Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 17 - Wikipedia

Article Images

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant (software)

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Mfixerer (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Their are no appropriate sources and my search for some to add to the article found none. UptonSincere (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There are two inexperienced editors here, I'd like to hear from others who have participated in other AFDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Couple sources, haven't evaluated reliability: https://cmscritic.com/radiant-cms-review https://web.archive.org/web/20220505204305/http://www.rubyinside.com/radiant-a-rails-cms-diamond-in-the-rough-52.html Japanese book off Gbooks: https://www.google.com/books/edition/%E5%85%A5%E9%96%80Radiant_CMS/feS9QhxUVdUC?hl=en&gbpv=0 A412 (Talk • C) 08:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I wouldn't expect that the sources that signify its significance as required by WP:NSOFT can be found, and it's likely that the available sources won't meet WP:GNG either. This was one of the first libraries based on Ruby on Rails to appear, and has many trivial mentions as such, but libraries of this kind, offering trivial functionality on top of Rails itself like Radiant did, generally didn't get much traction in the Rails world. Radiant wasn't an exception and the project eventually died without leaving legacy apart from blog coverage in the early days of Rails. PaulT2022 (talk) 02:31, 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.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Paramount+ original programming. Daniel (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ended Paramount+ original programming

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

The user did not discuss this on the original talk page before creating the article. When you look at lists of ended shows on Netflix and Prime Video, it becomes clear that this article falls short, as Paramount+ does not have enough ended shows that warrant a separate page, compared to the previously mentioned streamers. My concern aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines, which stress the importance of authority and reliable sources. A thorough evaluation is needed to take a close look at how significant this article is in the context of Paramount+'s programming history, because right now, it doesn't measure up to the standards set by other well-established streaming services. BrickMaster02 (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm not sure what the reason for the nomination is. If the article falls short of our writing standard, we improve it, not delete it. It does not have enough ended shows? The article currently lists almost 100 shows. How much is enough to warrant a standalone article? If sourcing is sufficient to provide notability, I see no reason to remove the page. Note that the nom previously tagged this article for speedy deletion with the reason, "Did not discuss on original talk page regarding the creation of this". I don't know why the nom believes article creation must be previously discussed with them. Owen× ☎ 20:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Paramount+ original programming We simply don't break out defunct programming into separate articles, and section it under 'former programming', and these articles are wholly out of established WP:TV editing standards. Nate • (chatter) 21:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also..."A show is also assumed to have ended if there has been no confirmed news of renewal at least one year after the show's last episode was released." That's not how we source a program's end, ever. You can't make up criteria for something to be in an article based on something you made up. Nate • (chatter) 02:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but then "List of ended Netflix original programming" and "List of ended Amazon Prime Video original programming" should be redirected too? IgelRM (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Paramount+ original programming This list is currently unnecessary, there isn't a large amount of ended shows, like other platforms have, that justified splitting out this list. Also, discussions should occur on talk pages prior to making a controversial edit, such as splitting an article, which is why the PROD probably is a reasonable rationale. Happily888 (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poorni

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. No significant roles, no good sources either. Redirect to Boss Engira Bhaskaran, only cited role. DareshMohan (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Only two films with no significant roles. Definitely doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 00:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was kept, but moved to Grand Canyon Trophy Game, shifting focus to the regular series of games played, rather than the question of whether a notable rivalry exists. BD2412 T 19:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Canyon Rivalry

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

This doesn't appear to meet the WP:NRIVALRY due to a lack of in depth, secondary coverage with which to meet the WP:GNG. The article was deleted under a different name in 2014 and recreated [[1]], but as it stands the current article seemingly fails in the same areas the previous one did. Let'srun (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, Arizona, and Utah. Let'srun (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the game has a trophy and the article has good sourcing. A notable rivalry is a notable rivalry, as Wikipedia articles on the subject of rivalries don't have to only focus on major college games (Ohio-Michigan, etc.). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't done any digging yet, but none of the sources currently in the article represent WP:SIGCOV (i.e, in-depth coverage of a rivalry). Three of the five sources are clearly non-independent (published by the universities or the conference), and I don't believe FBSchedules.com has ever been recognized as a reliable, GNG-bestowing source. (The first two sources are reliable and independent but don't have real depth of coverage about the rivalry.) Cbl62 (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article was previously deleted in 2014. Joeykai (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My source analysis is set forth in my earlier comment, and noothing else has been presented. I voted "Delete" at the 2014 AfD on this trophy, and nothing has changed materially. There is still a lack of SIGCOV wih in-depth coverage about the trophy or rivalry -- just some passing references in game coverage to the fact that the winner gets the trophy. Cbl62 (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, if this were a close case where there was some SIGCOV, other factors such as geographic proximity, the trophy, and competitiveness would weigh in favor of keeping, but I haven't seen anything that could be called SIGCOV here. Cbl62 (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but we have categorization and framing problems across a lot of articles like this. As a series of annual games with a name (whether it has a trophy is irrelevant), this appears to pass GNG, and would probably be better as Grand Canyon Trophy Game and rewritten to make it clear it is an annual series of games, instead of us claiming it is actually a sports rivalry. What's happened here is that this and several other things have "rivalry" in their names and are a class of things that are sometimes called "rivalry games", but they are not sports rivalries as WP and most sources are using that term. That is, "rivalry" is ambiguous, and writers of this article have confused one meaning with the other just because of the term being used in the name or being used in vague, amgiguous ways by some source material. A "rivaly game" is simply a periodic game (usually a form of exhibition game) between two teams for the entertainment of themselves and their fans, or occasionally as part of some league system but given a name and sometimes a trophy as a promotional mechanism.The entire Category:Big Sky Conference rivalries and probably several others like it has completely confused the idea of such a game series with the idea of an actual sports rivalry: a subculture of animosity or faux-animosity between two teams/institutions and especially the fandoms thereof, a rivalry that has a life of its own and garners source coverage unto itself as a social phenomenon, not as promotional lingo used by coaches or athletic department administrators, not just passing use of "rivalry" as a word in routine game coverage, and not simply a game or game series name that happens to have "Rivalry" in it. This article sipmly has not been properly framed as an article on a series of games (which is what the subject is) instead of a sports rivalry (which it is not in any sense that is notable or what Wikipedia should care about).The whole category structure relating to this stuff needs to be cleaned up so that exhibition games are classified as such and no longer classified as "rivalries". And lots of these articles need to be rewritten. E.g., to pick one at random, Beehive Bowl (which was quite properly moved away from Southern Utah–Weber State football rivalry in 2016, but was never rewritten) misleadingly opens with "The Southern Utah–Weber State football rivalry, known as the Beehive Bowl, is the annual football game between Southern Utah University and Weber State University"; clearly this is about an annual game series, not about a sports fan subculture of rivalry. The article has ridiculous WP:OR in it, like "In 2011, Southern Utah joined the Big Sky Conference, making it a yearly rivalry." Two teams coming into competition with each other by being in the same conference or other league system does not make them "rivals" (any more than any other two competitors in any sport are "rivals").While AfD can make a few dents in the problem by picking off articles that claim to be about rivalries that don't have sufficient sourcing to exist as articles no matter how the content is reframed and renamed and recategorized, a more systematic approach is needed for dealing with the mess that has been created, because a lot of these articles on named series of games have been mis-written as rivaly articles, as if they are something like Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry, which they demonstrably are not. I'm not even sure where best to address this. The issue seems most common in American college football, but actually crosses sport and national lines. Maybe WT:SPORT is the place? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
College football rivalry games are not exhibition games. They are usually regular season games. On rare occasions, rivals may also play in post-season bowl or playoff games. Cbl62 (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: Even if one views the article as being about the trophy, I am not seeing SIGCOV about the tropy. Did you see sourcing that rises to the level of in-depth coverage about the trophy? Cbl62 (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, not about the trophy per se, but yes about the game series (which involves a trophy), which is why I didn't go with delete. I think the "nexus" of all of this, now that I've dug a little deeper, is List of NCAA college football rivalry games. There really does seem to be a term rivalry game but this is not the same thing as a rivalry in the sense WP means in its category system and as the term is used in more clearly written journalism than some of the sources at these articles. What's happened is that rivaly game sometimes get shortened in sports writing to rivalry (and in a few cases even in the name of such an event), but this is a different meaning, along the lines of 'organized series of periodic match-ups between a pair of teams in geographical proximity to each other'. It's an ambiguity we are not accounting for. We need to have a category on rivalry games (a series of such matches between two such nearby teams, often but not always with a trophy, and often but not always with a distinct name for the game series), and move the keepable articles to titles that make it clear they are about an event series not about an alleged rivalry in the other sense, of 'a subculture of sports-related antagonism between two teams' fandoms'. E.g. Central Michigan–Eastern Michigan football rivalry and pretty much every other article misnamed and miscategorized like it, are not about "rivalries" but about an organized series of "rivalry game" matches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) 17:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford Language (here) defines a "rivalry" as "competition for the same objective or for superiority in the same field. 'there always has been intense rivalry between the clubs'" A series of rivalry games between two clubs seems to meet that definition to a T. I just don't see this particular "rivalry" having sufficient depth of coverge to pass GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Before heading to the reference section to confirm notability, I thought, "If I heard the phrase 'Grand Canyon Rivalry,' I would want to know what it meant, and this article addresses that neatly." I then went to the reference section and confirmed notability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkfrog24: Did you find sources with WP:SIGCOV -- i.e., in depth coverage of this series as a rivalry? Cbl62 (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but call it Grand Canyon Trophy Game until secondary sources can confirm its indeed a rivalry at which point a re-name to Grand Canyon Rivalry would make sense. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Left guide
https://www.thespectrum.com/story/sports/college/southern-utah/2015/11/18/suu-football-much-stake-years-grand-canyon-rivalry/75974816/		(presumably)	The title is misleading, as the first sentence makes a routine announcement of the upcoming game, and then diverts to discussing the Southern Utah coach and other aspects of the team's season the rest of the way. Not focused on the matchup/rivalry and says almost nothing meaningful about Northern Arizona aside from a single passing mention from the SUU coach: The guys have higher aspirations now. It’s about beating NAU and all that comes with it.	✘ No
https://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/college/southern-utah/2015/11/19/suu-football-demario-warren-faces-former-teammate-grand-canyon-rivalry/76085934/		(presumably)	~ Doesn't really discuss the two involved teams as a matchup or rivalry, mostly about the two individual coaches from each team who happen to have a prior personal connection and their anecdotes about it. Not particularly focused on the matchup/rivalry but not entirely off-topic either.	~ Partial
https://bigskyconf.com/news/2015/11/14/FB_1114150039.aspx	It's the conference's website, so a primary source.		? Didn’t bother to read since it won't count for notability anyways.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20150907212820/http://www.nauathletics.com/sports/fball/2012-13/releases/20121106d133ob	It’s the website of one of the involved teams, so a primary source.		? Didn’t bother to read since it won’t count for notability anyways.	✘ No
https://suutbirds.com/news/2013/11/21/209319368.aspx	It’s the website of the other involved team, so a primary source.		? Didn’t bother to read since it won’t count for notability anyways.	✘ No
https://fbschedules.com/nau-southern-utah-schedule-12-game-football-series-2028-to-2039/		? The site says they’re a partner of USA Today, so I initially believed they’re reliable although another editor has expressed uncertainty about its reliability.	~ Most of this is WP:CRYSTAL but there are two paragraphs that offer overview-level encyclopedic coverage of the matchup as an established cohesive topic: Northern Arizona and Southern Utah, both current members of the Big Sky Conference, compete annually in a matchup dubbed the Grand Canyon Rivalry. However the Thunderbirds are leaving the Big Sky for the Western Athletic Conference (WAC) beginning with the 2022 season. Northern Arizona and Southern Utah have played each other every season since 2008 and have met 25 times overall. The two schools played twice during the spring 2021 season, with the Lumberjacks coming out on top in both contests, 34-33 in Flagstaff and 28-20 in Cedar City. Northern Arizona currently leads the overall series 15-10.	? 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}}.

Comment: Attached above is my analysis of the sources in the article with regards to WP:GNG. Left guide (talk) 12:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 12:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paulina Sarkanaitė

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

The subject, a Lithuanian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found was this. Otherwise, it's all passing mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Lithuania. JTtheOG (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the SIGCOV [2] to satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC, GNG. Hopefully the article can be improved. Respublik (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That source (a YouTube video produced by a football club) is neither reliable nor independent so contributes nothing towards notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That source is not from the club, nor has ~~anything~~ to do with it. It's a reupload. Original source is the Lithuanian radio TAU. Respublik (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On a further analysis, the part from 00:00 to 00:05 is by the club. All the remaining content (00:06-23:48) is a reupload from an independent source as stated above. Respublik (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Lithuanian but it sounds like a direct interview with the player herself. Anything coming directly out of the player's own mouth will be non-independent. We need an article built on what people in the media are saying about her not what she says about herself. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – An article "List of Lithuania women's international footballers" should be created to cover these athletes, as well as in other similar cases. Svartner (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Touro University Rainbow Health Coalition

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

No hits in google news, newspapers or books. Some of the sources provided are local as per WP:AUD. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, and California. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to Washington Bridge (Providence, Rhode Island). Daniel (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Washington Bridge closure

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

The bridge was temporarily closed ahead of a major incident, and reopened sooner than expected. Neither of these factors seem to convey notability. Explicitly not in favor of a redirect to Interstate_195_(Rhode_Island–Massachusetts)#Washington_Bridge_closure as I don't think it even merits long term mention there, but am fine with it if consensus emerges. Star Mississippi 22:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. Star Mississippi 22:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect - This just doesn't seem notable. A bridge being closed due to maintenance issues is pretty routine and run of the mill. Unless something unexpected happens, like the bridge outright collapsing, I can't see this passing either WP:NEVENT or WP:GNG. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Washington Bridge (Providence, Rhode Island). Closure of a major bridge on an interstate highway tends to make the national news. (Note that the closure is ongoing - traffic has been diverted to the parallel span, but it looks like a few months til the north span opens.) While I don't see it as having ensuring enough notability for an independent article, a redirect is useful for categorization in Category:2023 in Rhode Island and so on. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This major road closure was caused by a junior engineer reporting rod failures, and was extremely sudden. The closure caused five hour traffic delays in Providence County, which have caused press conferences to happen every single day since the incident. Assuming that the page cannot be kept, it should be merged with Washington Bridge (Providence, Rhode Island). --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Washington Bridge (Providence, Rhode Island). desmay (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Washington Bridge (Providence, Rhode Island). Disclaimer: I was asked by Sideswipe9th about this article's notability a few days prior to this AfD, and found myself agreeing that it wasn't worth its own article. The Hernando de Soto Bridge has no separate failure article despite being probably more notable of a closure, so I don't see why this one should have an article. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Washington Bridge (Providence, Rhode Island). We don't need an article on relatively routine infrastructure maintenance. Partofthemachine (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, no redirect. Traffic jams are not notable. Laughable that editors are voting to keep articles on bridge maintenance and traffic jams in the United States when we're deleting articles about traffic accidents in other countries that killed two or three dozen people. Clear case of WP:SYSTEMIC. What's the point of a redirect? Who's going to search on this title? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Per WP:CHEAP, why should the page history not be kept for a legitimate search term? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Washington Bridge (Providence, Rhode Island) per others. Fails WP:NEVENT and mentioned at the target. Seems obvious. And if we merge, then of course we redirect because we preserve attribution and redirects are cheap. If nobody searches for it, it won't get used (who cares). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Washington Bridge (Providence, Rhode Island). The section in the article is about as long and well referenced. Should be redirected and someone who feels that something is still missing can look in the history. gidonb (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Washington Bridge (Providence, Rhode Island) as it doesn't meet a separate GNG. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as there's sufficient coverage at Washington Bridge (Providence, Rhode Island) already (if anything a bit excessive). Elli (talk | contribs) 02:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space and submit it to WP:AFC, let me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Logitech Racing Wheels compatible games

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

Combination list for 11 different models or series of controllers, sourced to primary game support pages, or secondary reviews of certain controller models. It would make more sense to list specific game compatibility on the pages for the specific controllers themselves. QuietCicada - Talk 21:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada - Talk 21:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It's potentially useful info for someone, but not necessarily the sort of information suited for a standalone Wikipedia article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wheel support is listed on the sites that sell games and on the box (if you still buy physical copies); it's not up to us to keep up a 'katamari list' where different models and console generations are listed without proper sourcing or demarcation and never removed when support ends. Nate • (chatter) 22:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So Toss it into the cosmos, then? :) QuietCicada - Talk 22:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this sounds like a compatibility list for Logitech's website, not an encyclopedia. Sergecross73 msg me 23:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:NOTIINFO and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Ajf773 (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. AryKun (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE --Artene50 (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Change So I am new to this process so forgive me if I make mistakes. So I do think some of the points are valid . On the point of lack of citation, a major issue with a lot of the older games listed on this article there's essentially no citable source outside of the software/physical packaging. If this article would need a major rework to work around that (or if someone can inform me how to handle correct information about a piece of video game software outside of the software and manual itself, please do) I mention this because this counters the idea this information can be found via online stores, that's only true of newer, digital releases (and frankly isn't always true, as I've found out myself). However I do see issues with this article, personally I don't think it should have been originally set up to only use Logitech brand wheels, while during the PlayStation 2 console generation they were essentially the "Official" wheel controller for the console, that became less the case with each new console generation. I do have to ask why a list like this wouldn't be suited for Wikipedia, but lists such as Lists of software released for a specific console hardware, or exclusively for that hardware are, again I'm new to this article for deletion process so what specific differences allow for those articles, I genuinely want to know. If ultimately a more broad version of this article, or specific versions of this article broken up by console system, or specific model of wheel controllers (which personally I think would be a mess because there would be dozen of 3rd party models that older console hardware would detect as if it was a logitech one) then I'll understand, though if that is the case do articles have a certain amount of notice? JohnnyBagHead (talk) 03:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. If editors are interested in renaming this article, please start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yekaterina Duntsova

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

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

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

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

It looks like an advertisement for a potential presidential candidate. WP:POLITICIAN states that just being an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability. The article on the same topic was deleted in Russian Wikipedia due to the same reasons FlorianH76 (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Her candidacy is the direct subject of several articles, so she meets the notability criteria for Wikipedia. JohnR1Roberts (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Should satisfy WP:SIGCOV given multiple news about her 2024 presidential campaign in the context of Russia, where she probably is the lone opposition to Putin, other candidates are loyal to him. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also I would like to add that while being an unelected candidate does not guarantee notability, it also does not guarantee non-notability:

"Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She appeared on the biggest german news show just now (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi3ljQXB0qQ&t=471). We should also be careful about state actors trying to act here. Scisne (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject of the article clearly has significance. Many reliable sources wrote about Yekaterina Duntsova (Reuters, The Moscow Times, BNN Breaking, AP News and many others), describing her as Putin's main opponent in the upcoming elections. She passed the first stage of registration, collected the necessary 500 signatures, and held a meeting in Moscow. This was covered by the Russian federal media (Kommersant, news.ru). The article about Duntsova in the Russian Wikipedia was deleted with obvious bias and is an example of political censorship. --Yarkovesh (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is that everyone found out about her existence just yesterday 178.252.127.236 (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Journalism, Law, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Generally, we've considered coverage of candidacy to a political office as WP:ROUTINE and we regularly delete articles about unelected candidates if they don't have any WP:SIGCOV beyond that related to their candidacy, which seems to be the case here. Even if we cast that general precedent aside, this would still be an issue of WP:BLP1E. As it is, Duntsova is only a declared - not a qualified - candidate (she needs a further 300,000 petition signatures to be ballot listed). Nonetheless, it's possible Duntsova may become ballot qualified and, subsequently, may emerge as the leading challenger in the upcoming election and, if all that transpired, it would most probably be enough to surmount my concerns about ROUTINE and BLP1E since a principal challenger is almost certain to attract coverage of such biographical depth and complexity as to crest those standards. However, it's too early in the petitioning process to ascertain that so this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Therefore, I !vote in favor of draftifying the article with no prejudice against its future recreation if the situation evolves or changes. Chetsford (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems to be a good decision. FlorianH76 (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs to stay. Yekaterina Duntsova is the most important person of our time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:3037:611:6570:F6C5:FFB6:CA37:E51C (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need this article to maintain freedom. Alxklg (talk) 07:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But no one really knows who she is, even in Russia 178.252.127.236 (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: you can mention that the official start of Ekaterina's election campaign took place yesterday. Over 700 supporters gathered in Moscow to express their support for her candidacy. The initiative group of 522 people also voted in favor of Ekaterina's nomination. The meeting was successful, despite some questionable incidents that did not affect the course of the event. Currently, Ekaterina has the support of over 110,000 people. The Telegram channel has about 150 thousand people. Has an article in the Belarusian Wikipedia and the Ukrainian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.59.206.179 (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More people studied with me on the same faculty lol 178.252.127.236 (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly satisfies general notability guidelines of significant coverage in reliable sources. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments by Grnrchst and Yarkovesh. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it please. People want to find the information about her. I was disappointed not to find an article about her in Russian and was happy to find some information in English at least. 85.166.86.183 (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree that running for office does not automatically meet notability but in this case there are plenty of sources. This is a national campaign of a major country, and she is publically standing up against a controversial government. She clearly meets notability. Rublamb (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No one knows her. This is clearly just an attempt to draw attention and create a facade for non-existent career and political weight. 178.252.127.236 (talk) 10:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Duntsova's presence in the social media realm is far from negligible, boasting a following of 320,000 people — a number that continues to climb swiftly. To say that 'no one knows her' seems a stark underestimation of her growing popularity. Galstenreg (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Yekaterina Duntsova 2024 presidential campaign. Devil's advocate, but I think we're putting anti-Putinist emotions (which I do sympathize with) over well-established policy. The well-established policy is WP:BLP1E, and this person clearly fails it. That being said, I do think notability has been established for her presidential campaign, and thusly this page should be kept but moved. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 05:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "Devil's advocate" Yarkovesh (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does not fall under this rule because all three points must be considered.

About the third point.

Ekaterina Duntsova has a clear path in life - she worked as a journalist (editor-in-chief of RIT) and was a deputy in the City Duma. Now she is reaching a new level of fame, a lot is being written and talked about in Russian-speaking (especially independent) and English-speaking media.

To say that there is only one event associated with her or that she is insignificant is strange. 185.70.52.115 (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Authoritative media pay a lot of attention to her. К.Артём.1 (talk) 09:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. There is more than enough news coverage. Mellk (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I also agree that running for office does not automatically meet notability but as above there are plenty of sources including news / media outlets and social media it now does, especially standing up to Putin. Yekaterina, a very brave woman, and now very much notable, with her stance on Anti-War and bringing Russia back from the brink.

Just to point out the one that has mentioned delete has an IP inside Russia, a little obvious I think from Putins propaganda machine of silencing critics and opposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.87.161 (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

quite ironic to be critical to the anon from the UK to claim that out. not every russian liberals' critics are from the propaganda machine, as one user was merely questioned Yekaterina's notability. — 95.24.32.118 (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's been written up in The Independent, The Moscow Times, Reuters, AP News, ABC News, and Stars and Stripes. How much more notable can someone be??? HandsomeMrToad (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia has a neutral POV and articles should not be deleted because someone is not happy with the facts. Lotje (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She got blocked from the election process but got covered by the BBC, still pretty notable.--Catlemur (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of coverage about her the last days, meeting WP:GNG. That the page is deleted from the Russian Wikipedia is not a valid reason for deletion here. 109.37.156.249 (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as she has gained coverage from the Associated Press about her denial from the candidacy. Ivan Milenin (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep far than enough coverage, especially now that Putin is up to his old tricks and repressing the subject's presidential candidacy. There has been a fair bit of news on the subject as of today alone. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per most of the above. Clearly notable as there are more than enough sources talking about her. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 10:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons given above by colleagues--Noel baran (talk) 12:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Srivastava

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

Subject still fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG as most of these citations are mere mentions, quotes from the subject, or official statements from the local government. This article was already deleted once for good reason. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and India. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second AFD for this instance of the article but it is at least the third AFD because a previous instance of the article was deleted at least once. I recently did an AFD nomination during NPP, it was deleted but that deleted was reversed on the basis that it was a soft delete. My rationale during the previous nomination was: "No Indication of wp:notability. The most that any of those numerous references discuss him is covering his appointment to his position. All of the others are just coverage where he was either mentioned or quoted in a news story about something else. Article was previously deleted." Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indian Police Service just a indian govt job, not a notablity criteria Worldiswide (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of Wiki97828)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be a routine police position, nothing different than any such person in the service. Sourcing is largely of various things he was involved with at work. Oaktree b (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly giving interviews, or helping an older lady, which is fine but the article is barely a few paragraphs. Oaktree b (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of coverage is routine, or comments made as a senior police officer, not WP:SIGCOV about him. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 11:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Wilhelm of Schaumburg-Lippe

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. DrKay (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Germany. DrKay (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see why the original poorly cited article was put up for deletion, however, I've now expanded it and added reliable sources. Not only is he descended from the Royal House of Denmark, but he's also in the line of the succession to the British throne which clearly makes him notable. Bermicourt (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 5,000 people in line to the British throne by the reckoning that you are using (which [as I've said elsewhere in other discussions] is faulty since in practice the line is restricted to British citizens and it would take a massive disaster of global proportions to kill the first 100 people in the line of succession, meaning no-one would be worrying about who the 101st person in line would be because we'd all be too busy trying to survive). Being descended from someone notable does not make the descendants notable. DrKay (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - But being cited in reliable sources does. Bermicourt (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Significant coverage in reliable sources. Entries in genealogical directories are insufficient to meet the WP:GNG criteria. DrKay (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very little of the article is actually about him personally as opposed to his relatives.170.76.231.175 (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has he ever done anything, or just conjugated, and rocked up to weddings and funerals? That's a career of sorts, but it's not notable for anyone so low on the deposed and irrelevent royal ladder. MisterWizzy (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the article says the same things 3 times over, once in the introduction, again in the "Life" section, and again in the infobox, tells us that this is genealogy, padded out to make it look like it is more than it really is. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. Uncle G (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Prince Wilhelm of Schaumburg-Lippe is a historcial person and of interest for a online bibliotheca as Wikipedia is. --92.76.102.53 (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it's worth, an article for this person was previously deleted with the reason "Expired Wikipedia:PROD, concern was: No credible claim of notability: article is only a genealogical entry. Notability is not inherited." 2601:249:9301:D570:2C94:DFF9:B48E:5FEB (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. The argument that the coverage is not significant is probably the winning argument currently, relisting to see if it can be disproven or alternatively if there's more support for that viewpoint.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is really nothing in this article but genealogy. The article would need sourced, biographical information about what this person has done with his life, besides being born to people of royal descent, marrying, and having children, to warrant keeping it on Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG: no sigcov available. Uhai (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, complete WP:NOTINHERITED violation. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 16:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 11:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suboptimal health

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

As far as I can tell, the concept (as defined by Yan and Wang) describes a set of risk factors for obesity, smoking, mental health issues, and being overworked. Except for sources 3-6, all sources include both Yu-Xiang Yan and Wei Wang on the author list. Sources 4 and 5 also do not have listed authors. This makes me seriously question if sources 3, 4, 5, 6 can pull their weight as reliable and independent (of Yan and Wang's research), especially to the high standard of WP:MEDRS. I suspect the original creation of this article was a COI edit, as several paragraphs show up as copy pastes on earwig from Yan and Wang's publications. I will now go over sources 3-6:

- Source 3 does not cite any of Yan and Wang's publications, but comes after in 2013, suggesting that the research on 'subhealth' is only coincidentally similar to 'suboptimal health' researched by Yan and Wang. It seems to be the only source independent of Yan and Wang to meet MEDRS.

- The concept of suboptimal health been used to uncriticially promote chinese traditional medicine (TCM) - see this removal for example. source (source 4), also mentions how TCM is central to the concept and markets TCM products to this end. It does not meet MEDRS as it is an opinion article.

- Source 5 uncritically promotes TCM, makes no citations, and it is unclear to me if it refers to the same topic that Yan and Wang cover. Does not meet MEDRS.

- Source 6 looks reliable, independent and has significant coverage, stating: "However, lacking of precise definition by official health bodies, the term "sub-health" remains a vague concept. The concept of sub-health has gone popular in the Chinese mainland in the 90s and has been controversial. It was accused of being a commercial excuse for the business of health care products by the local media." As a news report it does not meet MEDRS.

Sources I did find, by doing a google and google scholar search for 'subhealth' and 'suboptimal health':

- [3]. It seems reliable, independent and has significant coverage. It claims that Wang has published over 200 papers about SHS which I am a bit skeptical of, but otherwise this seems okay. Does not mention TCM involvement.

- [4]. Does not cite Yan and Wang. This paper is funded by a company trying to promote the aformentioned dietary supplement, and is unrelated to TCM. I doubt it would meed MEDRS due to the lack of independent review or funding.

Of course, uncritically promoting TCM does not alone warrant the concept/article for deletion, so my main argument is about the lack of independent sources meeting MEDRS with significant coverage to Yan and Wang's research. It is also unclear to what extent Yan and Wang's research may have been involved to promote TCM. My speculation is that this term has a popular Chinese equivalent term in circulation, which I cannot verify myself as I can't read Chinese. It is possible the topic has notability for Chinese Wikipedia, which it does have an article for (it seems to be a translated copy of this one). But I do find it concerning how the concept uncritically promotes TCM. I am not sure what role Wikipedia should play in presenting that material without undue weight, especially considering the paucity of sources I could identify in english which independently refer to Yan and Wang's research, since they seem to be the central researchers to the topic as it exists in China.

My personal opinion is to delete the article, and it could be restored when significant coverage by two reliable, independent sources meeting MEDRS are published and found -- ideally review articles of the concept, including its Chinese historical significance and how it is related to both TCM and dietary supplements. Darcyisverycute (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and China. Darcyisverycute (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Translational medicine: the target is better sourced, and covers more than just a single term. Owen× ☎ 15:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as first choice for the reasons given by nom; merge as second choice, but to Traditional Chinese Medicine rather than Translational Medicine. Most of the citations discuss subhealth in the context of TCM, so at least with the references we have it seems like a better fit for that article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Comment. After checking publications in Google Scholar, this seems to be a sufficiently established terminology in various contexts, for example [5],[6], [7]. My very best wishes (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Among the sources you linked: 3 has Yang and Wang, and 5 has Wang, so they are not independent (I happened to of already read source 3 as part of WP:BEFORE). I did not know 4 existed (thank you for finding it!), and at first it seems to be a reliable source to establish notability. Ideally, to meet MEDRS we would have multiple such independent reviews, so this still seems somewhat of a borderline case. Although I notice a few statements leading me to question its reliability:

- Many developed countries, including Saudi Arabia, I understand some of the authors reside in Saudi Arabia but I understand this statement to be false.

- According to the diagnostic guidelines provided by the Association of Chinese Medicine, symptoms in three areas, namely, systematic, psychological, and social, are evaluated to assess SHS This confirms in part that SHS is associated to TCM, although the exact relationship is still unclear to me. In any case, a significant amount of SHS studies seem from Wang's research group.

- Of the four metrics among 12-14 articles assessed in the review (SHSQ-25, SHMS V1.0, MSQA, SSS) the original proposals of SHSQ-25 and MSQA appear to have been developed by Wang's group. Not a factor to rule it out, just as an observation.

- The paper states SHS has now been recognized as an essential construct in personalized medicine to decrease the risk of developing disease and enhance general health. Moreover, the idea of SHS reflects the belief that chronic diseases can be effectively predicted and prevented before a clinical manifestation of severe pathologies from the view of predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine and cites [8] for support, which seems like a paper mill as the only search result for the journal is a LLC company statement. The quote is a significant claim considering the little research in the area and makes me possibly question the neutrality of the authors on the subject.

I do not have a good explanation, but I have to wonder why there is no research I can seem to find covering this in the US, considering this particularly named theory has been around since at least 2009. Anyway, I think these are all factors that should be weighed in consideration of the outcome of this AfD. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I certainly do not have time and expertise to look so carefully at all these sources... My very best wishes (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO and given journals or content published in journals (namely about "suboptimal health") are not inherently notable, especially concepts that only function as one researcher's "brand". बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ankh Micholi

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

Fails NFILM. No review found online. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 07:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 07:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review this article. To establish the noteworthiness of the film, I have expanded the lead section (and rearranged a few sentences) to include discussion of the film’s prominence because of its prolific director (Ravidra Dave), the film’s highly-paid lead actress (Mala Sinha) and also the film’s music director (Chitragupt). I have also increased the cites for the article. Scholar165 (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing deletion (as at the very very least a redirect to the director's page is in my view warranted.) But the infos are verifiable and this is a 1962 film with very notable cast and director, which contributes to the film's notoriety (WP:INHERIT does not apply to this statement, thank you in advance for not mentioning it). ~~So I would rather like a plain~~ keep as the film ~~might~~seems to meet the following criterion: "the film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career." (WP:NFILM) if we can consider it is a major part of Ravindra Dave's and Male Sinha's career~~, but this very point would need to be established more clearly maybe~~.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC) (changed to plain keep in the light of the improvements made by Scholar165)[reply]
Thank you for your useful comments. As per your suggestion toward the end of your comments, I have expanded the lead section and rearranged a few sentences to explain the noteworthiness of the film because of its prolific director (Ravidra Dave), the film’s highly-paid lead actress (Mala Sinha) and also the film’s music director (Chitragupt). Scholar165 (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you@Scholar165: and thank you for the improvements made to the page. I changed my !vote to full Keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @User:Mushy Yank and @User:Scholar165:You are saying that the film passes second criteria of WP:NFIC which says "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career" but this film is not the "major part of their career". The film only "features significant involvement" not "major part of their career". 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 02:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not the "major part of their career"(s) (emphasis mine) but as it was a commercial success, an important/major part of them (you will note that the guideline uses "a"). Still, if you think a redirect to Ravindra Dave#Hindi films and merge there is better, I am not opposed to this solution, personally (although I still do think a keep is better). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added the sentence below (and 2 additional cites) to the lead para to assist establishing notability of the film:

Ankh Micholi, released during the Golden Age of Hindi Cinema, which unfolded from the late 1940s to the 1960s, exemplifies how filmmakers during this period, attempted to combine renowned stars, directors and music composers for the commercial success of a film. Scholar165 (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It seems you posted the same message twice@Scholar165:. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added the sentence below (and 2 additional cites) to the lead para to assist establishing notability of the film:

Ankh Micholi, released during the Golden Age of Hindi Cinema, which unfolded from the late 1940s to the 1960s, exemplifies how filmmakers during this period, attempted to combine renowned stars, directors and music composers for the commercial success of a film. Scholar165 (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per newly added sources. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this article, I added much of the second para in the lead section to establish the article’s notability after the deletion nomination. Also added were several new cites and an image. If anyone has suggestions on anything else I can add, I will try my best to incorporate these into the article. Thanks.Scholar165 (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Dean Memorial Trophy

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NRIVALRY due to a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV with which to meet the general notability guideline. Let'srun (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and Washington, D.C.. Let'srun (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a notable rivalry is a notable rivalry, even though this one had the major games played before internet era and newspaper references are harder to add--Banderas (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Let'srun (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added several new sources. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. While a minority of participants maintain that GNG has not been met and that the article should thus be merged into an article about its parent district, a clear majority of editors are satisfied by the extent of coverage found and/or find it to be highly indicative of the existence of further usable coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maudrie M. Walton Elementary School

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

We don't typically keep elementary schools and the sources listed seem to be WP:ROUTINE in nature p b p 20:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, United States of America, and Texas. p b p 20:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC);[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:ROUTINE's definition of "routine" is: "Common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out". It is not every day when PBS, a national US TV channel, makes the school a star of a documentary on school improvement (the other RS is also tied to the school being covered in a documentary). WhisperToMe (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there may well be something here. But the existing sources are primary so a secondary source about this is required to demonstrate notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: They are not primary sources. They are secondary: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources states: "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."

Both newspaper articles are written by journalists affiliated with a newspaper (Matt Frazier, a Star-Telegram staff writer, and Lori Elmore-Moon, a special features writer of the same newspaper.). That makes them secondary, not primary sources.

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are primary sources. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. They are both reports about the PBS show. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the page states: "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community" so it would be best to have that happen soon.

Anyhow, the page states: "A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events." Therefore we can check each article to see if there is some kind of analysis and/or commentary.

Source #1 by Frazier: "The documentary has already been broadcast in other markets, and Walton has received congratulatory[...]" and the same source also cites TEA data. Frazier did not only report on what the documentary and people from the school said, but also brought in analysis from other sources.
Source #2 by Elmore-Moon: "Kemp played a prominent role in the one-hour documentary" which is analysis on part of Elmore-Moon.

Additionally, note this article is actually about a school, and not the documentary itself! (the documentary has its own article at A Tale of Two Schools). Elmore-Moon makes it clear that A Take of Two Schools itself compares and contrasts the two schools it is about.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lakota_Tech_High_School is an example of an article that has news articles with sufficient analysis to show notability

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

High schools are usually kept and elementary schools are usually deleted, tho p b p 04:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PRIMARYNEWS is an explanatory essay, but the point is made in the policy page on OR too, see WP:PRIMARY and particularly follow note d. But it is not just Wikipedia saying this. Newspaper articles are generally primary sources. That is the settled historiographic view. It is how such sources are treated in academia. And note that just a reading of PRIMARYNEWS again indicates that even if you dice these as editorials, they remain primary. The sources are primary. What secondary sources exist about this school?

But to pbp I would point out that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES has changed although the change is taking a long time to be recognised. Any school must essentially pass the WP:GNG. None are presumed notable but elementary schools can certainly be kept if they are shown to pass GNG. However, if the only sources presented to demonstrate that notability are two primary sources, I'll be !voting delete or redirect per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the change in SCHOOLOUTCOMES, as per AFD, newspapers are treated as secondary: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hardin_High_School_(Texas) is one example of an AFD outcome. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houston Blue (there were academic book reviews, but the newspaper coverage was not discounted) is another. And the nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benbrook Middle-High School was withdrawn because of the newspaper coverage I found (which linked the building of the new school to the Benbrook community being dissatisfied with previous schooling options, so yes, these newspaper articles have analysis!). These Wikipedia outcomes say they are secondary. Wikipedia is saying this. But not only is it saying this, but Wikipedia must do this to survive. Here's why:

Regardless of whether academics technically, technically treat newspaper articles (that have analysis and explanation) as primary, it is important to note this is a general audiences encyclopedia in which many editors are not immersed in academia. Editing (in most cases) should not be too difficult for, say, the working class ordinary homemaker or a farmer, who are not schooled in academia extensively, to contribute reasonably to a field of interest. Trying to impose high level academia standards will drive away ordinary editors and leave many topics of common interest without a viable path to notability (newspapers are extensively used in notability discussions).

There is a reason Nupedia failed and it heeds to remember why.

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that participants in another AfD failed to challenge obvious primary sources tells us nothing about Wikipedia policy. The rest of the argument here is not grounded on policy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#What_about_article_x.3F states: "If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." Precedent matters, and the cases I cited are similar cases.

Also academia is not the be all, end all of every case, as User:Jimbo Wales has made clear in this dispute about Hugo Chavez: Talk:Hugo_Chávez/Archive_26#Chavez and food (he felt that the article overall did not have a proper reflection of the issues; some editors heavily relying on academia wrote sections that missed other key aspects). What did Jimbo cite as his rebuttal to the academia sourcing? The answer: Newspapers and magazines.

I quote Jimbo: "But it is also perfectly fine and often absolutely necessary to use reliable newspapers and magazines as sources. Bill Clinton came to power nearly 18 years ago, and our article has 210 references, the vast majority of which are from reliable newspapers and magazines." (and Wikipedia instructs editors to rely on secondary sources, and so implicitly they are being treated as secondary here)

There are cases like ancient history, aviation science, medicine (especially!), global warming, etc. in which academia does need to be weighted higher, but newspaper articles (so long as they have a level of analysis/explanation, and so long as it is not ROUTINE) are clearly sufficient sourcing and counted as secondary for Wikipedia purposes for school-related articles.

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nom comment: If the argument is that the school might be notable because of the documentary, shouldn't the school just be redirected to the documentary? Again, let me note that elementary schools rarely, if ever, survive AfD. p b p 04:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools a non-notable American public school is to redirect to its school district. The reason why I figured this particular school would be an exception was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pershing_Middle_School_(Houston): an education writer featured Pershing's program in a book, and the coverage in the book was enough for Pershing to have its own Wikipedia article. Similarly, I figured the coverage of Walton in a PBS documentary for its particular program would give it notability for its own article. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (ETA - see below) - My searches have turned up no secondary sources that have significant coverage and are reliable and independent. This page therefore does not meet WP:GNG. There are two primary sources in the article (per discussion above), but these don't establish notability. There are many pages showing in searches, but these are directories, or the school's own materials (not independent). Book searches drew a blank (a couple of trivial mentions but these in directories in any case). No papers either. I am a lttle surprised that a school that was subject to a PBS dcoumentary has no other sourcing but I have found none and the conversation above has turned into something meta, rather than a search for secondary sources. I conclude none will be found. Scholar searches are impacted by the existence of Maudrie M. Walton, an educationalist, who does yield hits, e.g., [9] but not about the school. As this does not meet GNG, there should not be a page, because ultimately there isn't much that can be said about this school. However an ATD is possible, and redirects have been mooted to the school district or to the PBS documentary. I would support a redirect if there were consensus as to where that should point to. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - being one of two subject schools of an entire documentary from a highly reliable source like PBS is more than enough to show notability. The news clips that have been recently added are just icing on the cake. I really don't understand why there is a question. The delete !votes just seem to be trying to uphold the generality that elementary schools aren't notable. Generally they aren't. Particularly this one is. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Noticeable school, per the documentary coverage mentioned above. — Maile (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks, Maile, for adding new text and two sources to the page. These too are primary sources (a news report and a release about a book drive), so the article continues to lack any secondary sources at all. Has anyone found any? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely do not understand your contention that the PBS documentary is not a secondary source. A news report is primary generally as it is only made up of first person observation of an event or thing. A documentary is the video equivalent of a book. It includes both first person observation of the subject, and numerous secondary interviews with experts on the subject and the producer's conclusions about all of it. By your rather unique understanding of what makes a secondary source, I guess I need an example of what would be a secondary source. In my mind, and I don't think I'm alone, having a documentary in which this school is one of two schools the author of the documentary used to prove his thesis is a better showing of notability than the majority of articles on Wikipedia have. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is not about the documentary itself, it is about the newspapers, which are primary sources. For some reason we have not cited the documentary itself, nor considered it as a source. We could treat it as a secondary source, although I note that the interviews within it may constitute primary sources, and also not meet the independence criterion. Nevertheless, in general I would be happy to accept the documentary itself as one secondary source. We need multiple secondary sources to meet GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree that a documentary is a secondary source, so I suspect this school may be notable. However, this article is quite short, and I notice that the school board's article does not have much information, and this school gets lost there in a long list of schools. For those arguing keep, I wonder if you might consider a redirect and merge up to the school board's article? This seems like a better option than a short standalone on the school - just as easy to find by search, but additionally more discoverable on the school board's article. -- asilvering (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional input on the later suggestions would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

● Keep - The school is notable due to the PBS Documentary. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fort Worth Independent School District per Asilvering's suggestion. I have struck my delete vote in favour of this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this source is good coverage demonstrating notability for the school. All other references are weak, but where there is one, there should be more. The article should be expanded to cover the full history of the school and neighborhood. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep coverage is definitely a step above routine, but I am not sure how much being chosen for a documentary weighs on the notability scale. In any event should be a redirect to Fort Worth Independent School District if not kept as an independent article. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – it seems rare that a WP:VERIFIED educational institution is deleted (WP:Notability_(high_schools), though this is not a high school). Sources above present > WP:ROUTINE. TLA (talk) 05:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dispersive PDE Wiki

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

Consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 5 § Dispersive PDE Wiki. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 20:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, failing that, put back to being a redirect. There's no way to make an article about a niche, nearly quiescent website with no secondary-source coverage. Content from this page was merged into Terence Tao on a flimsy rationale and then removed shortly thereafter. If the edit history of material that has been gone since summer 2007 and won't be coming back is actually necessary to preserve, then we can have this cruft hang around as an {{R with history}}. XOR'easter (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero coverage beyond the wiki itself, a mathoverflow question or a blog post found online. At the absolute most, merge (i.e. insert a single sentence about it) to Terence_Tao#Dispersive_partial_differential_equations. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Jay

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

Article is promotional and contains many dubious statements. Notability is not established. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most statements are unsourced, the rest is in non-RS. Salon is about the best I can find, [10], but that's all there is. Oaktree b (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found a number of reviews and articles about him in The New York Times, including this review of one of his magic shows, a detailed article about his marriage, an article about his magic collection, and coverage of him teaching prisoners magic by mail. I also found coverage of him in The Austin Chronicle (link), Forbes (link), The Plain Dealer (link), The Harvard Gazette (link), Leaders Magazine (link), The OSU Alumni Magazine (link), Playbill (link), and other places. There are even reviews and coverage of his magic books on Boing Boing (link), The Guam Daily Post (link) and WCPO (link) while the Wikipedia Library shows coverage of his magic work in magazines and journals such as Boys' Life, Entertainment Weekly, i-Perception, Journal of Hand Therapy, Odyssey, and other places. Finally, he's appeared on major TV shows including The Today Show (link) and the Late Late Show with James Corden (link). Yes, the article needs work but all of this coverage shows Jay meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. --SouthernNights (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To review the sources presented here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per the sources found by SouthernNights and Oaktreeb, this subject meets the WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Let'srun (talk) 23:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these new sources are valid and demonstrate N. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 20:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. Just a piece of advice, before proposing deletion, see if a recent edit has removed a substantial amount of content from an article being reviewed. It's likely the subject of vandalism and doesn't warrant deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tango Live

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Mfixerer (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems pretty notable. Discussed in many secondary sources. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 23:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable, has demonstrated non trivial coverage. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 20:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable, able to find coverage. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rekonq

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Mfixerer (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a Google search and all I found is some posts about new versions. No sources discuss this web browser as significant. Also, I believe that being part of KDE does not mean that it is notable and should have its own Wikipedia article. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this article had three prior AfDs, was deleted twice, undeleted once, and underwent two DRVs. Everything that could have been said about it and its sourcing has already been said. I'm sure the nom meant well in nominating this (on his 75th edit to the project), but at this point, any further discussion about this article is pointless, if not disruptive. I get it; sourcing is marginal. There are good arguments both for and against keeping it. It also exists on wiki in 18 other languages, and will likely be recreated here again anyway. I don't often do this, but can we just leave this one alone? Owen× ☎ 00:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All three previous nominations were in 2010 when the browser was actively developed. But in 2014 the development stopped and now the project is dead, it became apparent that it has no prospects and I think now it isn't used as default browser anywhere. Given this information and that many arguments for keeping this article in the previous nominations were in the spirit of "this browser is default in major distro" or "probably not very notable yet, but it is in very active development", I think the further discussion is not entirely pointless. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 08:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sure, it was a part of KDE and the default browser for a distro, but I don't think it's notable. It never went anywhere and hasn't seen any notable activity in a decade. I also checked if another semi-obscure KDE browser, Angelfish, had a page and it doesn't, which makes me think this shouldn't either. You could make the argument that it was notable at one point, but anymore I'm not so sure. It's also been nominated for deletion on KDE's own wiki due to being abandoned. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am leaning delete but per OwenX, I have read through the previous AfDs and the DRVs andbased on those (yes, all in 2010), I think we need to at least discuss the sourcing. The project may be dead now, but notability is permanent. If it was notable in 2010 then it is notable as a historic item despite being essentially dead now. Having said that, source discussion is largely absent from the AfDs, so looking at them now, using numbering in what is currently the latest revision [11] for brevity:

Project page. Primary, not independent.
KDE announce page. Primary, not independent.
Blog. Self published. Not RS, not independent, Primary.
KDE project license. Primary, not independent.
LinuxBSDos review. Secondary. Review is gone and domain appears hijacked but the ref contains a quote, yet the mention appears trivial.
Kubuntu.org. Primary, not independent.
Kubuntu archive. Primary, not independent.
AdamBlog. Primary, self published, not independent.
projects.kde.org - Primary, not independent.
AdamBlog. Primary, self published, not independent.

So in summary there is one old secondary source that might be retrievable through the webarchive but appears to be trivial. If we admit it, though, we are still not at WP:GNG. It probably never did meet GNG, but we should be looking to see if it made any kind of impact. Searching, I found reviews like this: [12] but that is a submitted review, so won't be reliable and that seems to be a general problem. It gets mentioned in a number of books talking about Linux distros, such as this one [13], but this one is typical in saying little more than that it has a user agent switcher. I thought Logiciel pour le World Wide Web was going to do the trick and then saw it was sourced to Wikipedia! Other books failed to turn anything up. This paper looks at reverse engineering the browser [14], but the significance of this browser is not really demonstrated there. Rekonq is chosen because that was the browser of a TOR user investigated by the FBI and who was de-anonymised using a technique described in the paper. The fact that rekonq was used is just chance and nothing there would allow an encyclopaedic article to be written. So, after spending a good deal of time on this one, I cannot say I think this software was ever independently notable. However, I have left the !vote unsaid at this point as we have a few more days. If anyone can provide secondary sources showing it was independently notable, I would be happy to keep the page. Otherwise it's a delete (or merge to KDE).

Delete: failing WP:NSOFT and given sources above. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus‎. Opinion is split between keep and merge. Since there is no prospect of a consensus to delete, there is no point in continuing this AfD. Consensus for a merger can be sought in a talk page discussion if desired. Sandstein 08:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samer Abu Daqqa

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

WP:BLP1E JM (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Killing of Samer Abu Daqqa. As an event it has clear notability, with the Committee to Protect Journalists having a dedicated piece on it and a ton of news articles about it. The rule for BLP/BIO1E is not to delete the entire article, but to focus it on the notable event, and there is a notable event here. nableezy - 16:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Haifa School airstrike for now. Though I am unsure if even that event is independently notable. Airstrikes and people dying are a pretty routine part of war. Alternatively delete. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. It's a better target and where this really belongs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also WP:RECENT, WP:SUSTAINED, WP:EFFECT, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:TOOSOON JM (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you are under the impression that an air strike on a reporter is a routine event then WP:NOTNEWS simply does not apply. Unless you think we can not cover anything that has happened in the last month none of the others apply either. nableezy - 18:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It warrants coverage but not its own article. It should be merged or redirected to 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip probably along with the Haifa School airstrike page. We don't make independent pages for every incident in wars. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that’s why we have articles for individual hostages, for individual shooting attacks by Palestinians, for basically any act of violence by a Palestinian. Widely covered acts by Israel that are credibly called war crimes however is where we draw the line apparently. nableezy - 18:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFF. But FWIW I do not support articles about individual hostages, unless there is a credible claim to notability beyond that single event. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The OTHERSTUFF argument stops being useful when the editors voting to keep one set of articles vote to delete articles that have considerably more coverage. nableezy - 19:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. Regardless, which editors and articles do you have in mind? JM (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding this in its entirety. The Kip 07:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails at notability. e.g. fails WP:SUSTAINED. TaBaZzz (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Killing of Samer Abu Daqqa" as per Nableezy Synotia (moan) 19:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: and move to Killing of Samer Abu Daqqa - this is an unusual and notable event that has already well surpassed the coverage levels for WP:GNG. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: and move per Nableezy. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What is the reason for nomination for deletion? The character achieves note clearly and prominently, and he is the first Al Jazeera journalist to be killed in Gaza! He is one of the founders of the Al Jazeera office in the Gaza Strip, meaning that he is not only a photojournalist, but one of the founders of the first Al Jazeera office in the Gaza Strip! Nominating the article for deletion or changing the name of the article is a very strange thing!!!--— Osama Eid ^(talk) 23:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason, as explained above, is that he does not pass the guidelines for establishing encyclopedic notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I don't understand why he asked "What is the reason" when I, you, and others have provided policy-based arguments as to why it should be deleted, moved, or merged. I listed 9 reasons for deletion and still he asks "what is the reason". JM (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And apparently he does not feel any of your listed reasons actually applies. Nor do I. nableezy - 02:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As to whether he feels the reasons apply or not, he did not say; all he said regarding my reasons was "what is the reason" and whether he agrees with the reasons or not, he's not even acknowledging that I provided any, let alone 9 of them. JM (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move/Draftify. Certainly should be a "Killing of" article rather then a bio per WP:BLP1E. Unconvinced that notability at that level is clearly substantiated yet, so I think draftifying said article would probably be a good idea as well, but the move would be most important. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (very selectively) into Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, where this journalist belongs yet isn't mentioned. All this as BIO1E. This destination is preferred over the List of journalists killed in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war that comes with the article, because the list should be merged into Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war as well. Yet the list is also a valid destination, as right now it exists alongside. Maybe by current setup the article is too refined. It's possible. Both would be legitimate destinations. My recommendation holds unless RS/I/V previous coverage ON this journalist is found. Always hard to find ON journalists as blurred by materials BY a journalist. So just tag me if you have it. I apply exactly the same standards for all sides and sorts (i.e. including for Hamas "militants", which this journalist is not). gidonb (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A journalist who deserves an article about himself and not only because of his killing. Eladkarmel (talk) 12:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Eladkarmel Is "he deserves it" really your reasoning here? Any guidelines or policies backing that up? We should take this seriously and have a policy-based discussion, not an ethics debate. JM (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They might've meant that Abu Daqqa "warrants" an article on the grounds of his notability as a journalist rather than just his killing. Mooonswimmer 16:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, neutral on Nableezy's proposal to change the article title. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Inter&anthro Would you say that this coverage is of his death, or of his life in the context of his death? Or is there actual coverage of this person outside of the context of his death? Because if the latter is false, its plainly WP:BLP1E and the subject himself does not pass WP:GNG, so the article would at least need to be changed to Death of Samer Abu Daqqa, if not merged or deleted. JM (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be Killing of Samer Abu Daqqa as he was killed by an Israeli drone attack and did not die peacefully in his sleep. In a normal world it would be Murder of Samer Abu Daqqa but for some reason we need an Israeli court to convict an Israeli soldier of murder to call it that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . nableezy - 16:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FORUM and remember ARBPIA JM (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing FORUM about my comment, it is about WP:DEATHS which specifies where we use killing, death, or murder. If you think my comment is an ARBPIA violation you can take it to AE where I imagine you might get a few chuckles. nableezy - 16:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is something FORUM about your comment because you admitted in that comment that you can't call it murder in the title without "an Israeli court to convict". And it's at least approaching an ARBPIA violation because "Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator." You've had blocks and bans before, you should know. If you can't follow standards you shouldn't be in this topic area. JM (talk) 23:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was remarking on the absurdity of needing an Israeli court to convict an Israeli soldier of killing a Palestinian for that to be called "murder". If you feel that is an ARBPIA violation, by all means report it to WP:AE. nableezy - 23:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your userbox will likely get you there soon enough anyway. For now, focus on the deletion discussion WITHOUT closing in on ARBPIA. JM (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, cool. nableezy - 00:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war per Gidonb. When the bulk of his article/notability is due to his death, a standalone wikibio isn't quite justified. The Kip 07:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. The killing may receive sustained coverage due to the subsequent investigations and might eventually warrant a standalone article (Killing of Samer Abu Daqqa). Mooonswimmer 20:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and redirect per nableezy. The death received non trivial coverage, in multiple reliable sources, and therefore meets WP:EVENT. HilbertSpaceExplorer (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you re-read EVENT which this clearly does not pass.

Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect.
Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).
Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event.
Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.

-Ad Orientem (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reporters Without Borders has filed a complaint with the International Criminal Court that includes Samer Abu Daqqa's killing, which will bring along with it continued coverage about it. The coverage has been very wide and in diverse sources, from CNN (American), Jerusalem Post (Israeli), The Guardian (British), al-Jazeera (Qatari), France 24 (French). It has caused complaints to be raised to the ICC (international impact) by both al Jazeera and RWB, it has notable NGOs like the Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Without Borders discussing it at depth, it has the UNESCO Director General making remarks about it. But you just proclaim that this clearly does not pass. It has been re-analyzed afterwards, it has widespread coverage in diverse sources. It rather clearly does pass, and only a refusal to engage with the sourcing can explain how somebody denies that without any semblance of a justification. nableezy - 16:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Enduring historical significance." No.

Widespread impact." No.

"Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time... Yes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a reporter being killed by a drone attack is routine, a referral to the international criminal court is routine, accusations of war crimes are routine. Silly me. nableezy - 19:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Killing of Samer Abu Daqqa. Even if he doesn't personally fulfil the notability criteria, his murder by the IDF is definitely notable, since it has been widely covered in the news and elsewhere. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 18:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You’re not helping. nableezy - 19:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're probably right, so I modified my vote a bit. This topic just makes me very emotional. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 21:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. nableezy - 21:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the original comment, I can see it was incredibly inappropriate for Wikipedia. It calls back to the comment you made to me saying I don't think "Palestinian lives matter". If you can't follow ARBPIA and meet behavioural standards (and by your own admission "this topic just makes me very emotional"), you should avoid the Israel-Palestine topic completely. You risk a TBAN with such behaviour and it definitely doesn't belong in a deletion discussion. JM (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Merge to Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I see no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Md Joni Hossain (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Md Joni Hossain any policy reasons? This isn't a vote, you should attempt to provide reasons based in policies and guidelines. JM (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eladkarmel. Oppose the suggestion to change the name. Dovidroth (talk) 07:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (brief summary) to Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. This is BLP1E, there are no sources showing this has notability beyond the 1E, details given beyond the 1E are brief memorials in articles about the 1E. Ping me if WP:THREE WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth about something other than the 1E are found. // Timothy :: talk 07:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep either as is, or as Killing of Samer Abu Daqqa; int'l coverage has produced sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Samer Abu Daqqa's killing us now part of an ICC filing in a continuation of coverage and guarantor of future sustained coverage. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war: per WP:EVENT, WP:RECENT, WP:SUSTAINED, WP:EFFECT, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:TOOSOON, as above. बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TogetherAI

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

It does not seem to pass WP:NCORP. Note that this company is different to togetherai.com, which makes looking for the sources slightly harder. MarioGom (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. MarioGom (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing out there I can find that would come close to meeting WP:ORGCRIT. Only one hit on GNews and a few blog and forum mentions. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given how recently this was created and then moved back and forth between mainspace, I don't want to use soft-delete as an option as I doubt it will 'stick'. Relisting to establish clearer consensus either way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I write this, there is one independent source for the funding. The other sources are the company's github and huggingface page. Can't seem to find notability myself. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 20:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie Hack

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

Was a soft deletion but was recreated. Hack fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per last AFD and salt. Giant Snowman 19:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the article has only been soft-deleted once, salt seems very much like overkill to me. Nfitz (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep" There is one feature article in She Kicks magazine; all other sources of length are from the various teams so are not independent. She Kicks probably would not be enough for me except that I found many mentions where she made the only goal and/or the winning goal of the match. This coverage is from reliable independent sources. I realize these are mentions, not significant coverage (which is why I am not bothering to add to the article), but they demonstrate ongoing coverage of her career as well as the key role she has on these teams. If the decision is not to keep this article, may I suggest moving it to the draft space for more development? I suspect there are more sources, I just have not figured out what British newspapers or magazines cover women's football. Rublamb (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rublamb, the She Kicks page is a routine transactional announcement and does not contribute to notability (all signings/departures are reported, and these are derived from press releases from the football clubs so are not independent anyway). Match reports are also considered routine game coverage and discounted by NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient third person sources to justify that this article has notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those are brief mentions in match reports which you know isn't significant coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "feature article" in She Kicks is a 4-sentence (including quote) routine transactional release and does not contribute to notability at all. Routine match reports also do not contribute. No evidence of actual SIGCOV.JoelleJay (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Debate is leaning delete but relisting for another 7 days in case additional sources appear and to see if further contributors assist with forming a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pro player. Carrite (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Subject currently lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to have a mainspace article now. We keep articles because they pass the WP:GNG, not because they have a pro career or because they are a young player. It is reasonable to believe that this subject may receive additional coverage in the near future though, so putting this in draft space to allow interested editors to work on it seems like a fair solution. Let'srun (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think there's any point in draftifying a one-sentence-plus-infobox stub article just in case more sources might appear soon. It's easy to recreate if they do. -- asilvering (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Still playing for the Lewes football club per recent websites, but simply confirming she exists isn't enough. These are simply match reports on the team's website. Oaktree b (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's (at least) two half-decent references in the article. She get's other coverage for matches, such as this. Nfitz (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a one-sentence mention in a match play-by-play. It does not count toward GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it counted towards GNG, at least by itself. I did say there's two others. Nfitz (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify (if that's what you want to do). The best source has three non-quote sentences and the rest of the sources are one sentence passing mentions in game recaps. That is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a WP:Biography of a living person and I hope everyone realises that while articles from mainspace often get deleted, these WP:Articles for deletion discussions remain accessible on the Internet forever, permanently linked to their name. To the article creator and re-creator @Dwanyewest: Although you are probably have the best intentions in your advocacy of this player on Wikipedia, you also have to consider that an underdeveloped stub about a football player is sure to be a lightning rod for controversy, and triggering this type of extended discussion where various editors debate and dissect their existing media coverage simply fuels more chatter on the Internet that isn't all that positive. The fact that one of the most active Wikipedia editors from WP:WikiProject Football and associated task forces is recommending that this article is not only deleted but also "salted" underscores that another possible consequence is that the player would essentially not be eligible for their own Wikipedia article in the future. I'm not sure what the right solution is here – I initially recommended draftification to allow the article creator and other editors to further develop the article and publish it in the future when more meaningful coverage about the player is found – but if there aren't enough editors to get behind that, then maybe the solution is to simply delete it, just so we can put this protracted discussion to rest and try to minimise any further embarrassment and annoyance to the living person(s) to whom this name belongs. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The first reference contains the only secondary source comment that her training is “regular”.
#2, an interview, is entirely non-independent, #3 is very brief and non-independent, #4 brief routine mention of facts, #5 first three paragraphs are facts, not secondary source content, until paragraphs 4-5 that are direct quotes from her coach, not independent, and too close, #6 is sideline routine coverage of the game.
#7&8 are just data, primary source material.
everything reported could be summarises as facts in a table, there is no in depth independent secondary source coverage. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Agree with SmokeyJoe's source eval above. Sources in the article and found in BEFORE are mill sports news, database listings/name mentions, nothing that meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 08:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the source analyses above by SmokeyJoe and JoelleJay. I don't think that SALT is needed at this stage, though. That said, Hack is clearly not in the public eye given that she has only played 2 games this season and 8 the season before in a second tier semi-pro league. She is still young so if she does work here way up to WSL and put herself in the public eye (and gain the WP:SIGCOV that would usually come with) then maybe we can look at restoring this in future, although I would prefer Draft and AfC at that stage, personally. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Paul Adela

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

Stats stub on a footballer with no clear evidence to support a WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC pass. The best sources that I can find are Nation 1 and Nation 2, both from the same newspaper and both only mentioning Adela once in passing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are 250 million other footballers like him, I don't see how he stands out. Obviously we can't have 250 million articles about each of them. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 23:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agavi

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Mdggdj (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. Greenman (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for the same reason it was deleted in 2007, 2008 and 2009. The version before the last delete had a lot more information, as does the German language version of the page today, but no independent sources to establish notability. Owen× ☎ 17:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NSOFTWARE or WP:GNG – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 11:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 20:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Top of the Town (brothel)

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

This fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. There are six sources on the page, which include papers of record, so these are WP:RS but per WP:PRIMARYNEWS, the articles cited are primary sources, and primary sources do not count towards notability. What has not been established is any reason why this brothel is notable and the subject of significant secondary coverage, and not just another brothel. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Australia. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles like Childs, Kevin (21 June 1991), "Birthday brothel celebrates legality", The Age and Barrowclough, Nikki (29 June 1991), "$ex inc", Good Weekend (The Age) are more than just news and the latter mentions a review in a Japanese magazine Themis. Ormonde, Tom (13 July 1990), "Japanese lust after city's new image", The Age is about that review. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these. Childs (1991) writes about the first birthday of legality. This falls squarely in primary source territory. It mentions a new promotions manager, and that must raise some questions about independence. But yes, definitely a primary source. Barrowclough (1991) writes an editorial 8 days after the newspaper ran an article mentioning the new promotions manager. Again, there might be questions about independence here, but the piece remains a primary source. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Do you have a link for (Ormonde, 1990) so I can take a look at that one?

The real question is still: what makes this brothel actually notable? What is the encyclopaedic article on the subject meant to be about? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think Sirfurboy🏄 is putting undue emphasis on the primary news issue, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Its written about (and notable) because it's a large, long-standing and well-known place in a highly prominent position on one of Melbourne's main streets, which is also pretty unusual. Boneymau (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  PRIMARYNOTBAD is saying that primary sources can be useful in an article when used appropriately. The point here is not that we cannot use a primary source, but that they do not count towards demonstrating notability. The relevant guideline is WP:SIRS. This says:
  Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability.
  ...
  4. Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.
  Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination, which I find convincing. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is advocating delete. LibStar (talk) 06:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I have changed my vote to reflect what I mean. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the sources are not indepth coverage of the brothel and fail WP:SIGCOV eg stories on sex workers. The first sentence is refbombed with 5 sources. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 10:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for further input regarding whether the sources meet SIGCOV so a consensus can form either way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with LibStar's assessment. Lacks WP:SIGCOV. TarnishedPath^talk 09:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kurumin

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

Article has been tagged as unsourced and perhaps not notable for over a decade - I did a Google search and the subject does not seem to be notable. As far as I can tell the Portuguese article is also not sourced. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Brazil. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is Spanish Wikipedia article which has some sources, but they are either primary or from distrowatch.com which I think is user-generated (if you make your own Linux distribution, you can propose to list it there). Quick Google search showed some random dead blogs and merchandise. I believe that this Linux distribution is not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I, too, couldn't find any independent sources. Owen× ☎ 17:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete typical WP:MILL distribution. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 12:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 American Premier League

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

This tournament does not have enough coverage to warrant a specific season article, as the season article does not pass WP:GNG. Clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED- just because some notable international and former international players are competing, that doesn't make the season itself notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and United States of America. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The league is sanctioned by the ICC and the USA Cricket.^[1] Vikas265 (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of which are demonstrations that this season article passes WP:GNG. Just because it exists, doesn't mean it's notable enough for an article. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only "name" players involved are former internationals who no longer play in top-class cricket. This tournament is really nothing more than an exhibition event. Admittedly, the organisers are trying to generate US interest in cricket but that does not mean a season of second- or even third-rate competition deserves an article which is well below the WP:GNG standard. Batagur baska (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable tournament. No matter which mercenaries... players take part, it doesn't make notability inheritable. The tournament also carries no status, so in an ideal world it shouldn't even feature on this site. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the arguments given above. --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 06:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American Premier League as a WP:ATD. Nothing here to indicate this meets the WP:GNG on its own. User:Let'srun 04:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Not sure the suggested redirect is a suitable WP:ATD as there is no season information in the parent article. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Trow

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

Non-notable local radio presenter. Funky Snack (Talk | Contribs) 11:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another CV article about a local radio DJ. Nothing but interviews and passing mentions on a search. Just having appeared on the radio isn't a marker of notability. Flip Format (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How long does someone have to be active to be notable? He has worked in radio for more than 30 years, yet you still think he is not notable? There is no issue here about notability so this article should therefore be kept. Rillington (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't a question of how long somebody has been "active", it's a question of the quality of the sourcing that can be shown to externally validate his significance. That is, it isn't demonstrated by sourcing the article to his staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own present or former employers as proof that he exists — it's demonstrated by sourcing the article to journalism about him, in third-party media outlets other than his own employers, and/or books that weren't self-published by his own employers, as proof that his work has been externally validated as important by people without a vested interest in it. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NBASIC. No significant coverage found, I did find this but it's a routine announcement about the subject to be broadcasting live from a market. This interview is not going to satisfy notability guidelines either. ~ Tails Wx 19:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, radio personalities are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, but this features absolutely none of the WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him that it would take to bridge the chasm between existence and notability. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge all‎ as suggested by OwenX. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Montevideo

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

Another round of embassy spam, articles that reduplicate ones on bilateral relations but say nothing about their purported subject. Biruitorul ^Talk 08:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Unnecessary content forks of bilateral relations articles. Created in a spree of content fork. LibStar (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge each to the respective United States–<countryname> relations article. Owen× ☎ 14:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Cypriot embassy, which is notable for violence in 1964 [15] and 1974 [16][17]. Mach61 (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak merge, having a hard time finding non-primary sources. 17:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge each to the respective United States–<countryname> relations article as originally proposed by @OwenX. FactFindersEnigma (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge each to the respective United States–<countryname> relations article as originally proposed by @ बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus‎. There is no support for deletion, but the "keep" opinions are unconvincing in light of applicable policies and guidelines. There is therefore no consensus either way. Sandstein 11:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HIV Prevention Trials Network

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

Seems completely promotional material and only primary source coverage - all in-article sources are either HPTN or clinicaltrials.gov links to studies ran by HPTN. According to XTools, Emillerfhi360 (talk · contribs) has 85% article ownership, an account with no edits outside the article over a five year period, who has potential undisclosed COI, and was cautioned on the article's talk page. Not to justify the AfD, but this has a huge amount of in-body external links and overlinking, I am surprised it was not picked up by an automated tool.

Searching for independent sources turned up:

- [18], non signficant coverage

- [19], not independent, as Eric Miller is the HPTN press contact ([20])

There are plenty of sources which cite HPTN studies, eg. [21], but I cannot find any independent reliable sources with significant coverage.

Courtesy ping: @Emillerfhi360 Darcyisverycute (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and Medicine. Darcyisverycute (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure This organization has probably spent about US$1 billion on its programs. In the field of medical research orgs often avoid the media. I am not sure that this org meets WP:N. Much of the coverage mentioning this org is about its research and programs. I am sure that most of the content here is promotional and if this article is to be kept, then it would benefit from 1) having all promotional or self-published citations deleted then 2) deleting all content without citations. I think the text remaining may be 3-5 sentences. If there is appetite for deleting content, then I support that. I suspect that we could find at least a couple of sources covering the org based on how much money it consumed over decades. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. HIV Prevention Trials Network has made robust contributions to the field of HIV prevention. Since its establishment it has conducted over 78 trials, enrolling more than 172,000 study participants, and published over 800 papers. I think the topic is notable. Rodgers V (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: their studies are often cited in top peer-reviewed aggregators such as Nature and The Lancet, as well in secondary sources. Owen× ☎ 15:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per above, there is scientific documentation intertwined with the organization. Svartner (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seeing the keep comments, I would like to mention the essay section WP:SOURCESEXIST. It does not matter how many studies the org publishes, there need to be at least two sources meeting WP:GNG and ideally WP:NORG about the organisation itself - specifically, they need to cover the organisation with significant coverage. Unless we are inclined to invoke WP:IAR here, of course. Also, quoting the guideline WP:ORGSIG: "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Note the related nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microbicide Trials Network, the reasoning for nomination I used there is similar. Darcyisverycute (talk) 10:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Walker (journalist)

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

Nominated for 3 reasons:

As a sort of "mercy killing". The person doesn't want an article about them, as they have said there multiple times.
Wikipedia's WP:SIGCOV policy says that the coverage needs to address the topic "directly and in detail". Discounting the citations that are connected to Rob, we are left with these citations: HBR, QZ, Design Observer, Salon, Chicago Tribune and several NYT articles. Most of these are fleeting mentions of Mr Walker, and the remainder are focussed on the topics covered by individual books (which already have their own articles) rather than Mr Walker himself. So I don't believe that the coverage addresses Mr Walker "directly and in detail", as required.
Aside from any Wikipedia policy, I don't believe there is any benefit of having an article which is basically a copy of Mr Walker's CV.

If anyone is wondering who I am, I have no connection to Mr Walker, I just read the article and thought I would try to help. My only other edits have been a few small additions (nothing relating to Mr Walker) from an IP address.

Regards, Capitan Farmhouse (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR — Walker's work has been the primary subject of multiple independent RS pieces. As a side note, Walker's linked interview in which he's not crazy about having a page here is from 2015 and is ambivalent at best: I don’t need the page removed, he said, but mostly he just didn't want it to be incorrect. Retswerb (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, also per WP:AUTHOR. He definitely meets the criteria of having created a well-known that has "been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Jonathan Deamer (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:AUTHOR really seems like it hits notability stuff and the article wraps up on a decent "Well I guess this is okay" note. I know Walker vaguely and I get where he is coming from (my own Wikipedia article is out of date!) but I think the response to that is to make his page more accurate and timely. Jessamyn (my talk page) 18:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — the photo has been changed and content updated (corrected, I think?) since he wrote that article (in 2015!), and he seems to meet the general notability and references requirements. Dotx3 (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rushaniya Safina

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

Redirect to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2010, 2018, 2021, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Uzbekistan. JTtheOG (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 11:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Criteria already adopted in others similar AfD. Svartner (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lianozovo

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

A disambig page with only two items is invalid per WP:MOSDAB - Altenmann >talk 04:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. TH1980 (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep': A disambiguation page with two entries is perfectly valid, where neither of them is the obvious Primary Topic. PamD 08:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per PamD. Also, I'd like to add that Russian disambiguation page has 6 entries. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have just merged Wikidata, so that now this disambiguation page has links to three other languages. It is weird that there was two Wikidata for Lianozovo disambiguation page, I had to first resolve conflicts with descriptions in multiple languages and only then it allowed me to merge. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly valid DAB page. Absolutely no need for deletion. The nom apparently misunderstood what is stated at MOS:DAB which indicates that A disambiguation page with only two meanings is not necessary if one of them is the primary topic for that term, and since neither of the entries listed is the primary topic then the page is completely necessary. CycloneYoris ^talk! 17:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per PamD and CycloneYoris. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. Nobody supports the very perfunctory deletion nomination. Sandstein 11:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Humic Substances Society

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NORG. Let'srun (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Colorado. Let'srun (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long-standing and recognized organization in the field [22]; among other things, they maintain and provide a set of standard reference materials (IHSS standards) that are widely used in soil research [23]. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Elmidae is right to keep this, but I'd point out that Humic acids are the gardener's equivalent of complementary medicine, a thing where products whose composition isn't even known to the producer are offered for sale with promises of enhanced plant growth based on extremely scanty evidence and no scientific basis. Like complementary medicine, everyone involved in humic acids is very vocal, but the terminology is more impressive than the underlying facts. We should keep this organisation not on the basis that it supports important science, but on the basis that it's generated evidence of notability in a field that gets written-about. Elemimele (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about participating in these, feel free to delete my comment if I am not meant to say anything.

I also don't know if humic acids being (allegedly) unfounded or under-evidenced as useful in gardening really undermines the scientific credentials or focus of the International Humic Substances Society. But from what I see of the research they support, I'll go ahead and mildly doubt it. It doesn't seem like they are restricted to supporting research into if whichever acid helps whatever garden crop, and instead include a wide range of topics about humic substances.

In general, I find even short records of professional societies to be very useful for a popular encyclopedia to cover. Even historically, paper book encyclopedias would keep track of these things because it's an incredibly useful resource for someone - especially a student or any young person - to run into. It records the landscape of a profession. Sometimes it helps underline the mere existence of an otherwise obscure profession or specialization. And this is an international society. It is not a 20 person club of friends with similar interests. It appears referenced directly in many academic articles. And it continues to have conferences (is not defunct). Not to be rude to people interested in other things, but I can think of a lot I would delete instead. Soil is what we depend on for life as much as water and air. Whatever is going on in the field is particularly notable to me.

The article should have more sources, for sure. It would also be good to have it better integrated into the larger Wiki and linked to from more soil science related articles. And should be re-written to be a little in the first paragraph to be less ad-copy-ish. I may just do that small part, then people can undo it if it is worse.

About potential other sources, here's some:

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/13/4/1044 - "[...]we studied the standardized samples of HS of the International Humic Substances Society (IHSS)." ... could be used as an independent source to show and characterize an activity of the society in supporting soils research
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-023-26398-3 - more of the above
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004313541530021X - etc
https://experts.umn.edu/en/publications/suwannee-river-natural-organic-matter-isolation-of-the-2r101n-ref
https://chembioagro.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40538-021-00229-4 - there's actually quite a lot of these studies where somehow it's the IHSS that provides the materials - I think that should be covered but lack the technical background in this area to say for sure or to say exactly how it should be done
https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=594703604&hl=en&sxsrf=AM9HkKlmO1zdHuPzIE9DqtqzXFXVRISa1Q:1704008925634&q=inauthor:%22International+Humic+Substances+Society.+International+Meeting%22&tbm=bks - sources from within the group's conferences, useful

I might even be able to add this source, as it's less technical:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00027-022-00923-x

^^ Chin, YP., McKnight, D.M., D’Andrilli, J. et al. Identification of next-generation International Humic Substances Society reference materials for advancing the understanding of the role of natural organic matter in the Anthropocene. Aquat Sci 85, 32 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-022-00923-x

So, unsurprisingly, I vote Keep (if I get a vote) MariahKRogers (talk) 08:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Choice of Magic

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

Article has been unsourced since November 2015. A quick search through Google and Google Scholar have not offered reliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NBOOK. Though they aren't as long as I hoped, it has been reviewed in The Best in Children's Books: The University of Chicago Guide to Children's Literature, 1966-1972, The Courier-Journal and The Spectator (by Isabel Quigly). There's also a few more fairly short reviews on newspapers.com, and a few reviews hidden behind snippet views on Google Books. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The three reviews presented by ARandomName123 are sufficient to demonstrate NBOOK/GNG. —siro χ o 03:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to Miss Tennessee#Winners. Daniel (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chandler Lawson

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of sustained significant sources. Let'srun (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Tennessee. Let'srun (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Tennessee#Winners as an alternative to deletion. The subject has not received sustained coverage and the subject is also only notable for one event. ~ Tails Wx 02:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agent 47

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

Video game character of dubious notability. Reception is limited to listicles and starts unimpressively with "In 2012, GamesRadar+ ranked Agent 47 as the 47th...". My BEFORE failed to find anything useful other than plot summaries; academic reception is limited to passing mentions in an undergraduate paper and one book (note: I could only access snippets which don't suggest SIGCOV is met). Per WP:ATD-R, a redirect to Hitman (franchise) will suffice. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Me personally, I feel 47 as a character is too notable to be delisted, as he seems to be generally well recognized within gaming as a whole. This doesn't mean his article can't be edited with better citations to other articles discussing him and the critical reception around him, as well as a complete removal of any academic studies of his character (he's no Isaac Clarke or Adam Jensen when it comes to this). This is just my suggestion, and you don't have to do it. Chiefmister (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hitman (franchise): Currently, the Hitman (franchise) article has no descriptions of the games' characters, including 47. While I agree that the sources here don't establish notability, largely because they're listicles, and I haven't uncovered any further sources, several of the sources are from generally reliable publications and can be used to draft a description of 47 to be included in the article on the franchise. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although I appreciate the sources identified in this discussion, I still think that this should be merged. As @Kung Fu Man has noted, the PC Gamer, Polygon, and PCGamesN articles are all basically game reviews with brief descriptions of 47. I don't think any of the listicles establish notability, including The Telegraph article cited by @OwenX. There is nothing in the notability guidelines that says that once something hits mainstream news, it's notable. The book that @Zxcvbnm cited uses 47 as an example for how the player navigates the game, rather than a description of the character himself. In all, I think the sources identified amount to a significant amount of trivial coverage, rather than a sufficient amount of significant coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge...for now While my gut is telling me there should be more for 47 online, even looking at a 2018 version of it with a larger reception section shows it was all lists. I feel too WP:TNT should also come into play here: what's here, much like early Pokemon articles, is mostly uncited and useless, and if sources do manifest whatever editor works on it will likely be starting over from near scratch anyway.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge A was a bit surprised that this got nom'ed for afd. But, after some BEFORE search by other peeps above; probs not enough. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 09:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agent 47's a clearly notable character. He got a full PC Gamer article, Polygon article, and a PCGamesN article. At bare minimum this is enough to confer clear WP:GNG on the character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I do feel there is some commentary in those first two articles Zx, they feel primarily about the games and related gameplay. Keep in mind this is me skimming through them after only being up a few hours, but arguing they're full articles on the character feels like a misnomer. And that ends up another problem with Agent 47: a lot of his commentary is hard to separate from commentary about how the game plays.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He also got an article in The Ringer about his character too. Vox is considered a WP:RS, even though they also own Polygon, it's different enough to be a distinct site and source. The articles may be about Agent 47's gameplay, but they still make it obvious they are referring to him rather than just the game in general. I am convinced he is notable given these sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point. What do you think about the TNT argument though? I'm really convinced what's here isn't usable, and after this many years of being in this state (and until recently a much WORSE state), I don't see it viably being an article without being started over from zero with what's there. And yes, WP:NODEADLINE is a thing but at some point you have to question if it's better to let someone potentially wanting to work on the thing undo the redirect on their own.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TNT doesn't make sense to me here, as no part of the article is technically "bad" besides the reception. The reception needs to be rewritten and current reception sources mostly or entirely discarded, but otherwise it can be kept. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per KFM, I'd like to see someone do something with those sources, which seem to be rather freely written (blog / social media style rather than academic) before I'd consider withdrawing this nom. Nice job finding those sources, though. Maybe this can be rescued. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have also found yet another SIGCOV here, in a book about villains in media. It talks about how players rationalize playing as a villain, giving Agent 47 as an example of a character who was created to be the perfect assassin, thus making it easier for players to "justify" what they are doing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like a consensus to Merge but recent comments offer some new sources that should be evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, evaluating sources found by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. The Vader, Voldemort and Other Villains source is excellent secondary SIGCOV. That book, with PCGamesN and The Ringer are a solid three (Noting, The Ringer is an SBNation site with a proper masthead and the author is a professional journalist who has written for many RS). PC Gamer and Polygon are helpful as well—though Polygon seems to rely a bit on quotes from a creative director. This meets WP:GNG. —siro χ o 04:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: significant coverage by reliable mainstream news such as the Telegraph swayed me away from my initial tendency to merge such articles. There is more than enough verifiable information here, and independent notability is well established. Once it hits mainstream news, it can no longer be dismissed as "cruft". Owen× ☎ 15:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above JM (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, seems to have plenty of analysis discussing this character in specific.

PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's some academic coverage of Agent 47. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sources and I think the page is in somewhat of a bad state but WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, and the TNT arguement should be avoided Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources that ZX brought up appear to be sufficient material to warrant Agent 47 keeping a separate article. NegativeMP1 19:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar Scientific Club

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

There is no reliably sourced coverage of this organization. Thenightaway (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only sources I could find provide trivial coverage of the club's participation in events. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Science, and Qatar. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a search for النادي العلمي القطري (Arabic transliteration of the club's name) on Google News turns up coverage, including this article by Al Sharq and this article by Al Arab. Left guide (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not independent reliable sources. These are government outlets reporting on the activities on a government organization in a country with no press freedom. Thenightaway (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no in-depth, significant coverage in independent sources. Neutrality^talk 00:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TV Tonight Awards 2022

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

Like the 2020 and 2021 awards, the 2022 awards list is not notable, having no significant coverage outside of the TV Tonight website itself, failing WP:NTV and WP:GNG. At best, redirect to TV Tonight. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 01:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Websites, Lists, and Australia. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 01:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent reliable sources have been provided to establish that these awards are notable outside the website that organizes them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per WP:ATD-R. Happily888 (talk) 21:51, 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/Redirect to, I assume, TV Tonight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't believe that the award itself is notable to warrant its own article, so individual years shouldn't have articles either. I do not believe that merging is appropriate because then the bulk of the TV Tonight article would be two years' worth of awards tables (and more if others decided to continue adding on), which is undue. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons discussed above. I don't see benefit of a merge for the same WP:UNDUE reasons already highlighted. Similarly, I don't feel a redirect would serve as a useful navigation aid for a reader, given the main article isn't offering information on specific years and the title is closely related to the main article's name anyway. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above JM (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bungle. Agletarang (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TV Tonight Awards 2021

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

Like the 2020 and 2022 awards, it is not notable, having no significant coverage outside of TV Tonight itself, failing WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 01:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Websites, Lists, and Australia. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 01:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent reliable sources have been provided to establish that these awards are notable outside the website that organizes them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per WP:ATD-R. Happily888 (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not significant enough to keep here. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for Merge/Redirect, I assume, to TV Tonight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't believe that the award itself is notable to warrant its own article, so individual years should not have articles either. I do not believe that merging is appropriate because then the bulk of the TV Tonight article would be two years' worth of awards tables, which is undue. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons I set out in the 2022 list afd, WP:UNDUE per above and unnecessary as a redirect. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above JM (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Even putting notability aside, WP:V is a core content policy, and "delete" is the only possible closure when that threshold is not met (see WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS). I will undelete the article on request if reliable sources verifying Beck's existence as a town can be located. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beck, Oklahoma

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

Notability not established with substantive sources – neither source provided is a WP:RS, not even in GNIS Reywas92^Talk 20:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Map with Beck on it
http://www.mygenealogyhound.com/maps/oklahoma-maps/ok-mcintosh-county-oklahoma-1922-map.html#
Keep until further evidence is provided that it wasn’t a town at all. DannonCool (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You have just provided that evidence. There's not even a dot for Beck on that rubbish small scale map. It's labelling a quadrangle, like the other all-uppercase names are. Your only other sources are a GNIS regurgitator that explicitly says that it doesn't know anything and has unreliable sources on that very page and a WWW site where random people can sumbit (using the handy link provided) made up ghost towns, for all that the world knows. This isn't in either of the Ghost Towns or Place Names books, moreover. How can you read a WWW page that says that it is unreliable and doesn't know anything and then use it as a source? Uncle G (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The upper-case names are not labelling quadrangles, several of them are in fact overlapping on several quadrangles. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 02:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We don't keep until somebody proves a place doesn't exist. We don't create articles until substantial, reliable sources prove that it does. Fails GNG for lack of sources. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Lists of ghost towns in the United States. Also, please note Wikipedia:WikiProject Ghost towns. Wikipedia does indeed have articles about towns that don't exist, but once upon a time did. Lists that show hundreds of ghost towns in a state, and also stand-alone articles for ghost towns on the lists. It is not a requirement for a stand-alone article on a ghost town to also be on a list, but it helps. Beck is on the List of ghost towns in Oklahoma - and it is appropriate to have a stand-alone article on ghost towns like Beck. I have added the project banner for WikiProject Ghost towns to the talk page. — Maile (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- So your argument is that since the same editor who wrote this article also added it to a list article, sourced to that very same WWW site where random people can sumbit (using the handy link provided) made up ghost towns, we should keep it. That's not really putting reliable sourcing into practice. If you'd actually checked some sources, you'd have found that there's no Beck ghost town in them. That's because there never has been any such town. As I said above: it's a survey rectangle. Uncle G (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not add the ghost town to the List of ghost towns in Oklahoma article. DannonCool (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I apoplogize. That was a mis-reading of the edit history on my part. Uncle G (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you. It’s completely fine it was just a simple misunderstanding. DannonCool (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's clear that part up. Beck was added in 2007 by IvoShandor (talk · contribs). Uncle G Have you been there? That would be the ultimate proof of your assertion that this does not exist. I've been editing on Wikipedia over 15 years, and have learned that any editor who accuses others of fabricating content, needs to verify their own accusations. You keep saying nothing is there. How do you know this? In reply to your comment, "If you'd actually checked some sources, you'd have found that there's no Beck ghost town in them. That's because there never has been any such town." NEVER been there? Never, ever? What is YOUR source? Quite frankly, I'd find it rather odd that sources would claim something doesn't exist. How would they happen to be commenting on something that doesn't exist? — Maile (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have already said twice now that the sources do not comment on this. Because, to spell it out yet again, there are no sources claiming that this exists. There's a self-submission WWW site that is not a reliable source for that very reason, and nothing else. You have the burden of proof exactly backwards. I don't have to perform personal investigation in violation of our no original research policy. You have to provide a source demonstrating your claim. And since I know that this is a township survey rectangle and not a town, from the very map presented even, I can confidently state that you won't be able to do so. I mentioned that you'll have no joy with the Ghost Towns or Place Names books, above, but feel free to actually put the legwork in and look at them yourself. You've evidently made zero attempt to check out sources, otherwise you wouldn't be making such addled arguments as "please see the list articles" or "what is YOUR source?" for a statement that something is not in sources. The rest of the world doesn't have to prove this negative. You, Maile66 have the burden of actually putting the effort in and proving a positive. Show us the page number in the Ghost Towns book. It will be a non-existent ghost page number between Avery and Beer City. Uncle G (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I don’t think the Morris book has all of the ghost towns that exist in Oklahoma in them. The book even has Talala in it. Talala is definitely very alive. The town has 200 people. I’m just saying the book may not have captured all of the towns or be accurate in some parts. Nothing can be fully accurate or precise. I have the physical copy of the book and although Beck is not in there, he may have not meant to not add towns. He might’ve never heard of Beck. Bethel, Grant County is a different story. If I did a little more research, I would’ve came to the conclusion the town was a post office. Not a ghost town. That’s wrong on my behalf. Also, “ghosttowns.com” seemed reliable at first due the fact that everyone was using it in the List of ghost towns in Oklahoma page. If anything, we need to double down on our research and find other sources besides that very unreliable, user-submitted website. DannonCool (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maile66, you're asking us to prove a negative. That's impossible and it isn't how Wikipedia works. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nooooo. The editor above has declared that no such ghost town exists in the area stated. I'm asking him what he bases his comment on. He's been very firm that there is absolutely nothing there. The comment indicates he has information to backup his assertion. I'm just asking what that is. Let's say, for instance, that someone lists a town name Jerico in some state. You tell me no such town exists in that state. Wouldn't you need to have knowledge of that state to tell me Jerico does not exist there? — Maile (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- WeirdNAnnoyed is absolutely correct. Until substantial, secondary sources exist, and article can not exist in mainspace. There is no requirement for anyone to "prove" that something does not exist, even if it were logically possible (which, again as WnA points out, it's NOT). Anyone supporting the article's continued existence needs to provide good RS (see WP:THREE for a good essay on that). Until that happens, the only possible policy-based decision is deletion. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Last1in, GNG requires sourcing (to the standard, level of coverage, and numerousness outlined in our P&G's) to be able to retain the article. It is not up to people advocating delete to prove that something doesn't exist, as a) proving a negative is difficult if not impossible, but more importantly b) that isn't the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia. Daniel (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. Consensus exists to expand the article instead of deleting or draftifying. (non-admin closure) Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 16:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disownment

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

Basically an extended DICDEF, topped off with a small detail sourced from a dead link. Could possibly be merged into a broader article. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. This topic has received significant coverage in books and periodical/encyclopedia articles. A search for "disownment"+parental in Google Books brings up many sources such as this book. According to this encyclopedia article on (parental) "Disownment", there are legally recognised forms of (parental) disownment. From there one can find, for example, this book chapter on the public process of disownment among the Tanala of Ikongo. There are articles in Google Scholar that are entirely about parental or family disownment. [The concept of "disownment" in Quakerism satisfies GNG in of itself. I am not sure whether this form of disownment, and parental disownment, are parts of a single topic, or whether they should be treated separately.] The article can be expanded with material that goes far beyond a dictionary definition. James500 (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing here that's usable; why not WP:TNT? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATD says "If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page". That is clearly the case here. James500 (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do you feel about WP:DRAFTIFY? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article should stay in the mainspace. The article does not satisfy criteria 2 or 3b of WP:DRAFTIFY. The article is not a mere definition. Much of the content is now referenced, and much of the rest appears to be WP:BLUE that should be straightforward to reference. James500 (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a strong, encyclopaedic subject with extensive RS to back it up, none of which show in the article. I found extensive coverage for both LGBT+ and Quakers on gScholar, as well as plenty of WP:DEPTH and case study analysis. I will try to pull my WP:THREE together within the next day or so, but this looks like a WP:DINC problem. I would accept TNT as an AtD, but I'd rather see someone adopt the article into draftspace. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see two viable AtD's here: either WP:DRAFTIFY the article or WP:TNT it and add sections on disownment to the existing articles on Quakerism and LGBT issues. Any thoughts? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an authority on the field, and came here for information. This is a useful topic, so I think it should be kept. Yugan Talovich (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. I believe this is an important topic that people should know about. 2607:9880:1628:20:65A4:8604:2232:262C (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is listed as one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions at WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion, it would be helpful if the changes to the article since nomination were assessed. It seems like this article has gone beyond a dictionary definition. Right now, I don't see support for Deletion but let's keep this discussion open another few days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: and expand. The concept dates back to the earliest legal systems, and is covered by many inheritance law textbooks. The French language wiki has more about the relevant laws in France, Switzerland and Quebec, and the Japanese language wiki has useful information about the history and legal aspects in Japan. Also pinging @BD2412: for his expertise here. Owen× ☎ 01:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am no expert on disownment, but the concept exists legally, and goes beyond disinheritance (which basically means cutting someone out of a will) towards complete severance of familial legal obligations. Legally, disownment can also run both ways — a child can disown their parents through an effort to obtain legal emancipation. There has to be a mechanism, however. Standing up at Thanksgiving dinner and yelling "I disown you" may perform the function socially, but any legal sort of disownment would have to be accomplished through some kind of court proceeding. I'm sure that more can be found on that. BD2412 T 02:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article hasn't yet covered Quintillian's abdicatio or the laws trying to prevent disownment in Edo period Japan, I'm going to say that that this is a stub with scope for expansion. Uncle G (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above JM (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]