewish summer camp . I see no way of including information from this article into the target page. Why should this specific organization be mentioned and none of the others? A redirect is the best way to preserve the edit history without creating problems on the new page. Broc ( talk ) 11:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as suggested above. It's a good organization, but essentially it's a foundation, not a real charity. Bearian ( talk ) 14:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

WS-Context : I suggest merging with the WS-CAF . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 22:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing , Internet , and Software . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 22:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . Makes sense, since the notability is questionable. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 14:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

College Road, Hong Kong : Rationale is a very simple case of failing WP:INHERITED . The specific application of this policy is also noted at WP:NROAD BrigadierG ( talk ) 21:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography , Transportation , and Hong Kong . Skynxnex ( talk ) 21:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , short road failing WP:MILL . Geschichte ( talk ) 08:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete A road that does not satisfy any notability. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Roadways , which says: Road networks: International road networks (such as the International E-road network ), Interstate , national, state and provincial highways are typically notable. Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads ), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject. Sources Selection of two sources: "書院道精英地段" [Elite area of College Road]. The Sun (in Chinese). 2012-05-19. Archived from the original on 2024-05-12 . Retrieved 2024-05-12 . The article notes: "九龍塘區的豪宅內街以寧靜見稱，書院道同樣具備此項特色，其中坐落街道頭段的勝豐園，乃沿街老牌豪宅屋苑之一，樓齡約三十八年，兩座物業合共提供約48個單位，" From Google Translate: "The inner streets of luxury houses in Kowloon Tong District are famous for their tranquility. College Road also has this feature. Situated at the beginning of the street, Sheng Feng Yuan is one of the old luxury housing estates along the street. It is about 38 years old and has two properties. A total of about 48 units are provided," The article notes: "其中步行已可達多家名校的書院道（College Road），盡佔名校網優勢，而書院道豪宅的入場費則由千萬餘以至逾半億元俱備。書院道鄰近喇沙利道，兩條豪宅街道的命名均源自區內名校之一的喇沙書院。" From Google Translate: "Among them, College Road is within walking distance of many famous schools, taking advantage of the network of famous schools. The admission fee for luxury houses on College Road ranges from more than 10 million to more than 500 million yuan. College Road is adjacent to La Salle Road. The two luxury streets are named after La Salle College, one of the famous schools in the area." The article notes: "書院道除了四周環境清幽恬靜外，最吸引買家之處，是優質學府選擇眾多，對於有意讓子女入讀名校的家長，吸引力自然特別高。至於在該街道一帶的名校除喇沙書院外，尚有瑪利諾修院學校、拔萃小學及黃笏南中學等。" From Google Translate: "In addition to the quiet and peaceful surroundings, College Road is most attractive to buyers because of its wide selection of high-quality schools. It is particularly attractive to parents who intend to enroll their children in prestigious schools. As for the famous schools in this street area, in addition to La Salle College, there are also Maryknoll Convent School, Diocesan Primary School and Wong Wat South Secondary School." "書院道匯聚黃金屋" [Collection of Golden Houses on College Road]. Oriental Daily (in Chinese). 2012-09-30. Archived from the original on 2024-05-03 . Retrieved 2024-05-03 . The article notes: "九龍塘不但具備傳統豪宅區的魅力，更吸引之處是坐擁九龍名校網，其中步行已可達多家名校的書院道（College Road），尤其凸顯名校網優勢，老牌豪宅及豪宅新貴散落於寧靜的街道上，為講求實用的用家與愛好新廈的豪客提供不同選擇。" From Google Translate: " Kowloon Tong not only has the charm of a traditional luxury area, but what is even more attractive is that it is located in the prestigious Kowloon School Network. College Road (College Road), which is within walking distance of many famous schools, particularly highlights the advantages of the prestigious school network. Old luxury homes and upstart luxury homes are scattered here. The quiet street provides different options for practical users and high-end buyers who like new buildings." The article notes: "其中坐落街道頭段的勝豐園，乃沿街老牌豪宅屋苑之一，樓齡約三十八年，..." From Google Translate: "Among them, Sheng Feng Yuan, located at the end of the street, is one of the old luxury housing estates along the street. It is about 38 years old. ..." The article notes: "書院道另一個老牌屋苑為博文閣，坐落街道的中段，由於位於內街之中，加上面向喇沙書院的大球場，環境清幽，視野亦較開揚。" From Google Translate: "Another well-established housing estate on College Road is Bowen Court, located in the middle of the street. Because it is located in an inner street and faces the stadium of La Salle College, it has a quiet environment and a relatively open view." The article notes: "除了老牌豪宅外，書院道近年有一個矚目的新一代豪宅落成，乃由興勝創建發展的EI8HT COLLEGE。" From Google Translate: "In addition to the old luxury houses, a new generation of luxury houses has been completed on College Road in recent years, which is EI8HT COLLEGE founded and developed by Xingsheng." Additional sources: "九龍塘樂苑 雅緻裝潢闊露台" [Kowloon Tong Lok Garden Elegantly decorated wide terrace]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2013-08-30. p.  D5. The article notes: "位於九龍塘的書院道，屬於內街，靜處一隅，由於街道比較短，因此供應的豪宅僅約10個左右。中原豪宅Stately Home九龍豪宅副區域聯席董事何維進稱，書院道的豪宅樓齡十分參差，其中最新的書院道8號於2011年入夥，而最舊的一批，樓齡逾50年。" From Google Translate: "Located on College Road in Kowloon Tong, it is an inner street and is located in a quiet corner. Since the street is relatively short, there are only about 10 luxury homes available. Ho Wei-jin, deputy regional co-director of Stately Home Kowloon luxury homes, said that the age of the luxury homes on College Road is very different. The newest one, No. 8 College Road, was occupied in 2011, while the oldest ones are more than 50 years old." The article notes: "由於鄰近九龍城，位處名校網，故書院道除家長客、低調廠家外，均屬用家，放盤有限交投不多。 最新一宗成交於4月份錄得，為書院道8號中層，實用面積1,758平方呎，建築面積2,446平方呎，為屋苑最後一間餘貨，以5,190萬元成交。" From Google Translate: "As it is close to Kowloon City and is located in a prestigious school network, College Road is owned by users except for parents and low-key manufacturers. The listings are limited and there is not much transaction. The latest transaction was recorded in April. It is a middle-floor building at No. 8 College Road, with a salable area of ​​1,758 square feet and a built-up area of ​​2,446 square feet. It is the last remaining unit in the housing estate and was sold for HK$51.9 million." "香港8號" [Hong Kong No. 8]. Sing Pao Daily News (in Chinese). 2011-11-14. p.  B3. The article notes: "書院道因鄰近的喇沙書院而得名，現時書院道8號為新盤Eight College，由興勝創建（896）發展，屬於香港六大建築集團之一，估計發展商命名時取8號的 諧音「發」，著重其「意頭」。 該樓盤毗鄰九龍塘火車站，交通便捷，並鄰近校網，包括香港城巿大學、香港浸會大學、喇沙書院、拔萃小學，以及耀中國際小學∕幼兒園。" From Google Translate: "College Road is named after the nearby La Salle College. Currently, No. 8 College Road is the new Eight College, developed by Xingsheng Construction (896), which is one of the six major construction groups in Hong Kong. It is estimated that the developer took No. 8 when naming it. It is homophonic to "fa", emphasizing its "meaning". The property is adjacent to the Kowloon Tong Railway Station, with convenient transportation, and is close to school networks, including City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Baptist University, La Salle College, Diocesan Primary School, and Yew Chung International Primary School/Kindergarten." "九龍塘明麗園中層 環境清幽" [Ming Lai Garden, Kowloon Tong, middle floor, quiet environment]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2019-11-01. p.  D19. The article notes: "九龍塘書院道，是傳統豪宅物業集中地，該地段以路闊車流量少，環境清幽見稱，放盤向來罕有 ，其中明麗園中層單位，連車位叫價2,500萬元。" From Google Translate: "College Road, Kowloon Tong, is where traditional luxury properties are concentrated. The area is famous for its wide road, low traffic volume, and quiet environment. It has always been rare to find a listing. Among them, the mid-rise unit in Ming Lai Garden, including a parking space, is priced at NT$25 million." Ng, Chi-fai 伍志輝 (2015-06-20). "靚盤巡禮：九龍塘明麗園　 裝修新淨　環境清幽" [Tour of beautiful properties: Kowloon Tong Ming Lai Garden, newly renovated and clean, with a quiet environment]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). p.  B4. The article notes: "九龍塘書院道附近名校多，行車路面寬闊，車流量不高，環境清幽，同時享有鄰近九龍城的方便購物地利，沿路新舊物業都有一定捧場客。 明麗園座落書院道近衙前圍道方向，屬區內老牌大宅之一，盤源向來不多，" From Google Translate: "There are many famous schools near College Road in Kowloon Tong. The road surface is wide, the traffic volume is not high, and the environment is quiet. It also enjoys the convenient shopping location near Kowloon City. New and old properties along the road have a certain number of fans. Ming Lai Garden is located on College Road near Nga Tsing Wai Road. It is one of the old-style mansions in the area. There are not many houses in the area." "書院道8號連平台 裝潢雅緻" [No. 8, College Road, with terrace, elegant decoration]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2015-04-17. p.  D5. The article notes: "九龍塘書院道街道比較短，故此提供的豪宅物業不多，樓齡一般由37至54年不等。 ... 而書院道8號，屬目前該處樓齡最新的物業，僅4年樓" From Google Translate: "The street of College Road in Kowloon Tong is relatively short, so there are not many luxury properties available. The age of the buildings generally ranges from 37 to 54 years. ... No. 8 College Road is currently the newest property there, being only 4 years old." "書院道樂苑低層 特高樓底" [Low floor, extra high floor, Dao Lok Court, College]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2013-12-20. p.  D7. The article notes: "九龍塘書院道可供二手轉售的屋苑，除勝豐園外，大部分均在10層以下；至於樓齡方面，除書院道8號於11年入夥外，餘下多已超過40年。" From Google Translate: "Most of the housing estates available for second-hand resale in College Road, Kowloon Tong, with the exception of Sing Fung Garden, are below 10 storeys. As for the age of the buildings, except for No. 8 College Road, which was occupied in 11 years, most of the remaining housing estates are over 40 years old." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow College Road, Hong Kong ( traditional Chinese : 書院道 ; simplified Chinese : 书院道 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 08:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can we get an assessment of newly found sources? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I don't see what's significant in the sources provided. It's a road with buildings in it. Geschichte ( talk ) 14:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources allow College Road, Hong Kong, to meet Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Roadways , which says roads "are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject". The sources discuss the road's namesake, the luxury housing estates on the road, how the prestigious schools in the area affect the prices of houses on the road, how parents and manufacturers are the primary owners of the road's units or property, and the road's attributes (wide, short, quiet, and low traffic volume). A non-notable road would not receive this depth of discussion in reliable sources. Cunard ( talk ) 06:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete My problem with the sources presented is that they're all articles on property, not articles on the road itself, which is a short residential street. A proper article on a road - looking at London as an example - will have details on history, naming, events which occurred there, which the sources don't specifically cover. I don't think any of the additional sources count, and I'd like to see an additional source specifically written on the road before I think this would meet WP:GNG . SportingFlyer T · C 04:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Sun article is titled "Elite area of College Road" and extensively discusses the road's background and attributes. It is not an article focused on the properties on the road. The Oriental Daily article is titled "Collection of Golden Houses on College Road". The article's thesis is that "the road has old luxury homes and upstart luxury homes scattered throughout", and the article backs up this statement by describing the various properties that dot the road. Significant coverage of what is on the road is significant coverage of the road. The article provides further context by noting that the road is close to prestigious schools and that it is a quiet, inner street. The sources do discuss why College Road is named College Road (its name was inspired by the nearby La Salle College ). There is no requirement in Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Roadways for the sources to discuss "events that occurred there". College Road's notability is not derived from events that occurred there. College Road's notability is derived from being dotted with luxury properties from its proximity to prestigious schools. Cunard ( talk ) 06:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: College Road has received significant coverage in reliable sources so meets Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Roadways . If the consensus is that the road is not notable, the article still should not be deleted. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion , the article should be merged to Kowloon Tsai , the area the road is in. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard ( talk ) 06:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Kowloon Tsai : where this content would be relevant and verifiable, while not requiring independent notability. Owen× ☎ 15:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm fine with a merge. SportingFlyer T · C 20:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as suggested by OwenX . While I'm a fan of WP:50k , I also understand that not everyone ascribes . A merge is a more reasonable outcome and compromise than outright deletion. Bearian ( talk ) 23:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There's a rough consensus against keep, but not yet a consensus between merging and deletion. Further arguments in favor of keep that may shift this emerging consensus are of course also still welcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose , per Cunard. 203.145.95.251 ( talk ) 12:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Kowloon Tsai . I appreciate the sources located by @ Cunard and the text is much better than it was. However the road itself isn't claimed to be that notable or of historical import, just a desirable place to live near a famous school. As an example Sassoon Road doesn't get its own page but rather sits within Victor Sassoon . Nor does Mount Davis Road, whereas Rednaxela Terrace does because there's something interesting about its naming. Oblivy ( talk ) 05:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Regarding Sassoon Road , I supported a redirect at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sassoon Road because I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources about it. Neither Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Roadways nor Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline require a road to "claimed to be that notable or of historical import". The guidelines only require the subject to have received significant coverage in reliable sources, which this road has. Cunard ( talk ) 08:57, 24 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

1st Fighter Regiment (Yugoslavia) : RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 19:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Yugoslavia . RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 19:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : passes WP:MILUNIT Jack4576 ( talk ) 11:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As another editor has pointed out, WP:MILUNIT is merely an essay based on some WikiProject discussions. GNG is controlling here, and sufficient coverage hasn’t been demonstrated so far. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 20:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to the article, the regiment only existed for a few months after the end of WW2. Only source cited seems to be a comprehensive survey of the Yugoslav Air Force. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 19:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question : GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Which part of this requirement do you think is not met? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] “Significant coverage” RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 08:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Given the airframes used, there is bound to be coverage in books on those airframes as well as Yugoslavia sources. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me ) 01:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] First we’d have to locate said coverage. Why would such a source cover the topic beyond a brief mention like “The Hurricanes were briefly operated by the 1st Fighter Regiment” though? RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 08:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment leaning "not keep" on this one. Does anyone know of a good merge candidate? - Ljleppan ( talk ) 16:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll just note myself down as delete , as nobody seems to have produced further sourcing: I'm not at all convinced that a single source is enough for a GNG pass. While I'd prefer to merge, I don't know of a good target. Please ping me if further sourcing or a good merge target is identified. - Ljleppan ( talk ) 16:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Ljleppan Another editor suggested 32nd Aviation Division RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 23:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm WP:AGF on it being a proper target, but merge to that sounds fine. Ljleppan ( talk ) 12:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or Merge to 32nd Aviation Division . It would be a pity (and completely self-defeating for an encyclopaedia) if the information was lost. It does pass WP:MILUNIT . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’m fine with a merge. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 23:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Organization-wise, I would prefer keep , but if the deck is stacked towards deleting, then merge and redirect to 32nd Aviation Division (per Necrothesp) and keep categories and the interwiki connection on the redirect page. There is little prospect to much greater expansion for this 3-months lasting military unit. Also, a navbox wouldn't be a bad idea. – Vipz ( talk ) 07:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to 32nd Aviation Division per above. Note that WP:MILUNIT is an essay, not an official Wikipedia guideline or policy and thus has no relevance in AfD's. Alvaldi ( talk ) 20:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's an essay formulated after considerable discussion by people who know what they're talking about! It has also generally been held to be consensus at AfDs that 'major units' are notable. So yes, it does have relevance. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:MILUNIT is an essay/advice by a WikiProject, not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline and thus passing or failing it has no relevance in AfD's. WP:GNG is the controlling guideline here. Note that any consensus created by a WikiProject is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and does not overwrite any formal Wikipedia policy or guideline. WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. Alvaldi ( talk ) 13:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above. AryKun ( talk ) 04:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to 32nd Aviation Division as above. I'm aware WP:MILUNIT is an essay, but even though this article is brief, it still deserves to be remembered in some way. Equine-man ( talk ) 13:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to 32nd Aviation Division . // Timothy :: talk 04:15, 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

Kim Mã station : The one article cited provides no information about the station beyond naming it in two image captions. Toadspike [Talk] 14:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography , Transportation , and Vietnam . Skynxnex ( talk ) 14:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge the position data, etc. to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) and redirect there if sources cannot be found (they're most likely to be in Vietnamese, so do check in that language). There is no reason to delete the information present in the article which will be useful if it is expanded in future. Thryduulf ( talk ) 18:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge there isn't enough coverage (or content) for a separate article from Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) yet, but there might be in the future. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 23:19, 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

Cardiff Rift : four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:31, 2 May 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 Wales . Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Well, for one, Illuminating Torchwood has a lot to say about the topic at various places, but usually calls it "the Rift" or "the rift" rather than the Cardiff Rift. Daranios ( talk ) 15:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Daranios Any chance you could add this to the article (and ping me)? There is a receptions section already, but sourced to a meh newspaper so far, and nothing else. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 00:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Piotrus : I' ve added what I had thought to from Illuminating Torchwood , tough there is some more, as can also be seen in previews of pages not available at Google Books. Daranios ( talk ) 20:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Daranios Thank you. Weak keep for me considering the current state of the 'reception and analysis' section. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Collecting further sources, shorter but still relevant are: Once Upon a Time Lord , pp. 129-130, " 'You guys and your cute little categories": Torchwood, The Space-Time Rift and Cardiff's Postmodern, Postcolonial and (avowedly) Pansexual Gothic ", and very brief but calls it "a key point in the mythology of Doctor Who during the Tenth Doctor era", this web article . Daranios ( talk ) 07:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That web aticle doenst count for very much. Valnet sources are not great for showing notability. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 12:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ OlifanofmrTennant : I agree, was just listing it for future reference, useable as ScreenRant still counts as " reliable for entertainment-related topics ". Might have phrased that better. Being convinced of the notability of the topic based on the other sources , I've gone ahead and added that to the article as low-hanging fruit. Daranios ( talk ) Keep I believe the existing sources together establish notability. While there is currently an imbalance between plot and non-plot in the article, it is also not all plot, as I believe the criticism of the Cardiff Rift being a plot device for lazy writers is relevant despite being presented in a satirical manner. ( The Register is considered a reliable source .) And these problems can be solved by normal editing with the listed sources. Daranios ( talk ) 11:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or merge : This isn't really a separate topic from the fiction itself. I do see some mentions in sources, but not enough to reach WP:SIGCOV . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 18:25, 3 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! 22:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The non-plot content has been expanded now since the beginning of this AfD. Daranios ( talk ) 11:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or merge . This is dictionaty-definition fancruft. TheLongTone ( talk ) 14:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ TheLongTone : WP:Fancruft : "The use of the term ... is not a substitute for a well-reasoned argument based on existing Wikipedia policies." Daranios ( talk ) 15:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not if I was voting for deletion but its a valid argument for merging of redirecting. The article is fancruft; the topic can be adequately covered in a para elsewhere. TheLongTone ( talk ) 13:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Where should this be redirected/merged to? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Divided between editors arguing to Keep this article and those advocating a Merge or Redirect but who have offered no target article so it would be impossible to carry out their recommendation. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep this article needs a heavy rewrite but I feel there's enough to show notability, especially since there really isn't a viable merge target. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 13:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge target What about Wormholes in fiction ? Keeping this ludicrous mass of cruft as a standalone article simply because of doubt as to where it should be merge/redirected to is lame beyond belief.13:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC) TheLongTone , it's a real and practical concern. XFDcloser can't close a discussion as Redirect or Merge without a target article identified. It just can't be done if that is the consensus opinion. And there has to be agreement on what that target article is. That's how the software works. L iz Read! Talk! 03:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Possibly List of Torchwood items ? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge target as list of Torchwood items . I'd also support a merge to the main Torchwood series article. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 18:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I beg your pardon, I can see that its a real concern because the article is ludicrous. TheLongTone ( talk ) 14:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Since the Rift is central to the premise of the show, wouldn't the actual main Torchwood article, where it is already mentioned throughout, be the better location to merge information on it to, rather than a spinout list article? Rorshacma ( talk ) 15:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd definitely agree to either Wormholes in fiction or the main Torchwood article if a merge has to be done. The Rift also isn't mentioned at the List article, and isn't really an item per se. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 16:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The main Torchwood article makes more sense to me. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 15:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Torchwood : where it is already mentioned, and where it would make a good fit. List of Torchwood items is on the chopping block, and wouldn't give the rift the importance it deserves. Owen× ☎ 13:20, 24 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

Shame (Trash Talk album) : Fails the general and album-specific notability policies. Could be redir to Trash Talk (band) . - UtherSRG (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs , United States of America , and California . UtherSRG (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Trash Talk (band) . — siro χ o 19:31, 26 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

Lateral with Tom Scott : Fails WP:GNG . Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 22:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United Kingdom . Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 22:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Selective merge to the Tom Scott article, the podcast isn't notable for lack of sourcing, but the individual behind it is. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I wonder if a redirect may be preferable. There is a stark lack of sourcing for this topic and thus no RS-backed prose in the article, so a redirect may be better in this scenario. Thoughts? Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 09:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Schminnte seems a worthwhile part of Scott's online/career presence to exist as at least a section in his article, so merge seems best rather than remove it entirely Quinby ( talk ) 21:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, but we need reliable sources to back up this proposed section. Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 21:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Schminnte true, I did try and add a couple but it seems like the podcast is mostly constricted to podcast-specific websites. Dextero did have an article referencing it. Quinby ( talk ) 21:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , per Oaktree b . History6042 ( talk ) 01:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Merge to Tom Scott (YouTuber) . I'm not seeing any reliable sources available for this podcast. I also don't see any reason to merge. The article is mostly an episode list. At most there are only three sentences of prose with primary sources. TipsyElephant ( talk ) 10:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Tom Scott's page; this is not independently notable on its own. note that the podcast's Twitter/X account is canvassing people to edit the page: https://twitter.com/lateralcast/status/1691191875250618368 wizzito | say hello! 21:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In fairness, I wouldn't say that's explicitly canvassing: they are asking people to improve the article, not comment here. Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 21:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] True. wizzito | say hello! 21:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge for now - There is a TubeFilter source that taks substantiately about the podcast. I personally believe it to be a reliable source, but that's the only one I could find which contains WP:SIGCOV about it. If no other sources can be found between now and the next few days, this makes a pretty valid Merge. PantheonRadiance ( talk ) 18:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and Merge Currently there aren't enough sources meeting GNG for an article, but this seems worthwhile to have in Tom Scott's page. However, a split should be on the table in the future if there is more coverage of this. Belichickoverbrady ( talk ) 22:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Tom Scott: Non-notable podcast, best to merge the most pertinent info to the article about the notable host User:Let'srun 02:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Tom Scott (YouTuber) . The TubeFilter article is probably the only good source for it. SWinxy ( talk ) 20:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . No indication of standalone notability under WP:GNG , but there is probably some content here worth salvaging, for example from the lead. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 17:14, 20 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

Amir Soleymani : Cannot find any reliable non-primary sources about him. Aintabli ( talk ) 21:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Iran , United Arab Emirates , and United Kingdom . Aintabli ( talk ) 21:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Nifty Gateway : All of the coverage about him outside of press releases and interviews is about his lawsuit against Nifty Gateway which can be covered in that article. S0091 ( talk ) 14:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just delete , I think. Merge (see below) I'm not sure if it's due or undue to put reference to this into Nifty Gateway , but I don't really see any reason to merge this content in particular. -- asilvering ( talk ) 04:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Asilvering the reason I think a merge might be appropriate is because the case itself is significant according to The Telegraph (footnote 5): "In a case with huge repercussions for the UK consumer,...". and "The case is of such significance that the UK’s Competition and Market Authority is backing Mr Soleymani’s legal claim." S0091 ( talk ) 14:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ S0091 hm ok, I buy that. -- asilvering ( talk ) 17:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Asilvering thanks for your consideration. Of course had you not been convinced, ok as well. S0091 ( talk ) 17:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing my vote to merge as nom per the discussion above. Aintabli ( talk ) 19:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge

Copa Raúl Colombo : This "cup" was not a tournament or recurring sports event but just a friendly match between a national team (Argentina) and a regional/combined team (Rio de Janeiro) with no significative relevance (in fact, the AFA does not consider it an official match). This page could be merged into Argentina national football team results (1940–1959) which lists all the unofficial matches of Argentina during that period. Fma12 ( talk ) 18:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Football , Argentina , and Brazil . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I agree with the nominator that the competition lacks notably. However, a more appropriate article for a merge, should that be the outcome, would be Argentina national football team results (unofficial matches) which includes all unofficial matches of the Argentina national team. The article suggested only includes official results for the period. Stevie fae Scotland ( talk ) 22:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose - I am against deleting the Copa Raul Colombo article for one reason: this match in some sources such as World Football Elo Ratings is considered a Full A game between Brazil and Argentina. I agree that for the Argentine team itself the relevance is low, but greater clarification of what this match was about, in my opinion, is necessary. It is also fundamental to remember that at that time, state teams in Brazil had a lot of prestige. Svartner ( talk ) 09:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd be happy with a redirect as well. Giant Snowman 17:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Argentina national football team results (unofficial matches) I feel Stevie fae Scotland makes a good case for a redirect, although I strongly suggest to merge the lead paragraph to the article. As the unofficial matches article has no prose on lead, it would help to bulk that a bit. Govvy ( talk ) 13:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I strongly support user:Govvy suggestion. A redirect to the unofficial matches article would be the most appropriate idea. Fma12 ( talk ) 18:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:24, 24 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 accolades received by Anupamaa : No need to make a separate page for it. There are several shows like Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah , Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai , Kundali Bhagya , Kumkum Bhagya etc which are running since years even before this show and received much more accolades than this one. If we start making accolades pages for every TV series then wikipedia will be filled with unnecessary articles only. Pri2000 ( talk ) 11:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The article is unnecessary, no significant coverage of number of awards received by the show. Therefore it should be merged with the show's article. Thanks. Imsaneikigai ( talk ) 12:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Awards , Lists , and India . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge . Does not seem like nom or delete ! voter actually prefer deletion, so I think this discussion would have been better on one of the articles talk pages. — siro χ o 17:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - To Anupamaa per nomination. I agree with @ Siroxo its a proposal that can be discussed on the talkpage itself rather than AFD . Thanks -- C1K98V ( 💬 ✒️ 📂 ) 17:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge : Per nom. Doesn't have sufficient data to have its own article. Ajeeb Prani ( talk ) 23:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with the main article. ManaliJain ( talk ) 04:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep – The list seems to be right on the edge of acceptability for a standalone article; several FLs are of a similar length, including the awards lists for Community (60 noms) and The Bill (42 noms). RunningTiger123 ( talk ) 03:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, just because other shows haven't split out their awards lists doesn't mean this show can't have that ( WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ). RunningTiger123 ( talk ) 03:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with the main article. Georgethedragonslayer ( talk ) 15:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom. I see no reason this can't be in the main article. StereoFolic ( talk ) 03:47, 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

Meryl Silverburgh : This article used to have statements in its reception such as "the sexiest fictional Jew since Rhoda Morgenstern" (which also came from a listicle). No sources with in-depth character discussion exist, all of her mentions come from sex appeal listicles. Character fails WP:SIGCOV . Negative MP1 17:34, 16 October 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 17:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I think it's important not to judge an article by its current sources. Yes they are all rather poor, but that doesn't necessarily mean that sources don't exist out there that are better. Whether the character "shows no evidence" is less relevant than whether a WP:BEFORE comes up with sources. In this case there is a chapter on Meryl from Metal Gear Solid by Boss Fight Books, and Toward a Gameic World discusses the novelty of having to look up Meryl's codec number on the actual game box. The part about Meryl's codec is also mentioned here . I haven't checked enough to be sure there's significant coverage out there, but we're talking a major character from one of the most seminal games ever made. There's no clear evidence an exhaustive source search was performed rather than just looking at the sources right now and saying they're all bad. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I ran a WP:BEFORE two months ago when cleaning the reception up and when nominating this article and wasn't able to find much beyond voice acting work both times, hence what I meant by "No sources of in-depth character discussion exist". While those sources you brought up would be helpful, there needs to be actual character reception, of which there's very little that I could find. It'd be great if I was proven wrong and actual sources were found beyond both of my searches, but there's a reason why I nominated the article. Negative MP1 19:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Characters of the Metal Gear series , or Merge if there's any relevant reception worth merging to that article. The article's reception is very flimsy and there doesn't seem to be anything per the nominator's BEFORE. If any relevant reception is scrounged up, ping me, and I'll be willing to change my vote. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 23:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect I agree that mentions at listicles don't mean much unless they are truly a major accolade, like "best video game character of all time". This is supported by only the thinnest of journalism, and could easily be merged somewhere with a brief summary. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 03:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect . The current version of the reception is, sadly, indeed based on listicles and similar passing mentions. I found a bit of analysis in Bachelor thesis here (very borderline SIGCOV), and few more mentions in passing. I don't think that's enough to rescue this article, but if someone finds better sources, do ping me. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:35, 21 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

2018 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 , Oceania , Australia , and New Zealand . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/Merge with International rugby league in 2018 . No need for a separate page. J Mo 101 ( talk ) 09:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge, and convert to redirect . I completely agree with J Mo 101. WP isn't solely a database, and necessary elements of a database needed on Wikipedia should be prosified. I would suggest that this standard apply to all pages and separate articles when article size isn't an issue. Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 17:24, 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

Revolutionary Communist Party (Belgium) : Article contains almost no content. Present content makes it impossible to know wether the subject party has ever existed. Vif12vf/Tiberius ( talk ) 04:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Belgium . Vif12vf/Tiberius ( talk ) 04:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The article was created by a user who thought that political groups were given an automatic pass and excempt from WP:NOTEVERYTHING . In Fr:wiki, it is covered by a mention at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouvement_mao%C3%AFste_en_Belgique . It seems to be mentioned here . The party contested an election but ended dead last Geschichte ( talk ) 09:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which election was this? Vif12vf/Tiberius ( talk ) 20:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Geschichte I think you meant to say: this article was created by a veteran, prolific contributor to Wikipedia, who's been recognised as an Editor of the Week , and who has made invaluable contributions writing articles about political parties throughout the world.  :) FWIW you've conflated two Belgian parties with the same name - the PCR of the 1940s which was Trotskyist with the PCR of the 1980s which was Maoist. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 22:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment A collection of the party's newspaper (L'Exploité) from 1973 to 2000 is held at the Amsab Institute of Social History in Gent (published by the RCP's forerunner the PCBML from 1973 to 1976), three mentions of the party in Pascal Delwit's history of the PTB , from the French language article on Maosim in Belgium Manuel Abramowicz's "The Radical Left in French-speaking Belgium - Electoral, social and political impact (1965-2004)" (which appears to only be available off-line) it's more than reasonable to assume there is discussion of the RCP in that text, so there's good grounds for WP:NEXIST . That said, I'm not necessarily arguing for keep here, but I'm against delete, a merge/redirect might be appropriate to Maoism in Belgium . Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 03:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Marxist–Leninist Communist Party of Belgium as a premature SPINOFF. The Revolutionary Communist Party (Belgium) was a split of the Marxist–Leninist Communist Party of Belgium that is mentioned in the parent. Since there is so little content in Revolutionary Communist Party (Belgium), all of the content can be merged into the parent, easing the "user experience from hell" of having to navigate through many articles with snippets of information. The Communist Struggle (Marxist–Leninist) can also be merged into the parent. All with favorable prejudice on notability, as necessary and long overdue actions of information governance. gidonb ( talk ) 19:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with this approach. Vif12vf/Tiberius ( talk ) 22:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your support and for nominating, Vif12vf/Tiberius ! gidonb ( talk ) 22:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Goldsztajn , my proposal does justice to your findings of NEXIST and your desire for a merge. Can you support? gidonb ( talk ) 22:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 23:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per

merge

Elsa Salazar Cade : Clarityfiend ( talk ) 17:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . CptViraj ( talk ) 18:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . A merge with William H. Cade should be considered. Geschichte ( talk ) 18:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment A Bill Cade and Elsa Salazar Cade Scholarship in Evolutionary Ecology exists: https://www.ulethbridge.ca/artsci/biological-sciences though not seeing much in terms of citations on https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar? hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Elsa+Salazar+Cade&btnG= and I'm not sure how important the National Science Teachers Association award is. I'm learning towards a merge with William H. Cade ... - Kj cheetham ( talk ) 11:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to William H. Cade . I don't think there's sufficient independant sourcing to warrant two separate articles. I've not looked into how notable her husband is on his own, and given some of the achievements are as a couple perhaps a combined article should be considered rather than a simple merge into his one. - Kj cheetham ( talk ) 12:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with "Merge" : Evidence of independent notability not established but as an aid to navigation it makes sense. -- Otr500 ( talk ) 04:47, 31 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

Democratic Renewal Initiative – New Democracy Student Movement : On its own it fails WP:NORG , as the student wing of New Democracy it adds value to that article. Disputed draftification 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Greece . 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Author note: I will try to find some time to expand the article over the following days. For the time being, I would just like to mention that there has been a seperate article about it in the Greek wikipedia for years: https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%94%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%BF%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE_%CE%91%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%B5%CF%89%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE_%CE%A0%CF%81%CF%89%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B1_-_%CE%9D%CE%AD%CE%B1_%CE%94%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%BF%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE_%CE%A6%CE%BF%CE%B9%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE_%CE%9A%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B7 . As a new wikipedia member, I am not very familiar with criteria and processes. However, since there is a seperate page for it in the Greek wikipedia (it has not been merged with the New Democracy party greek page), I think that there should also be a seperate equivalent page in the English wikipedia. In my opinion, expanding the article is the way to go, not merging it. (So I would vote for KEEP , while expanding it at the same time.) ArchidamusIII ( talk ) 18:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment @ ArchidamusIII I would have moved it to Draft, but see WP:DRAFTIFY which says I cannot. I do not feel that drafification is appropriate, or would have suggested it. The Greek language Wikipedia has different standards. The English language version has the most stringent. Existence of an article in one is no guarantee that is suitable for the other or another, not is any precedent set between language versions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Thanks for the information! I just added 15 cases-events that attracted media attention (in table form). By media I mean media that are reputable in Greece. In all honesty, I think that Democratic Renewal Initiative – New Democracy Student Movement should definitely meet the notability criteria. A quick google search with δαπ νδφκ as keywords (its Greek abbreviation) yields numerous results. I will try to expand the article more over the following days. There is a lot of material available, so it is hard for me to cover everything. My original goal was to establish a short article and then let others slowly add details. ArchidamusIII ( talk ) 00:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - per nominator. TheNuggeteer ( talk ) 08:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - national student wing of one of main parties in Greece, had major role in national student body elections (which is a very important event in Greek politics). Whilst the article might need some editing, its not a candidate for Draftify. -- Soman ( talk ) 12:00, 13 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 ) 16:33, 14 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! 21:48, 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

Browse Happy : The only two reliable, independent citations are from right when the website was created, and they reek of churnalism . Might be worth a mention on Web Standards Project but doesn't seem to deserve its own page. Apocheir ( talk ) 04:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions . Apocheir ( talk ) 04:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , Was an important part of getting people to move off of Internet Explorer 6 and similarly old browsers. Its Javascript code is still embedded in thousands of websites even today. I concede that when browsers moved to auto-updating every four weeks sites like this weren't as prominently covered anymore, but it was historically improtant per WP:NOTTEMPORARY and even YouTube had a similar system which was covered in major sources too. 77.103.193.166 ( talk ) 18:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you have any sources supporting these claims? Apocheir ( talk ) 22:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:51, 28 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! 06:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: There are two sources that are independent of the subject and provide extensive coverage. 2004-era CNET is reputable, and the German source is written by what I understand to be a career journalist (according to Google Translate, I can't read German). HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 01:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Can we get a source analysis? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I can only find WordPress sites and blogs, nothing about this website. It still comes up in Gsearch, but that isn't notable. Even what's used now for sourcing isn't very good. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : This is the only book coverage I find [27] , but it just uses the website as an example of how to program so that things look a certain way online. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – there isn't great sourcing in the article itself at the moment, and online there are various blogs and forums discussing it for example. CNET is also not a really reliable source. TLA tlak 16:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or redirect to Web Standards Project (which could use the fleshing out). This is a tiny bit of web history and I'm not sure it should be deleted; I'd prefer this NOT be deleted. BusterD ( talk ) 13:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – fails notability guidelines; merge/redirect if a reliable source confirms that it is owned by the Web Standards Project. No reliable sources found. Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 22:11, 18 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

Fund for Adult Education : Seems to be borderline on notability. Let's have the community decide. UtherSRG (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . UtherSRG (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Ford Foundation : Fails WP:GNG as a stand alone article 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am the original author of this article. I have now added more references to demonstrate notability. I would propose that this is notable apart from the Ford Foundation article because it operated semi-independently of the foundation (e.g., was not exclusively a grantmaking project) and there is specific news coverage of the activities of the FAE. Ef726 ( talk ) 14:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I approved through AfC and then sent it back to mainspace after another editor sent back to draft. I included some of the many references about the organization which can be found on Newspapers.com through a WP:BEFORE search. There is not too much recent coverage as it is now defunct. I don't see an issue with it being merged to the Ford Foundation but based on the significant coverage it would need to covered somehow. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 03:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Ford Foundation as per above. Out of all the cited sourced, only the article by Edelson and the article from Petersburg Times can be considered SIGCOV. other coverage that I found are either trivial mentions or covered as part of Ford Foundation's contribution to adult education. There does not seem to be enough coverage and content to justify a stand alone article. Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 21:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe ( talk ) 10:08, 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

Jun Kazama : But, that's it. Failing WP:SIGCOV . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Tekken characters . No SIGCOV. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 23:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Tekken characters - "GamesRadar also listed Jun as one of the top ten gaming "MILFs" in 2008." The reception is an embarrassment for Wikipedia. I really want to see people step up and defend that little nugget of wisdom. Appears a lot in gaming magazines, but all mentions are trivial; lacks WP:SIGCOV from secondary sources. Wikipedia is not FANDOM. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 04:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Removed. Good heavens, talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel and then some. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 08:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Tekken characters . I did a search for additional sources and only came up with additional passing mentions here -- nothing meets SIGCOV. Nomader ( talk ) 13:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This could count as SIGCOV - beyond that, however, there is not much to speak of. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Oppose With the reveal of Tekken 8, Jun suddenly became surprisingly popular for returning to the series canonically. I noticed there were several articles where she was the big highlight of the writers and how it was reflected on the Tekken fanbase, so I added them to reception. It also helps that most of the other sources discuss how popular Jun is in general to the point that ex-Capcom developer Yoshinori Ono discusses her popularity. Tintor2 ( talk ) 15:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and my position on this is strengthened by the sources that Tintor2 just added. A mass of routine trailer coverage that barely says anything about the character was added, if that's the best that could be found.... Pushsquare's commentary amounted to "looks pretty damn cool", and none of the rest were much better. Disclosure, Tintor mentioned trying to save this article on Discord, and I ended up here after reviewing. -- ferret ( talk ) 19:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I was debating on this one for a while. But with the coverage Tintor2 added, I see some decent discussion here. Jun has coverage from CBR that can also be used. Plus, Jun is only now making her grand return in the mainline Tekken series with Tekken 8, so maybe she'll get even more coverage in the coming months? Also, the article is not only covering Jun, but also her alter-ego Unknown. Could Unknown have anything as well? I'll have to look. MoonJet ( talk ) 03:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then that case will be WP:TOOSOON + CBR is not used for notability since its a weak source. GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 03:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Current consensus seems to be the CBR can be used for notability, which notes that only listicles from there don't count towards notability. As for WP:TOOSOON , that's more of a case for something that doesn't have the coverage yet. What I was arguing it that maybe she'll get even more coverage. MoonJet ( talk ) 04:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Umm, no. Not only listicles. But that's just your opinion. GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 04:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The actual discussion on the site linked to does mention "Content", not just listicles. I tend to agree. The article in question discussing her, like most of their output, is mostly (parrot a bunch of lore) "Wow, this could be big!" without saying much of substance, to the point it could be written by AI and nobody would notice. While it should be citeable for information, it shouldn't be indicative the character is important. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It appears cbr is not that useful as a source. I have used listicles before but reworded like "This character stands out for his sex appeal" but in depth analysys are harder to obtain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintor2 ( talk • contribs ) 13:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I've added even more coverage to the article, GlatorNator . What do you think? MoonJet ( talk ) 02:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You just added only her 2 appearances. Nothing else. GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 04:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But I've cited sources discussing her too. That's where I was trying to get it here. MoonJet ( talk ) 04:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Eh. It was just CBR. Still not yet notable. GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 04:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] User:GlatorNator , If you looked, I did not add CBR. I added Siliconera , Giant Freakin Robot (they seem reliable) and The Outer Haven . I did link to CBR in here, but haven't added it to the actual article. MoonJet ( talk ) 06:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Still, not yet enough. GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 07:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would debate the idea that "Giant Freakin Robot" is reliable. I have seen total inaccuracies there before. It is not reliable. The Outer Haven is a WP:BLOG . Siliconera is an announcement, of which there are many, for most characters, but does not go indepth. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Giant Freakin Robot has been used for several other reliable publications, such as CNN, The New York Times, USA Today, Variety, LA Times, The Guardian, IGN, among others. That's always a good sign for reliability. As for The Outer Haven, they have a fact-checking policy , and have been credited by places like IGN and Destructoid. MoonJet ( talk ) 02:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Siliconera says nothing but "Revealed for Tekken 8!" again, rehashing the minor detail of not appearing officially since 2. GFR is the same beyond tacking on "confirmed fan theories she was alive!". The Outer Haven doesn't look reliable to me and the article is full of typos and grammar issues, and boils down to plot restatement, with no commentary at all about Jun. Can we seriously stop pretending that adding the routine "Announced for Tekken 8" detail from multiple sources shows sigcov? -- ferret ( talk ) 13:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And that reason has been used again below. Probably went here after this [22] . I bet closing this afd could be a bit controversial again to him because of [23] [24] . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Some references have been founded [25] . https://en.as.com/meristation/2023/03/29/news/1680046328_080539.html Tekken 8 shows off Jun Kazama and proves nothing is stronger than a mother’s love Tekken 8’s newest trailer shines a light on Jun Kazama, Jin’s mother who we haven’t seen since her debut all the way back in Tekken 2. Now she’s back and ready for a fight. and Bandai Namco themselves said it: “Love is a mother's most powerful weapon.” . This source also shows a video of her character in the game. That and the other coverage already mentioned convinces me the character is notable enough. The Reception section of the article shows there is enough to write about her to have an article. D r e a m Focus 21:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is just another routine trailer coverage just like Pushsquare's commentary "looks pretty damn cool" + Meristation is not reliable nor is situational. GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Meristation is indeed reliable, see WP:VG/S and use CTRL+F. Not SIGCOV tho, just a press release regurgitation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 08:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oopsie, wasn't familiar with that I guess. GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 09:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The initial trend towards merge was replaced by a trend towards keeping, but there doesn't appear to be a consensus either way at this point; further discussion would be helpful in determining a consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh ( talk ) 07:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with List of Tekken characters : I see a lot of sources thrown around here, but very few of them appear to be actually about the character, generally constituting brief mentions, entries in lists of characters, or "character announced as playable/may be playable" with little substance to the commentary on the character. The few that are about the character seem to constitute a reiteration of game plot and little else. There is no evidence of cultural impact or coverage of the character's real world creation. The "Design and gameplay" section boils down to a bloated but ultimately pedestrian video game manual description of the character's physical attributes, personal history, and combat abilities. The "Reception" section is a lot of fluff that amounts to "a lot of people sure do enjoy playing as this character in the video game". The "Unknown" section is simply pure GAMECRUFT . All in all, I see no justification for this as a standalone Wikipedia article, and no reason why it can't be cut down and merged. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) ( inquire within ) 15:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the character list. Tintor2 ( talk ) 19:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the Tekken character list. Her design section is overlong and I second that the "Unknown" section is all cruft. Game appearances section is adequate and can easily be condensed into the character list. The only reception content of any relevance may be the Common Sense mention, while the rest are pedestrian rankings and people wishing she was playable (I loved the irony of all the fan requests for her inclusion in TTT2 and then her only being the 21st-most used character in the game), which might have met SIGCOV requirements long ago but not now as VG notability evolves. A fairly easy call. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 23:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unfortunately, finding coverage for Unknown is extremely difficult, since the searches think you're referring to the actual word "unknown." Even if you try adding "Tekken" or "Tekken Tag Tournament" in your search. I've been looking pretty hard. MoonJet ( talk ) 11:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the character list, per WP:PRESERVE . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 21:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . I looked at sources, and the best we have are few paragraphs here and here (feel free to ping me and point out better sources). Despite mentioning the character in their titles, they are both short and I don't think they even meet WP:SIGCOV here; they contain just a few factoids and zero analysis of the character's importance outside the game. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:59, 22 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

Laszlo Birinyi: BrigadierG ( talk ) 22:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Finance , and Hungary . BrigadierG ( talk ) 22:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep as nom I'd copied his name wrong when doing my BEFORE, he's likely notable BrigadierG ( talk ) 22:09, 20 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.

speedy keep

Paweł Borys: — Maile ( talk ) 21:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . — Maile ( talk ) 21:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator Giving benefit of the doubt to the author of the article. — Maile ( talk ) 13:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Economics , and Poland . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This article aims to highlight the individual's significant contributions. However, it's crucial to ensure the content adheres to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Any promotional language should be removed to maintain a neutral and objective tone. I would appreciate your assistance with this. Benmotia ( talk ) 20:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep - I have withdrawn the nomination. — Maile ( talk ) 13:33, 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.

speedy keep

Mambas Noirs FC: ltbdl ( talk ) 05:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Africa . ltbdl ( talk ) 05:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Mambas Noirs have played at least three seasons in the Beninese top division from 2005-2011 and then again in 2017 before suffering a double relegation and disappearing, so it's frustrating this article wasn't sourced when it was created back in 2010 considering it's not the easiest to source these articles. Most importantly this search shows they were significantly covered when they were in the league in 2017 and this talks about a budding rivalry with Requins from 2010. I can't access [36] as it's about a player but may be of use. This doesn't look like GNG but at least tells us who their trainer was during their 2017 top flight season. I'm also finding sources frustratingly hard to search for because a site search of 24haubenin is difficult and brings up results that searching the site thru a web indexer does not, for instance this and this is not SIGCOV but demonstrate how they and several other clubs were kicked out after the season was abandoned in 2010. It's going to be a slog to source but I'm absolutely convinced a sourced stub is possible here. SportingFlyer T · C 11:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As an aside, very very few of these sources came up using traditional search engines. So if you Google and just see database entries from sport score websites, you haven't gone far enough... SportingFlyer T · C 11:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've turned it into a neat little referenced stub. Can add more if needed. SportingFlyer T · C 13:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] oh, that's much better! i withdraw this nomination. ltbdl ( talk ) 02:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also turns out they played in the CAF Champions League in 2005 under the name Donjo! So this is an absolute keep in my book. SportingFlyer T · C 13:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Top division club, clearly notable. Number 5 7 15:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep being a top level club that qualified for international competition and improved sourcing by SportingFlyer has improved article to meet notability guidelines. Demt1298 ( talk ) 18:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes GNG, and looks better after expansion. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 19:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 20:50, 25 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.

speedy keep

The Exonian: IAmHuitzilopochtli ( talk ) 19:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and New Hampshire . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] High school newspapers generally aren't notable, but this isn't the average high school paper. From an initial search, I found this GNG-qualifying reference: [1] There's also [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] . Some of these are weaker, but I'm fairly confident that when I have more time to look at this later (or someone else does), it'll be possible to find enough to save this. Cheers, {{u| Sdkb }} talk 22:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with the general thrust of your comment (as shown below), but it should be noted that Lane (2018) is about a parody issue of The Exonian published by students at Phillips Academy . Jahaza ( talk ) 22:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jahaza : Ah, I wasn't able to access it, but good to know. Another book that I cannot access, [7] , appears to have some coverage, although it's hard to tell how much. Anyways, excellent job finding sources below. Moving to Keep given them. {{u| Sdkb }} talk 03:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Franklin, Marie C. (15 February 2004). "Newspaper chronicles" . The Boston Globe . p. 97 . Retrieved 24 August 2023 . ^ Strauss, Michael (2 November 2003). "Resourceful teens give professional a lesson in speed" . Palm Beach Daily News . p. 18 . Retrieved 24 August 2023 . ^ "The Exonian's Anniversary" . The Harvard Crimson . May 1, 1928 . Retrieved 24 August 2023 . ^ "The Exonian Marks 75th Anniversary" . The Portsmouth Herald . 20 March 1953. p. 3 . Retrieved 24 August 2023 . ^ Crosbie, Laurence Murray (1924). The Phillips Exeter Academy: A History . Phillips Exeter Academy. pp. 204–205. ^ Lane, Stephen (2018). No Sanctuary: Teachers and the School Reform That Brought Gay Rights to the Masses . University Press of New England . pp. 118–119. ISBN 9781512603156 . ^ Heskel, Julia; Dyer, Davis (2008). After the Harkness Gift: A History of Phillips Exeter Academy Since 1930 . Hanover: University Press of New England . ISBN 9780976978718 . Keep , Crosbie's book [20] is not independent, but there's some independent coverage. An Old New England School [21] , which is about Andover has coverage of the Exonian . There's a discussion here [22] by Times writer Michael Straus, which states that he covered the Exonian in the Times although I haven't been able to locate that article. There's a similar article from Editor and Publisher in 1925 [23] . There's a history of The Exonian in this book [24] , but not independent as it's written later by one of the newspaper's founders. Although, perhaps it could be argued from that source that the early official school history is independent, since the former editor notes that The Exonian was, at least at the time, run by students, but independent of the school, which published the history. [25] There's a brief discussion of The Exonian in this article from Educational Outlook [26] . Jahaza ( talk ) 22:36, 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.

speedy keep

Comparison of JavaScript-based source code editors: I'm not sure if this topic is notable, but even if it is, we'd need to WP: STARTOVER here. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 16:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software . Owen× ☎ 16:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Lists . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This is a muddle. When you say "it features a user's feature testing" which user do you mean, and how did you determine the content was original research and not simply awaiting a supporting citation ? Relevant diffs would be helpful. The latest substantive addition (

speedy keep

Yuantang (language game): Remsense 聊 20:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The Chinese Wikipedia article lists four seemingly academic sources, which suggests notability. _dk ( talk ) 01:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator In that case, I'll flesh out the article with them real quick. I should've checked, thank you! Remsense 聊 01:26, 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.

speedy keep

Marcellus (prefect of Judea): I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 18 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 13:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , History , Israel , and Palestine . Skynxnex ( talk ) 13:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - One of a series of notable Romans being nominated for deletion by this edtor. See my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gessius Florus . Undoubtedly notable, treated in hundreds of sources and books. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 20:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep Improper nomination. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 22:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Obviously notable as a Roman governor of Judaea, even though little is known of him. If the article needs more sources, find and add them—presumably there are multiple modern sources that mention him, even if they lack much detail. AfD is not cleanup! P Aculeius ( talk ) 00:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per User talk:Serrwinner #Roman AfDs , this is a pointy nomination of a clearly notable subject. FortunateSons ( talk ) 14:06, 19 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.

speedy keep

History of linguistic prescription in English: Chidgk1 ( talk ) 18:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator - thanks for improving @ Folly Mox : Chidgk1 ( talk ) 10:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're welcome, Chidgk1 , and thanks for withdrawing the nomination. Improvement is always a better outcome than deletion. Many articles like this are pretty easily sourceable by importing references from adjacent articles. I got the first seven citations in only an hour, but if I had just copypasted them it could have gone even quicklier. Then I got sleepy and stuck on a particular sentence I probably should have just rephrased. There might be some OR in the article, but for that it's usually best to find a source that supports a weaker variant of the claim in question and change the prose accordingly. I think the WP:BEFORE for this nom was not really thorough. Do you have Wikipedia Library access? They have really great access to a lot of major academic publishers. Folly Mox ( talk ) 11:10, 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.

speedy keep

Thin Ice (2020 TV series): PROD concern was: Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG . Tagged for notability since 2021 — User:Donaldd23 17:13, 23 October 2023‎ DePRODded by Necrothesp ( talk · contribs ) at 15:27, 24 October 2023 with no explanation except, take to AfD . ‎ – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 16:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , France , Iceland , and Sweden . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 16:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes W:GNG with coverage such as these [40] [41] [42] Alvaldi ( talk ) 16:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It has also got plenty of english sources, such as [43] [44] . I'v addied them all to the article. @ LaundryPizza03 , would you consider withdrawing the nomination? Alvaldi ( talk ) 16:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per WP:SK#3 , we would have to wait until a WP:SNOW closure is possible. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 16:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No problem. On a sidenote, there is also coverage in the Swedish media such as [45] [46] . Alvaldi ( talk ) 16:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] weak keep . When I created it it looked like it would be more than a single season and a good example of something not anglocentric. I'm not greatly bothered about it other than as an inclusionist. -- AlisonW ( talk ) 18:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep clearly notable after references added by @ Alvaldi who has performed a real WP:HEYMAN . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 22:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:GNG . Its improvement illustrates perfectly the weakness of the prodding system. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per improvements made after nom. per WP:GNG. BabbaQ ( talk ) 22:07, 26 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.

speedy keep

Labiobarbus cyanopareja: Even Fishbase has no photos. Doesn’t merit a page Wikilover3509 ( talk ) 09:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Philippines . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 10:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Every species is considered notable. The absence of a photo doesn't mean the article should be deleted. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 10:16, 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.

speedy keep

Harberger Tax: Not linked to by any other article; lacks importance as a concept. Zim Zala Bim talk 02:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's a proposal made by multiple economists, including in a book that is most likely notable ( Radical Markets: Uprooting Capitalism and Democracy for a Just Society ). I'd support a merge, but there isn't just one good merge target given these factors. Notability does not depend on popularity. Also worth noting that this recently survived AfD, with editors able to find significant coverage of the subject. I don't see how the circumstances have changed since. Elli ( talk | contribs ) 18:18, 27 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.

speedy keep

Sauviat: Wikilover3509 ( talk ) 15:09, 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.

speedy keep

Sthenias javanicus: Aydoh8 ( talk ) 23:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete One hit in Gbooks [1] , looks trivial. I can't find anything in jstor or Gscholar. I wonder if it's known under a different name. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] More hits on Sthenias (Sthenias) javanicus, but I still can't find much. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per longstanding consensus ( WP:NSPECIES ), individual species are invariably notable. Jfire ( talk ) 03:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Accepted species, no confusion about holotype or synonyms ; original description already linked, present in the relevant databases [2] [3] . Please have a look at the responses to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clivina jodasi and desist from any more of these nominations. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 07:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . "Article has very little information" is not a reason to delete one. The species is accepted with no confusion about holotype or synonyms, as mentioned above by Elmidae . Mooonswimmer 14:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:23, 26 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.

speedy keep

Poybo Media: There's a source assessment on the talk page for the sources in the article; I'll put that here too for convenience. Most of the sources cover the founder of this company rather than providing any in-depth coverage of the company itself; see also WP:ORGDEPTH . Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 19:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology . Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 19:20, 20 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.

speedy keep

Adidas Predator: 2) Fails WP:GNG as the vast majority of the sources used are not reliable. A google search does not uncover any additional WP:RS . TarnishedPath talk 04:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator - This was a mistake for me to nominate this. When I was reviewing the list of sources I saw a lot of sources that I had seen in similar articles that I'd recently nominated for AfD and I knew they were bad, however my eyes missed the Complex one so I didn't check it and I should have. TarnishedPath talk 03:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products , Sports , and Football . TarnishedPath talk 04:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - notable, see e.g. coverage in Complex . Giant Snowman 10:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Plenty of coverage online and exactly the same as per my post at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adidas Copa Mundial . Govvy ( talk ) 11:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Govvy, is my explanation above enough for you? Giant Snowman 17:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notable due to coverage in Complex , The Athletic , and other reliable sources . Tails Wx 12:12, 30 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.

speedy keep

Travels of a Republican Radical in Search of Hot Water: WP:BEFORE provides no direct information on the book besides a few advertisements and passing mentions, and some extremely brief quotations or citations in works that describe the whole of H. G. Wells' career. The quotation it is "best known for" appears once in the literature relevant to it that I could find (which I do not have access to): [6] Recon rabbit 20:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . Recon rabbit 20:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Some fairly decent length reviews (coverage?) in The Daily Telegraph , The Hopewell News and NYT . ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 20:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC) Keep , or Redirect to H. G. Wells bibliography , where it is mentioned. I find many google scholar hits that are likely related to the quotation mentioned in the nom's statement, but I don't think any of these are likely to show notability; I expect they're all just direct quotes or passing mentions. I do think this is plausibly notable, but what I'm finding (aside from the contemporary reviews noted above) are discussions of the contents of the book in service of biographies of Wells, rather than literary criticism (or whatever) in its own right. This article/redirect would probably be a good place to expand on some details of Wells's life that would be too much detail for his main article. Since, as the nom notes, no one has done that in more than a decade, I think a redirect is fine for now. doi : 10.1007/978-3-030-26421-5_24 has a couple of pages loosely related to the book starting around pg 382; this seems typical of the scholarly/biographical use of this book. I don't think it would be a good idea to write an article solely on the strength of the reviews found by ARandomName123. -- asilvering ( talk ) 21:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : As noted by asilvering, most of what I could find in regards to this work were quotes from it or references to it in service of demonstrating something about Wells' points of view. Another essay that quotes the book fairly often, though never making a direct discussion of the book, rather using it as example to talk about Wells: [7] does this confer the kind of coverage that could be used at all to discuss the book itself? It doesn't look like it to me. Also, Google brings up a one-sentence review in an unrelated article from 1940 in the Indian Express: [8] Recon rabbit 02:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Following the elucidation of sources from TWL and Newspapers.com I would like to withdraw this nomination. Currently I do not have the time-requirement to access the Library but will work on integrating these sources into the article once I gain access in a couple weeks. In the future I will refrain from making any further deletion proposals or nominations until after I have searched for and reviewed sources from TWL as this was a blind spot I didn't fully realize until now, especially in the non-natural sciences articles. Recon rabbit 13:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Reconrabbit : I was planning to add them in once this AfD is concluded, so I can do it later today. If you want, I can email you images of TWL sources. ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 14:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC) @ ARandomName123 : If you think it would be beneficial to email me images of your sources, I would appreciate it. Though, if there're still issues with the article in a month, I'll be able to check myself and make any of the requisite improvements from the library, so it may not be worth your effort. Recon rabbit 14:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:NBOOK via the sources from ARandomName123 and these additional newspaper sources: [9] , [10] , [11] . Jfire ( talk ) 04:50, 12 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.

speedy keep

Vampirates: Blood Captain: Previously WP:BLAR twice, but was reverted. ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 01:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason above: Vampirates: Tide of Terror ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Vampirates: Black Heart ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Vampirates: Empire of Night ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 01:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United Kingdom . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Some meet NBOOK readily, eg: Tide of Terror [28] [29] [30] [31] , Blood Captain [32] [33] [34] . These seem likely to as well: Empire of the Night [35] , Black Heart [36] . AfD isn't always a great place for deciding how ot handle coverage of closely related articles of varying notability so it might be best to bring this to Talk:Vampirates or Talk:Vampirates: Demons of the Ocean to discuss how to handle the series in full. — siro χ o 03:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn , as per sources provided by Siroxo. Didn't think to check ProQuest when doing WP:BEFORE , will do so next time. ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 15:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Pankaj Sanghvi: ~~ αvírαm | (tαlk) 15:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . ~~ αvírαm | (tαlk) 15:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Charley Pollard: Currently does not meet it as it stands. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:15, 30 June 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 . Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:15, 30 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.

speedy keep

Snap, Crackle and Pop: Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Russell Bentley: Barely covered in any media. He only recently resurfaced due to being missing. Definitely does not deserve his own article. BeŻet ( talk ) 10:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Russia , and Texas . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , given more than 3 independent sources, all national newspapers or news sources, over a period of time (2015 to 2022), having him as the primary (or one of the primary) subjects of the articles; reaches WP:NBASIC . Klbrain ( talk ) 12:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Definitely notable, I found his name in Russian press and started googling. Lots of coverage. Tiphareth ( talk ) 16:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per above. Providing one more additional link btw. [31] PoisonHK Sapiens dominabitur astris 10:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , people have short memories but Bentley received a lot of coverage in 2014 when he first went to fight with the separatists. He was interviewed at the time by Vice and Newsweek. He has not only just become of interest due to reports of his alleged disappearance. -- Katan gais (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , He is now reported mudered. I looked up this article when I saw a report of his death PeterNimmo ( talk ) 16:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , He has been a subject of interest many times since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine in 2014. 2600:1007:B037:10F5:1556:E6F3:9C9A:6781 ( talk ) 19:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per Klbrain and Katangais. Multiple, independent reliable sources over a period of time should demonstrate notability. ⁂CountHacker ( talk ) 20:35, 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.

speedy keep

Beyond Desire: I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes . I did a WP:BEFORE and found a suitable and reliable review from TV Guide . Needs one more suitable and reliable review per NFO, NFSOURCES and WP:NEXIST . The Film Creator ( talk ) 08:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . The Film Creator ( talk ) 08:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Added a few sources to the page, including the TV Guide review mentioned above. See for yourself. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There is also a review in the Montgomery Advertiser . Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 12:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I speedy withdraw nomination per consensus and per newly added sources. The Film Creator ( talk ) 15:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:43, 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.

speedy keep

Embrace the Gutter: HCS.net ( archived ) appears to be a blog and I doubt it would hold up to scrutiny in terms of reliability. The sales claim might be worth investigating but could've easily been made up for all I know. Maybe other editors will consider AllMusic and Hit Parader to be the bare minimum for a pass, but I think we ought to be just a tad more strict than that. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Florida . QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : there's another review in Rock Hard behind a paywall [92] . The band is reasonably well known, so I would expect that this album was reviewed in Kerrang! and Metal Hammer in the UK, at least... but of course, I can't vote to keep just because there are "probably" other reviews, until we find them. Richard3120 ( talk ) 15:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Rock Hard certainly helps its case. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 18:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Metal.de is another one from Germany [93] , Ox-Fanzine is a third , and here is a fourth. Keep . Geschichte ( talk ) 17:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh yeah, that'll do it for sure. Thanks folks! Withdrawn . QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 03:20, 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.

speedy keep

Sebastian Elmaloglou: Fails WP:NACTOR , no multiple significant roles. LibStar ( talk ) 22:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Australia . LibStar ( talk ) 22:39, 13 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.

speedy keep

Guillermo J. Tearney: WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 16:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Massachusetts . WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 16:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . No evidence of significant independent coverage with 7 papers with over 1000 cites? Pull the other one. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 22:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] @ Xxanthippe what does "pull the other one" mean? S0091 ( talk ) 22:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Try Google. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 22:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] Keep . Bad nomination; the claim that there was no evidence of coverage in the nomination statement tells more about the nominator's lack of WP:BEFORE than about the subject, because coverage was not hard to find. Beyond the pass of WP:PROF#C1 already discussed above, he passes #C3 (Fellow of National Academy of Inventors ) and #C5 (named professorship at Harvard). None of these notability criteria depend on independence of coverage. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 06:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn Apparently I got this one wrong. Apologies. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:44, 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.

speedy keep

20Q: The article currently only contains unreliable and/or non-independent references. When researching this topic I could not find any sufficiently reliable or independent references to improve the article with. I would recommend redirecting to 20Q (game show) , but that article may very well have the same problem (I have not looked into it). Mokadoshi ( talk ) 16:55, 13 February 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 February 13 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 17:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Nice, I remember this toy. I'll take a look at what sourcing is out there before chiming in on the deletion discussion, but agree a merge is sound if the article lacks notability. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 20:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 20Q was originally a web site (still up at 20q.net) , which gathered answer weights / data then spawned a toy and was arguably the first commercial application of neural networks for consumer toys. I'd say it's rather notable. The patent is now abandoned: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20060230008 and the design is interesting as LLMs and generative pre-trained transformers have gained popularity. Nutate ( talk ) 21:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you have any reliable, independent sources we could add to the article to establish notability? The 20Q website is not independent. Mokadoshi ( talk ) 22:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mokadoshi : Here's one from Boing Boing and here's one from the NYTimes ! Edit: Oooohhhh, Chicago Tribune !! ! Americanfreedom ( talk ) 14:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Americanfreedom : Thanks for finding those. I don't know about Boing Boing, but the NY Times and Chicago Tribune references you found are definitely reliable. It's a shame that each only have a couple sentences of useful information for the article because it means we'll likely never expand this article past a stub. But is that a problem? Mokadoshi ( talk ) 17:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Alright lil' miss "I'm gonna complain until someone performs the WP:BEFORE I should've done", there's also the Washington Post (paywall), it's like you don't know about the search engine or something. It's a great jumping off point for people who actually follow WP:BEFORE! Americanfreedom ( talk ) 17:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would appreciate some WP:AGF . I'm not complaining, and I did research before making the AfD. From that research, and still after this discussion, I'm not convinced it meets WP:GNG . For example, is NY Times article you linked "in depth"? Is the WaPo article you linked "reliable"? (It mostly centers on how the device learns from its mistake, which directly contradicts how the device works according to the NYT article.) Thanks for the link you gave to your custom Google search, I don't know where you found it but it gives better results than a normal Google search so I'll add that to the list of things I checked before making this AfD. I do believe the Chicago Tribune reference you found is good (thanks again for finding that!), but I'm not sure if one reliable source satisfies GNG. I'll stop debating here and let someone else weigh in on GNG. Mokadoshi ( talk ) 18:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The toy is notable. There is announcement and release information about the toy ( [33] [34] ) and some significant coverage ( [35] [36] [37] [38] ). The website suggests there are some inaccessible sources ( [39] ) and awards ( [40] ) - see WP:NEXIST . Given that the Toys WikiProject is a bit dead, and there's no formal notability guidance, I think the fact there's a specific product that recieved coverage and recognition in reliable sources for its novelty and received industry awards is enough for me. The game is a combination of an artificial intelligence prototype, website, then toy; the article could theoretically merge these and further cement notability if the notability of the toy alone was in doubt. The LLM/AI angle is interesting and there seems to be a source or two on Google Scholar about this. On the WP:BEFORE debate above - look, it's inconvenient when key sources are missed, but it happens. It's no big deal, especially when the sources are ultimately found. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 04:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Discussion of the sources presented could be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 01:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The 20Q website, toy and quiz show are all just implementions of twenty questions, the real question is merge with twenty questions or kept split as overall the twenty questions concept is notable as a whole and there have been other quiz shows with the same formula. 77.103.193.166 ( talk ) 14:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If an article subject is notable under the WP:GNG it plainly merits an article. See WP:NOTMERGE . I think these are discrete subjects even if they are closely related. A similar concept would be video games based on a board game, which plainly merit their own articles. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 03:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: still waiting on discussion of sources Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 02:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Vrxces and Americanfreedom have supplied a slew of GNG -worthy sources in this discussion. Left guide ( talk ) 05:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep . The toy is clearly notable per above sources. The article needs work, but deletion is uncalled for. (I'm not sure what more discussion those relisting this are looking for? The above discussion is fairly robust, and located useful sources.) – Erakura (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn : I am not sure why multiple people have linked to the toy's official website or the inventor's written patents as examples of reliable sources, but everyone has found other sources that I don't disagree with. So, I'm fine withdrawing this proposal. And I'll probably stay away from AfD for a while since this is my 2nd proposal that I've had to withdraw, and I don't want to waste other people's times. But at least I've learned something, like WP:Permastub - even if all the sources for this article only give the same couple basic facts, it can still be notable enough to deserve an article. Mokadoshi ( talk ) 00:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mokadoshi : good call, but don't be too discouraged, your efforts are in good faith. I also agree that the toy company website and patents are useless for establishing notability. It might be helpful to remember WP:NEXIST for future nominations. Left guide ( talk ) 00:18, 6 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.

speedy keep

Army Wives: Agusmagni ( talk | contributions ) 20:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , and United States of America . Agusmagni ( talk | contributions ) 20:50, 29 April 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 April 30 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 00:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep - This ran for seven seasons, and had 117 episodes. The article has 61 in-line sources. The series aired in numerous countries: the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Russia, Sweden, France, and other countries. This show was nominated for numerous awards, and won several of those. It has a separate List of Army Wives episodes . — Maile ( talk ) 00:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep per the above comment. XOR'easter ( talk ) 01:38, 30 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.

speedy keep

Arka Sokaklar: LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) 21:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : No apparent WP:BEFORE and no clear rationale for the supposed lack of notability. See [19] and [20] . Arka Sokaklar is quite a well-known Turkish series that has been broadcast for a very long time. As can be seen through the links I provided, just a quick search of the name returns a plethora of publications, studies, and whatnot on the series. Aintabli ( talk ) 22:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Aintabli . While the state of the sourcing in the article is bad, there are plenty of reliable sources for the show. I would also look at the Turkish Wikipedia article on the show which is much better sourced. GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 23:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep no way it's not notable, it's one of the longest-running shows in Turkey. Tehonk ( talk ) 02:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn anyone can close. LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) 02:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Father of Turks: TheJoyfulTentmaker ( talk ) 05:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions . TheJoyfulTentmaker ( talk ) 05:20, 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.

speedy keep

Liane, Jungle Goddess: No showing of notability or SIGCOV. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 03:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Film , and Germany . Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 03:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator: At this point, I feel sufficient sources have been found to prove up at least GNG and likely NFILM. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 18:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , it doesn't have to be unsourced. The German Wikipedia article has sources. It was a very successful film that also raised some controversies, pushing frontiers in what was then acceptable (near-naked woman!). Given that it was released in 1956, we have to have some understanding that everything written about it at the time, and for decades after its production, will be on paper. Its current availability and internet presence demonstrates that it has lasting cultural value. Elemimele ( talk ) 06:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in some form. It's very likely both the film and book are notable [25] . Other helpful bits of SIGCOV that should help get us to GNG for the film itself: [26] [27] [28] [29] — siro χ o 08:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Added some sources to the page. Clearly notable, as a basic internet search can show. Keep . - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I was about to withdraw the nomination, but "withdrew the withdraw" after taking a closer look at some of the sources offered by Siroxo, most of which appear to be passing/trivial mentions, where this film is offered as one item in a list of examples. I'm not yet convinced there's enough here to make this film stand on its own as independently notable. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 18:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm now convinced and will withdraw. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 18:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I that case there is no need for me to also vote keep. The German article has three references and lists three books as sources. Did you do WP:BEFORE ? -- Bensin ( talk ) 23:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did, but this film isn't that well known in the English-speaking world and so there was a dearth of sources. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 00:03, 16 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.

speedy keep

Fascism (book): My search was confused by the fact that the author has written eleven books, all of which have the word Fascism in the title , and also a journal called Fascism. This one is just titled Fascism, which makes searching for sources a nightmare, but I did try. If there is not another review, redirect to author Roger Griffin . If there is another substantial one I can withdraw. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 10:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 10:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ PARAKANYAA : As you mentioned, finding reviews for this books was extremely annoying, and it doesn't help that there was another author with first name Roger writing about facism at the time, but I did manage to find one other review from the London Review of Books . I would've preferred more coverage on the book itself, but that's all I could find. ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 15:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ ARandomName123 Nice. There's probably more in the sea of dozens of similarly named books, but two decently lengthy ones is enough for NBOOK. I can withdraw this then. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 22:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:GNG , was unbale to find enough reviews on google.com and bing.com ( HeritageGuardian ( talk ) 21:50, 12 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.

speedy keep

Balmiki Prasad Singh: Also it seems that author had close connection with the subject as the image added in the infobox also shows the subject himself as author. - Admantine123 ( talk ) 18:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India . Admantine123 ( talk ) 18:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 18:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes WP:NPOL as the governor of an Indian state. Article definitely needs some work though. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 18:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Bihar , and Sikkim . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : Clearly passes NPOL. It is a clear mistake to send it to AfD. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk ! 20:36, 23 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.

speedy keep

KAGI: Greatder ( talk ) 06:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I haven't evaluated them, but there are some refs in the section labeled "External links". You can also tag such articles with {{no footnotes}}. — siro χ o 10:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Jefferson Public Radio . This station is just a rebroadcaster of that network and originates no programming. Flip Format ( talk ) 17:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Jefferson Public Radio for now. Granted, I do think this would be an {{ R with possibilities }} ; I'd think that a station that has been around since ~1940 , and (as far as I can find) has only been part of a public radio network since 1991, should potentially have more sourceable content and potential notability (which is not temporary , of course). As it stands, though, this is another one of those stubs written in 2011 (replacing a preexisting redirect to Jefferson Public Radio) when our (over)presumption of notability in this topic area was still so overly broad that we were creating stubs on seemingly every transmitter of the public radio networks, even if they have never had any separate on-air content (and that was largely curtailed even before GNG enforcement was stepped up in 2021). If this were created as-is today, it would probably be redirected within days or even hours, without the need for AfD. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Pivoting to at least a weak keep ; if nothing else, the entire rationale for the nomination (which was the lack of references) appears to have been rectified with Sammi Brie's rewrite/expansion. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I just did a full rewrite. The main problem is newspaper availability. It may say something that I don't have a radio DYK from the Medford market—though this would qualify. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 00:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Excellent recovery! I would definitely vote Keep now! Greatder ( talk ) 18:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Thanks to Sammi Brie

speedy keep