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 23:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WDRF-LD[edit]

WDRF-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Another HC2/DTV America station with a history that was very short (and almost none of it operational), no local content, and undoubtedly no significant (or any) coverage. This article was tucked away enough that the failed bulk nomination from earlier this year actually overlooked this station, so this is somehow its first deletion nomination. (I pretty much discovered this only in looking through the history of the article for same-market sister WDYH-LD—also up for deletion—and noticing that the creator wrote the lead for this article in that one as well.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per prior HC2 reasoning. Obvious GNG fail. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and doubtful this station transmitted anything, even as a test. Nate • (chatter) 23:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Zero significant coverage in WP:RS. Jacona (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to CNBC#Programming. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NBC Sports on CNBC[edit]

NBC Sports on CNBC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Plenty of press releases and secondary sources not relating to the topic of the article here, but no WP:SIGCOV is present for this subject to pass WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This simply isn't any kind of specific brand; CNBC is used by NBC solely to burn off low-tier sports rights post-NBCSN and avoid the Weekend Infomercial Festival that is the channel's common weekend programming strategy, and other rights are just mere network overflows. Nate • (chatter) 23:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As the creator of this article I agree that it’s probably best to be merged into CNBC#Sports. I think there is room for an article here but it would have to re-written from its current form.Esolo5002 (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any useful content to CNBC#Programming, which does currently list a (very) small amount of former CNBC sports rights, but not entirely opposed to outright deletion in its current form. There definitely should be some mention somewhere that there are sports telecasts on CNBC (if not necessarily as quasi-detailed as they are here), but a separate article using a nonexistent "brand" is not the way to go. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this article is likely mistitled. It should probably be something like List of sporting events broadcast on CNBC. I'm not sure if this meets NLIST, so I think a merge to CNBC § Programming or a new § Sports subsection thereof is probably best for now. —siroχo 00:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into CNBC's article as part of its programming section with content possibly alao included within the main NBC Sports article. Rillington (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to CNBC#Programming per WCQuidditch, Siroxo, and Rillington. Sal2100 (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to CNBC#Programming per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wahid Ibn Reza[edit]

Wahid Ibn Reza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. The page paints him as being behind the visual effects of award winning films. However, closer examination shows he is one of many of the people working for the visual effects teams and does not appear to have a significant role in any. While the films he has worked on have won awards for visual effects, the awards were not to him which tells me he is not one of the significant people on the team. There are student awards listed but do not believe winning student awards would count for notability. He is also not listed on any of the Wikipedia pages for the movies he has worked for. An analysis of the sources show many falling under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. CNMall41 (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, Bangladesh, and Canada. CNMall41 (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete per source analysis below, nothing we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment --CNMall41 (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Samakal.com via Google Translate, Byline is “online desk” which indicates it is a press release or sponsored per NEWSORGINDIA. It also only contains a single sentence saying he will be a guest in an episode for a show.
• Kalerkantho.com via Google Translate, Short bio, not significant.
• Prothomalo, 404 error, nothing seen at link so cannot evaluate.
• The Business Standard, contains a lot of information but reads more like a press release, with most of the article containing quotes like an interview with lack of independent research.
• Banglanews 24 via Google Translate, mentions that he worked in the “visual effects team” for the movie but doesn’t indicate his role as significant. In fact, I found hundreds of people who were on the visual effects team. Even the Wikipedia page for --CNMall41 (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 doesn’t mention all of the people involved except for the companies behind it.[reply]
• Prothomalo, believe this is the English version of the Prothomalo version above which is not accessible. This is an article written by Wahib Ibn Reza so not independent.
• The Daily Star, byline is “Star Correspondent” while others have actual names of the writers which puts this under NEWSORGINDIA. It does list his credits but again, he is not listed in the credits of these movies (at least not what I see on Wikipedia).
• Prothomal via Google Translate, byline is “entertainment reporter” so falls under NEWSORGINDIA.
• The Daily Star, also fails NEWSORGINDIA with a byline of “Star Online Reporter.” This reference also says his “team” was nominated for an Academy Award but not specifically for him or his role.
• Somoynews.tv via Google Translate, written by “entertainment desk” which signals this is a press release or other churnalism.
• Directors.ca, bio/directory listing.
• Banglatribune.com via Google Translate, another “entertainment desk” article which is a press release announcing a work he produced.
• Dhaka Tribune, another press release/churnalism written by “showtime desk.”
• Rokomari.com via Google Translate, author profile.
• Daily Observer, written by “culture desk” and a simply announcement or press release

• Delete, not seeing significant coverage of the subject. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lacks WP:SIGCOV about him and his work in WP:RS to pass WP:GNG, and the "awards" section does not list any awards that would be prominent enough to confer an "inherent" notability freebie in the absence of GNG-worthy coverage in reliable sources. That goes to top national film awards like the Oscars, the BAFTAS, the Canadian Screen Awards, the Césars and a narrow tier of internationally prominent elite film festivals on the order of Berlin, Cannes, Venice, TIFF or Sundance, not to small-fry film festivals like Sari, Edmond or Golden Egg. Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Star One (Indian TV channel)#Comedy series. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paani Puri (TV series)[edit]

Paani Puri (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG, tagged for notability since 2019 DonaldD23 talk to me 21:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable TV series. It also does not meet WP:GNG. FlutterDash344 (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per two sources: [1] and [2]. DareshMohan (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Would not be shocked if it's kept but what about a redirect to Star One (Indian TV channel)#Comedy series?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, can't see how it would meet WP:NTV.

— kashmīrī ^TALK 16:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please evaluate new sources and consider Redirect option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, as nominator I support a redirect as detailed above. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite the addition of new sources, it still falls short in establishing notability. Also, it's worth noting that WP:NTV is more of an essay and not an official English Wikipedia notability guideline. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 15:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, although previously voted keep, rather than delete I feel a redirect would be better as proposed above. DareshMohan (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ESpew[edit]

ESpew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not satisfy WP:GNG. Trying to find any information about this website at all doesn't produce many, if any, results. Most references to eSpew are Wikipedia mirrors. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd, not elgible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I find absolutely nothing. If it ever did exist as a search engine, there is no evidence now. — Maile (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lacks references to support. - Indefensible (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can verify that it existed, but that's about it. Jacona (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies#List of unsuccessful federal judicial nominations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Karl Schott[edit]

Donald Karl Schott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or pass WP:JUDGE as a failed judicial nominee. Some minor coverage exists regarding the failed nomination, but just like with politicians, this does not correlate to inherent notability. Perhaps redirect this to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies? Let'srun (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, United States of America, and Wisconsin. Let'srun (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & redirect per nominator, as article creator. Safiel (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as the article doesn't meet GNG. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 02:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies#List of unsuccessful federal judicial nominations per nom. and others. Sal2100 (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Cooters[edit]

The Cooters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

fails WP:GNG, can barely find anything about them -- FMSky (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. FMSky (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - could not find any evidence of any WP:GNG-satisfying coverage, music charting, or anyone referring to them as "critically acclaimed" as the article baselessly asserts. Sergecross73 msg me 20:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I also strongly disagree with the 2009 AFD consensus. They argued that releasing 2 albums on a major record label was enough, but none of any of the labels they've been signed to are anyways near major level. I can't believe no one called them on that...though the standards were way more lax back then. Sergecross73 msg me 22:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The band has an album article at The Moon Will Rise Again, which will have to be addressed if the main article is deleted. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I had checked there to see if it had any coverage that helped notability, which it didn't, so I'm fine with that being WP:A9'd personally. Sergecross73 msg me 14:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is unfortunate because the band has a long history and a surprisingly large number of albums, though they are mostly self-released. They are almost purely local and probably have a loyal fan base in their town, but the only coverage I can find is friendly interviews in local entertainment papers: [3], [4], [5]. Most of the article's claims about their success and influence cannot be backed up. It is also important to reiterate that notability rules were softer when this band survived an AfD back in 2009. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies#List of unsuccessful federal judicial nominations. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

E. Scott Frost[edit]

E. Scott Frost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not pass WP:JUDGE or WP:GNG due to a lack of secondary coverage. As it stands, this is simply a CV. Perhaps redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies? Let'srun (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, United States of America, and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies per recent precedent. - Indefensible (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & redirect per nominator, as article creator. Safiel (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies#List of unsuccessful federal judicial nominations per nom. Sal2100 (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies#List of unsuccessful federal judicial nominations.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Palestinian suicide attacks[edit]

List of Palestinian suicide attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This list is a mixture of unsourced and unverified information. Most of the entries are uncited, and most of the entries are red linked, leaving it unclear if pages were created for these events and deleted for want of notability, or simply never created in the first place for want of notability. (NB: Red links since cleaned up.) Any notable or significantly covered events will have found a home in the year-by-year timelines at Template:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, which is the appropriate place for them, and where they are better contextualized in the conflict in a manner that does not simply present one-side of a two-way street. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Israel, and Palestine. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - for all the reasons mentioned above. And also because the list creator is a confirmed sock master with 119 confirmed sock puppets.(Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of AndresHerutJaim) — Maile (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep The fact that the creator is a sock master is irrelevant if the topic is notable enough for inclusion (see W:NOTESAL). If Obama's article was created by AndresHerutJaim, would you nominate it for deletion as well? Don't delete an article because you disagree with its contents. EytanMelech (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Suicide Attacks during the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are a notable and unique facet of the conflict that have warranted a massive amount of specific and separate attention by the news media and academia. (See ref box below) The attacks are considered a standout element of the conflict, and the fact that this page has remained more or less unbothered by deletion claims since 2009 I think not only points toward a silent consensus of the page’s relevance, but as well points a critical eye at the small group of editors who have surreptitiously attempted to either modify linked pages (seemingly on non-neutral political grounds), or have the entire page deleted to bury the lede on the matter entirely.

To rebut the assertions made in the deletion request:

This list is a mixture of unsourced and unverified information. Most of the entries are uncited

• The list of suicide bombings in the conflict is well covered and documented in both news media and academia. For this reason alone, there have been no vocal or consistent concerns on the page regarding verification. There are already sources in the page that cover the master list of attacks, and pulling citations for each individual attack is just a matter of putting the work in.

most of the entries are red linked, leaving it unclear if pages were created for these events and deleted for want of notability, or simply never created in the first place for want of notability.

• Thank you for noting that red links have been cleaned up already. I disagree with the charged interpretation of these red links. It merely appears that an earlier page editor either mistakenly believed certain page articles were pre-existing, or intended on returning to the page to create those articles. Regardless, all major incidences of violence during the I/P conflict (most especially suicide attacks) are well covered in media, and if individual articles need be created to push the issue of notability, that won’t be an issue. It’s just a matter of putting the work in.

Any notable or significantly covered events will have found a home in the year-by-year timelines at Template:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, which is the appropriate place for them

• Disagree. Suicide attacks are too unique a phenomena that warrants detailed information and analysis to only reside in a generic conflict timeline.

…where they are better contextualized in the conflict in a manner that does not simply present one-side of a two-way street

• Disagree. Assembling a list of categorically similar events (that represent a distinct and unique conflict trend with a beginning and end date) does not in any way present a one-sided view of the conflict. Here’s where I’m confused. This deletion request was made alongside deletion requests for Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, which includes Palestinian casualties.

While I agree that these articles need a great amount of clean-up and citation work (and also agree with your WP:NOTMEMORIAL assertions - which can be addressed with the removal of victim names, not the entire article), I’m not sure how the triple deletion of these pages helps ease any perception of one-sided treatment of elements of the conflict.

Mistamystery (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refs:

[6]https://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/RP1187.html

[7]https://nasmhpd.org/sites/default/files/Suicide%20Terrorism%20sheehan-are-suicide-terrorist-suicidal-a-critical-assessment-of-the-evidence.pdf

[8]https://academic.oup.com/book/10950/chapter-abstract/159242218?redirectedFrom=fulltext

[9]https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.21.3.223

[10]https://encompass.eku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1172&context=etd

[11]https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-polisci-062813-051049

[12]https://www.jstor.org/stable/20203051

[13]https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/553419

[14]https://read.dukeupress.edu/south-atlantic-quarterly/article-abstract/112/1/99/3642/The-Fanonian-Specter-in-Palestine-Suicide-Bombing?redirectedFrom=fulltext

[15]https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/suicide-bombing-strategy-and-interaction-case-second-intifada Mistamystery (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Important information documenting suicide attacks, a characteristic feature of Palestinian terrorism. It's useful to have a list mentioning suicide attacks by year and casualties, just like for rocket attacks per year. In addition, before this article there were several others with more specific 'List of Hamas suicide attacks', 'List of Islamic Jihad suicide attacks', 'List of Fatah suicide attacks', etc. It wasn't created by some sockpuppet back in 2006 or so. Rather than deleting the article under spurious excuses (such as claiming there are no sources when they are all in external links), we should improve it. Dovidroth (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:NOTESAL Notability of lists ... is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. This topic has been discussed a lot by independent reliable sources. Alaexis_¿question? 08:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Palestinian suicide attacks have been much-discussed in reliable secondary sources. The list could use more sources, but it should not be deleted. Zanahary (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. All keep-sayers above made valid points. Although I wouldn't say suicide attacks are unique to Palestinians attacking Israelis. Has become characteristic over the years probably describes the situation better. gidonb (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per WP:NOTESAL, as previously noted by User:Alaexis. I even believe a Suicide bombings in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article is warranted to provide greater depth and context, given the extensive scholarly research and analysis on the topic. The article needs some work but there are no valid grounds for its deletion. Mooonswimmer 15:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Obviously notable. G5 does not apply if there are significant edits by other editors, which there are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Closetside (talk • contribs) 15:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Sirius XM Radio channels#Former channels. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Jamz[edit]

Hot Jamz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not pass WP:GNG as a former satellite radio station. Perhaps redirect to List of Sirius XM Radio channels#Former channels.? Let'srun (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Radio. Let'srun (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Sirius XM Radio channels#Former channels, where it is mentioned; this is the logical alternative to deletion for otherwise non-notable Sirius XM channels (if not associated with another notable parent entity). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Finer redirection to List of Sirius XM Radio channels#Hip hop, where it's mentioned under The Heat, which also redirects here specifically. Nate • (chatter) 22:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Derna dam collapses[edit]

Derna dam collapses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Large WP:CONTENTFORK from Storm Daniel. (Doing bullet point list since reasoning is a lot & currently featured ITN article is involved in discussion)

• In the creation edit ([16]) it was noted that 18,700+ bytes were directly copied from Storm Daniel’s article.
• Prior to AfD (excluding a bot edit), article was 20,700 bytes, meaning only 2,000 bytes worth of new content, which from a look at the edit history, is mostly source and format style additions (aka barely any new content).
• Article is directly tied to Talk:Storm Daniel/Archive 1#We should split up the section about the dams collapses into a separate article, which currently has a completely split consensus. A formal discussion & discussion close is probably needed, given the complexity of the issue and large-split issue involving a currently featured ITN article.
• Previous article on this event, 2023 Libya flooding was merged following talk page discussion consensus.

Given the lack of consensus and basic WP:CONTENTFORK, article needs to be deleted until a consensus forms to create/split the dam collapses out of Storm Daniel. Noting for reference that Storm Daniel is currently featured on ITN at the time of this AfD nomination. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or create better split — The Daniel article is becoming >100,000 bytes; and will expand much more as there is still daily notable coverage. In the next year there will be a long aftermath, so it needs to be split at one point. Starting with copy-paste (like had been done) followed with a short summary at the main page is a good way in my opinion. 109.37.148.122 (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wanting to point out, that was already done in Draft:2023 Libya flood (created prior to this article and is in a whole lot better shape than this article). Given the lack of consensus for this article to even exist right now, the copy/paste WP:CONTENTFORK is not the proper course of action and needs to be deleted until there is a consensus for such an article. The CONTENTFORK article was opposed to be several editors and supported to by several editors. The issue on whether or not it is notable is irrelevant, given the lack of consensus in the ongoing discussion involving more than 30 editors. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CONTENTFORK is not the main discussion here, because this discussion is about the bigger question if a page should exist about the Derna dam collapses. After this consensus CONTENTFORK should be solved. So that’s my reasoning, in the broader perspective, a page with content about the dam collapse could exist and so I vote keep. (An easier way could have been redirecting this CONTENTFORK-page to the storm Daniel page and starting a discussing at the talk page there). And note that the discussion you are talking about, was at the time the article was around 25,000 bytes; while it now 3.5 times bigger and still expanding. 109.37.148.122 (talk) 07:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Libya. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support/Delete Prose is only 21k bytes per [17] and thus a split should not exist per WP:SIZERULE. Notability has no bearing here because the content is being covered on Wikipedia as is. Noah, AA^Talk 19:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Do you think that if this had happened in the US it would even be a question?★Trekker (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • StarTrekker, please refrain from casting WP:ASPERSIONS at other editors, especially when they are nationalist or otherwise discriminatory in nature. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing nationalist about it, I'm not Libyan, I'm just very heartbroken and felt like saying the sad truth that media doesn't give the attention to non-Western tragedies like it does western ones. I know this article will be deleted and my comment wasn't a "vote", just felt like its something people should be thinking about. Feel free to remove it if you think its wrong to comment about it.★Trekker (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@StarTrekker: It really wasn't something for people to think about. There isn't anyone that questions the notability of the topic. The main problem is that this is duplicated text. It was literally copy/pasted from Storm Daniel, which is currently featured and mentioned on Wikipedia's main page (In The News section). That is why it needs to be deleted. It would be the same as if someone copy and pasted the information from Tornadoes of 2023 into an article of Tornadoes during 2023. That is why I nominated it for deletion as a WP:CONTENTFORK, which is point blank a duplication reason. You might want to consider striking through your comment, as it really sounds like an accusation toward other editors (i.e. WP:ASPERSIONS). Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unnecessary duplication of content from an article that does not need to be split. This can all stay in a single article per WP:NOPAGE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Keep as the main issues have been addressed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. The dam failure and the storm are two distinct and independently notable events. This situation meets the criteria for a WP:CONTENTSPLIT. It is clearer for the encyclopedia to cover these two events in standalone pages, rather than having Storm Daniel be 75% about the dam collapse and 25% about the storm. Under the guidelines of WP:NOPAGE, the two should be separate articles - including the dam collapses in the Storm Daniel page makes it harder for a reader to understand the dam failures, not easier. Understanding the dam failures requires understanding the political and economic conditions of Libya since they were built - to me the political history better explains the disaster than the direct effects of Storm Daniel. The Storm Daniel page currently has a paragraph entirely about the successive changes in control of Derna during the civil war. It seems very silly to me to insist that that content stay on a page about a storm, rather than giving the dam collapses a proper treatment in its own article. Jsfigura (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)— Jsfigura (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Along the lines of this discussion, made a bunch of edits to get the article into better shape as a standalone article. Restructured and rewrote parts of the copy-pasted text, added sections, and added some additional information.Jsfigura (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or create better split I dont have a stake in this fight seeing how this discussion seems to me to be more of a procedural thing than a fdiscussion about the merits of the standalone article, but I do wanna voice my opinion that we should split off this section into the standalone article as argued by me and others here: Talk:Storm Daniel/Archive 1#We should split up the section about the dams collapses into a separate article Daikido (talk) 04:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Definitely. This is the second deadliest dam collapse in human history. Now, I understand that the timing of the creation wasn't right, since there was a discussion and no consensus yet, and this isn't to be encouraged, but we should move on. This is, of course, a notable enough article, there will, of course, be enough content to justify the split. This is just the beginning of a major humanitarian disaster. Death toll is going to rise, there will be better analysis of what happened. There will be political, social, infrastructure consequences. No doubt there will be enough material for a 100000 bytes article--Kimdime (talk) 07:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC) Regarding the title of the article, I think it's right to focus it on Derna rather than Libya on a whole, seems like 98% of the victims are in Derna, so it totally makes sense.--Kimdime (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve; the corresponding section at Storm Daniel#Derna dam failures can provide a summary. Yadsalohcin (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I split the article from the article on Storm Daniel in accordance with the guideline of WP:Splitting. It appeared that a consensus was emerging on the idea that it should be split, and so I removed some text from storm Daniel and put it into the new one, as the guidelines suggested. It appeared that a consensus had emerged but nobody had actually taken action to execute it, so I did that. It is clear that the second deadliest dam collapse in human history is a notable event in and of itself, and that the article on Storm Daniel was too long to be one article, so I moved some text from the Article on Storm Daniel and put it into the new one on the dam collapses. Now this is duplicate text, because somebody reverted my edit on Storm Daniel to put the text back there. Now that this is clear, the article on Derna Dam Collapses should be kept and improved, because it deserves an article. Narayansg (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A notable event that easily pass GNG. Even though the storm is a cause, the collapse of the dams with its subsequent effect on Derna is the more significant event. It needs to be covered on that as a subject by itself rather than as only part of storm article. Hzh (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The collapse led to a significant number of fatalities, which makes it a notable event worthy of a stand-alone article. ArticCynda (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawing AfD — Reasons for the AfD seem to have been addressed (i.e. not a pure copy/paste WP:CONTENTFORK anymore) and there seems to now be a majority consensus for a split. I would like to note, as someone else earlier did as well, that @Narayansg: did create the article at not an appropriate time, basically disregarding the discussion of 31 editors with several opposed to the split, but the majority consensus now is to keep/split the article, so AfD issues have been addressed. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some editors have argued for Deletion so this AFD must not be closed early. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have for procedural reasons undone the content split and redirected the article to Storm Daniel, because this article was created at odds with the developing consensus there which has not been in favor of a split, especially as earlier consensus was to merge 2023 Libya floods. I don’t know if this should be converted to an RfD as a result, but I very strongly feel that this XfD should never have been opened—the discussion should stay centralized at Talk:Storm Daniel.—Jasper Deng (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You should try to read the room, there is quite many people here, in fact a strong majority, that expressed an opinion in favour of keeping this article, therefore undoing the split doesn't appear to be a constructive move even if it makes sense from a procedural perspective (and I agree it was not the right time to create the split, but we should move on)--Kimdime (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is WP:NOTAVOTE. One of the keep !voters is an obvious WP:SPA that's a likely sock of someone (I'm trying to determine who, then will file the SPI). The participation at this AfD so far has been much less than at that that talk page discussion and the arguments presented here do not at all outweigh the arguments made there.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Which account do you believe is a Wikipedia:SPA? Jsfigura (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jsfigura: It's quite obviously you, as I labeled above. Do you have any prior editing history? If so, please note it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jsfigura.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I take great issue with this. Do not accuse me of being a sockpuppet without evidence. It's terrible behavior and terribly rude.

  I took the time to familiarize myself with the guidance to editors before commenting, particularly because the topic I wanted to comment on has some procedural nuance. I would have thought that was desirable for a new editor. We have differing opinions on how to handle this article - do not WP:BITE me. Jsfigura (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notability is the sole criterion dictatating whether a subject deserves its own article, and the 2023 Derna dam collapse (or 2023 Derna flood or 2023 Libya flood) clearly does. I'd suggest adopting summary style and leaving behind, in Storm Daniel#Libya, an automatic excerpt of the new article's lead. I had proposed Draft:2023 Libya flood before. fgnievinski (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:LASTING. Events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article. Thilsebatti (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since it appears the dam failures was actually due to poor infostructure due to the civil war, and the storm was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. Incoporating it in the storm article would require adding a massive background on the Libyan Civil War, which would distract from the main idea of the article. --72.68.134.26 (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Derna dam collapses The CONTENTFORK arguments have not been upheld at the discussion at Talk:Storm Daniel, and even if this AfD results in "keep" it will likely get redirected unless consensus at that talk page changes significantly.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The consensus in this discussion is to keep the page. The discussion at Talk:Storm Daniel never reached a consensus. Since this page was created, the large majority of comments on the issue have been here. I don't think it matters on which discussion page the consensus emerges, and I don't think that split discussion trumps the consensus to keep this page. Jsfigura (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The discussion at Talk:Storm Daniel is a clear consensus not to create. The discussion at that talk page has broader participation and therefore has more weight.-Jasper Deng (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Of the most recent ten comments in that discussion that make a support/oppose statement, 5 of them are in support of the split and 5 of them oppose. That does not seem to me like a clear consensus not to create a standalone article. That seems like no consensus reached.

  I'm getting tired of this discussion and I assume that someone else will make the consensus determination and deletion decision, so I suppose we'll see. Jsfigura (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename article to Derna disaster 2023. The disaster is a combination of factors, including Storm Daniel, the collapse of the dams, bad building codes and land use planning, little storm/flood water management, poor disaster response, and the civil war. Entitling the event as the Derma dam collapses is too narrow and only deals with a momentary event, but as we are seeing, this disaster is more complex, prolonged, and a combination of both human and nature factors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firth m (talk • contribs) 18:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per multiple editors. The storm and the dam collapse were two different events, and it was the dam collapse that was catastrophic. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Looks a valid content split. Passes notabilty criteria separately from Storm Daniel and nominator now agrees to retain. Rupples (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. The dam collapse and its tragic aftermath are notable enough to remain separated from the Storm itself, despite one causing the other. RopeTricks (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Draftify‎. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fly91[edit]

Fly91 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

References fail WP:CORPDEPTH which is understandable due to this being a proposed airline. No better sources found in a WP:BEFORE. Not yet in operation and the references are mainly routine announcements. CNMall41 (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose: The airline got an NOC (no objection certificate) to operate from DGCA which is the civil aviation regulatory body in India as mentioned and cited in the article's page, the airline is currently in the process of tying up with partners as mentioned here - https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/transportation/airlines-/-aviation/fly91-gets-udan-routes/articleshow/102114841.cms

  Company's founders are notable and CAPA which is a reliable website mentions information related to this airline - https://centreforaviation.com/data/profiles/airlines/fly91

  Significant coverage from multiple reliable media sources can be found here - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/manoj-chackos-fly-91-gets-govt-noc-may-start-flying-this-october/articleshow/99793885.cms?from=mdr

  https://zeenews.india.com/aviation/ex-kingfisher-executive-starts-fly-91-airlines-receives-noc-from-aviation-ministry-2599528.html

  https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/transportation/airlines-/-aviation/indias-new-airline-fly91-reveals-first-look-as-it-gears-up-to-fly-by-winter/articleshow/100697572.cms?from=mdr

  https://www.deccanherald.com/business/a-new-airline-fly91-bets-on-regional-connectivity-1179743.html

  The airline has a website which confirms that the airline is genuine and not made up.

  Airline is active on social media Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do these bullet points add up to WP:NCORP? Notability is not inherent. Notability is not determiened by verifiability of the company website. Social media activity is not something we use to determine if a company is notable. Significant coverage must be more than routine announcements. This may be notable in the future if it should go fully into operations. However, as of right now it is WP:TOOSOON and the references do not add up to WP:ORGCRIT in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Goa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the issuance of NOC isn't a WP:CRYSTALBALL and doesn't mean the airline would ever even fly. 119.157.78.57 (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as an WP:ATD until the airline officially begins operations. I would expect at least some coverage once it starts flying so not a huge fan of deletion. S5A-0043^Talk 08:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Until a flight is ticketed, passengers are loaded and flies and lands in another destination, this is pretty much PR. They hope to do this, but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. Nate • (chatter) 21:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. Doesn't seem to meet CORP right now, but that may change in the coming months, so given that potential, WP:ATD-I —siroχo 03:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Bioregionalism. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laurentia (bioregion)[edit]

Laurentia (bioregion) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The geologic definition of Laurentia is well established, but the concept of a Laurentia "bioregion" appears to have been invented by Cascadia activists and has no notability. I can find no significant coverage of a "bioregion" called "Laurentia" outside of some organization calling itself the "Cascadia Department of Bioregion". The definition of "Laurentia" there (equivalent to the Great Lakes Basin) does not even correspond to the more expansive definition given in this article, which isn't supported by any reliable source. The map in this article that purports to depict "Laurentia" and other "bioregions" was made by the same banned user that created this article in the first place. Cobblet (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bioregionalism I only found this source as a reliable, scientific, definition of a "Laurentia bioregion." Google shows some Cascadia-related hits from non-reliable sources, so a redirect seems plausible. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for finding that book, but all it says in the preface is, "We have divided the continental United States into six bioregions. They are based on a simplified combination of schemes developed by the World Wildlife Fund, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the US Forest Service." In other words, their definition of "Laurentia" is entirely the result of original research – there's no sign this is an established concept. If the "Laurentia" concept has any genuine notability in North American environmentalist philosophy, we should be able to find better evidence for it than a book about home gardening projects. Cobblet (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough, but redirects are cheap so it makes more sense to me to convert this into a redirect given there are indeed people looking for it. (The article currently gets about 20 views a day on average). Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider possible Redirect option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with the proposed redirect to bioregionalism as WP:ATD-R. —siroχo 04:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Sogdianus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pharnacyas[edit]

Pharnacyas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails GNG and BIO. Single dead link used as a source, BEFORE found passing mentions without any SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  15:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NotAGenious (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Menostanes or Sogdianus. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

added additional sources and information, fixed dead link. can you please review it again? thanks! Ramses.Rodriguez.Martinez (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Sogdianus, perhaps also add some information to Xerxes II. It's clear some verifiable information from this page should be in the encyclopedia, but WP:NOPAGE might help here, if no more in-depth coverage exists. —siroχo 04:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: No objection to a consensus merge of material that has been properly referenced. Unreferenced material should not be merged. No obection to a consensus redirect.  // Timothy :: talk  05:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the two pieces of verifiable information that should be merged somewhere are the fact that this subject had some amount of influence over Xerxes II, as well as the method of execution. Additionally, the references in some other articles might be improved in the merge as well. —siroχo 07:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grzegorz Podstawek[edit]

Grzegorz Podstawek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This page has long been an orphan for years and has gone without any expansion attempts. The page is two sentences with one large photo and an infobox that hasn't been updated. Ktkvtsh (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ktkvtsh (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article appears to fail WP:GNG. I created this article in 2008 before I understood that the GNG needed to be met. Looking at online Polish language coverage now, Przegląd Sportowy has a few interviews and Wyborcza Gazeta has an interview with the subject at the end of his four-year spell in the Polish top division, but there isn't enough in-depth secondary coverage available anywhere. I guess it's to be expected for a journeyman who only played in the top division towards the end of his career. Jogurney (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I am not sure if he meets Polish Wikipedia criteria (if not, I'll nominate him for deletion there, checking now). But I don't see how he meets WP:GNG here. He did play in Ekstraklasa ("the top Polish professional league for men's association football teams") but I don't think that, in itself, should make him notable (as far as I can tell, Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/Association football is depreciated, and I don't see a similar replacement). PS. My BEFORE found one press-release-level coverage of his recent career like [18], but again, I don't think that's enough meet GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There's dozens of articles here and here where he's mentioned showing that he got regular coverage.KatoKungLee (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the sources provided above?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per KatoKungLee. Player with extensive pro career including almost 100 appearances in fully pro Ekstraklasa and has many sources. Article need improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The links provided by KatoKungLee above are simply search results for Podstawek at gol24.pl and sport.pl. As I already mentioned, there is a lot of primary, routine and trivial coverage of Podstawek (Q&A interviews, match reports, transactional coverage) and these search results appear to be just that. If you bothered to go through the results and found something secondary and in-depth please feel free to post it. Jogurney (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. BEFORE showed no independent reliable sources with significant coverage. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"' and none have been found.  // Timothy :: talk  14:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agreed with others above that the transactional reports etc. are nowhere close to being SIGCOV.

JoelleJay (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Thomas Boni Yayi#Presidency. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Beninese coup attempt[edit]

2013 Beninese coup attempt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. The article's content only focuses on background and arrests, without any mention of the alleged coup plans. This is even more important considering that the article does not make any mention regarding a trial, proof or convictions. The essay WP:COUP is worth remembering too for the same reason. Likewise, the page was previously deleted as a redirect in 2022 (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 8#2017 Equatoguinean coup d'état attempt). NoonIcarus (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Politics, and Africa. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. An alleged coup doesn't quite fit in the routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities described by WP:NOTNEWS. At the same time, the nom is right in that information about this event is scarce. However, there's a good paragraph on the alleged coup and its consequences in Freedom House's 2014 Freedom in the World, and there are a few more sources like here [19] and on the French article, which IMO make this coup pass WP:SUSTAINED by some margin (coverage is from March to October in the press, and Freedom House comes out in 2014). The alternative would be to merge this content elsewhere, although this standalone page seems the most appropriate place for this information to remain for now. Pilaz (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Thomas Boni Yayi#Presidency, where the event is not really addressed. Not really much of a coup attempt IMHO, although we do have a whole article about that time someone threw a shoe at George W. Bush, which seems on par but obviously WP:OSE. Folly Mox (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Folly Mox. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as WP:NOPAGE seems about right for the current structure of the two articles. While I agree SUSTAINED is probably satisfied, I think the COUP essay does have a good point here, in that reliable sources seem to hedge on calling it a coup attempt (alleged, scare quotes, etc). If multiple RS were to call it an attempted coup in their own voice, then I'd consider keep, though NOPAGE still might argue the two topics are better together. —siroχo 03:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pussy torture[edit]

Pussy torture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not a notable subtopic of bdsm. The best source used in the article looks to be this Cosmopolitan article which does not mention torture or bdsm. Most of the rest of the sourcing is unreliable and/or self published. Anything remotely reliable doesn't discuss "pussy torture," or is not significant coverage. I suggest deletion with a merge of anything worthwhile to BDSM or some other target. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article reads like a list and/or instruction manual, and has virtually no notable sources. Cortador (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've looked for reliable sources for this article, and I've come to the conclusion that it is not verifiable in terms of WP:RS, and that it is probably not notable enough for WP:GNG. The sources that do exist result in an article that resembles an instruction manual contrary to WP:NOTGUIDE. It contains a comparatively small amount of health risk information, and I'm concerned that this may violate WP:MEDRS. Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A specialized topic will have references in specialized publications, as this one does. See also Murray, Thomas; Murrell, Thomas (1989-02-07). The Language of Sadomasochism: A Glossary and Linguistic Analysis. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. ISBN 978-0-313-38783-8. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Does that source actually have significant coverage of the term? Searching the work via Google books returns no results for "pussy torture." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Лисан аль-Гаиб, I just checked the source, and pussy torture, cunt torture, vaginal torture, vulva torture, and female genitorture are not in the book. I've reverted your use of it as a source in the article and restored it to the further reading section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gypsy Girl (TV series)[edit]

Gypsy Girl (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability DonaldD23 talk to me 14:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. As I stated in the first AFD, extensive searches in newspapers.com, JSTOR, EBSCOE, google books, my university library, and in several standard UK TV/media encyclopedias published after this series aired showed no significant coverage of this show. I do not believe that sources on this particular show exist given an exhaustive effort to locate them. The first AFD was closed largely due to a bad WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument which is listed at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § There must be sources. Respectfully, I request that this time around that anyone voting keep actually provide evidence of significant coverage, because frankly I don't think it exists on or off-line after thoroughly looking. We need to see the sources, not just speculate that there are sources. Likewise, admins please don't close this as keep or no consensus if GNG isn't demonstrated with evidence. Arguments based on speculation aren't valid. Enforce our policies please. 4meter4 (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I question if things have changed since the last deletion discussion. PatGallacher (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because I'm wondering the same thing as PatGallacher above. (Reminder: "Television series, game shows, and talk shows broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept.") But, as another of the users in the last discussion suggested, I suppose that redirecting to Elizabeth Arnold (children's writer)#Folklore, where this series is mentioned, can be an alternative. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC) (Edited: sources found by Cunard are convincing. Thank you)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Hardwick, Viv (2001-02-15). "Gem of a Gipsy". The Northern Echo. p. 14. ProQuest 328951142. Archived from the original on 2023-09-18. Retrieved 2023-09-18.

     The article notes: "GIPSIES, tramps and thieves... plus some of Britain's best-known actors, may well help 15-year-old Gemma Gregory to achieve her dream of making it in Hollywood. The young heroine of new Children's ITV series Gypsy Girl stars as a young Romany with special powers, which runs all next week. Gary Webster, Leslie Grantham and Eleanor Bron are among the co-stars who will feature with Gregory. ... The contemporary drama features Gregory as Freya, who has inherited the powers of a Chime Child from her grandmother (Bron). Destined to help people who are hurt or in trouble, Freya sets out in her magical caravan and is accompanied by her cool, enigmatic brother Tashar (Thomas Jamerson). Soon the pair have numerous adventures, making a host of friends along the way."

  2. "Dirty Den fame actor is back to his old ways". Coventry Telegraph. 2000-08-05. Archived from the original on 2023-09-18. Retrieved 2023-09-18.

     The article notes: "Grantham, aged 53, will appear as a sinister second-hand car salesman in Gypsy Girl, a seven-part ITV series based on a trilogy of novels by Elizabeth Arnold. The actor will be joined by 14-year-old rising star Gemma Gregory, who appeared in BBC1's Great Expectations. She takes the title role of young Romany girl Freya."

  3. McGown, Alistair D.; Docherty, Mark J. (2003). The Hill and Beyond: Children's Television Drama - An Encyclopedia. London: British Film Institute. p. 270. ISBN 978-0-85170-878-2. Retrieved 2023-09-18 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "The Gypsy Girl, shown in 2001, was an excellent seven-episode series that harked back to seemingly lost values. Though it was roundly marketed as a British Sabrina, and probably only commissioned in the hope that it would be, the reality was that the stories it told were rather more thoughtful. The broadcast of The Gypsy Girl marked another shift in children's programming when it became the first drama to air on consecutive days, Mondays to Fridays , and this 'stripped' schedule experiment is up for review at the beginning of 2002."

  4. Pottersman, Edna (2001-02-17). "Pick of the day". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2023-09-18. Retrieved 2023-09-18 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article provides two sentences of coverage about the subject. notes: "Two new daily shows for half-term. Gyspy Girl, adapted from Elizabeth Arnold's trilogy, stars Eleanor Bron as Romany Gran, whose remarkable powers have passed straight to her grand-daughter Freya (Gemma Gregory), who today encounters suburban fury"

  5. Helsby, Wendy, ed. (2005). Understanding Representation. London: British Film Institute. p. 155. ISBN 978-1-84457-080-5. Retrieved 2023-09-18 – via Google Books.

     The book provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "Children's television drama has also used the romantic, exotic, untrustworthy images, as in Gypsy Girl (ITV, February 2001)."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Gypsy Girl to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn per sources identified by Cunard DonaldD23 talk to me 11:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, looks like it has enough major references to pass ButtonPocketSquare899 (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Script[edit]

Broken Script (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Absolutely no notability for this 2023 film production written, produced and starring the same redlinked person. A small number of poor reviews in local media do not get us past criteria 1 of WP:NFILM, "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." while it simultaneously fails all other criteria with gusto. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, India, and Tamil Nadu. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep have 2 Notable review Monhiroe (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There is more than one reliable review, and that satisfies WP:NFILM. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it satisfies the same criteria that you said it fails: The Hindu is nationally known in India and Virakesari is widely known in Sri Lanka. DareshMohan (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The 3 !votes above made it clear there are enough independent sources on the film to prove it can be considered notable.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per above. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 05:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes WP:NFILM Neutral Fan (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above ,passes WP:NFILM.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stanislaus Herzel[edit]

Stanislaus Herzel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Minimal results for either spelling of his first name (Stanislaus/Stanislav); could find no better than [20]. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Social construction of schizophrenia[edit]

Social construction of schizophrenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:Essay, I don't know what encyclopaedic content I can get from this. AtlasDuane (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE: The article was contributed by a now permanently blocked editor. It is cited to some 50 scientific sources, mostly in full citation templates, but much of the text is context, and hardly any of it addresses the subject of the article, i.e. whether and how "schizophrenia" is socially constructed, or (per a single sentence at the end of the very short section "Movement to reconstruct schizophrenia") whether it ought "to be socially reconstructed". The article correctly says, as is discussed in other articles, that "schizophrenia" is historically constructed by doctors and is now considered doubtful or obsolete as a category: but that is not the subject of this article. To go through the article's chapters one by one:

• 1 Introduction --- context, does not address the subject
• 2 Themes --- context (social constructionism in general), does not address the subject
• 3 Movement to reconstruct schizophrenia --- call to resolve problems of definition, does not address the subject
• 4 Historical construction of schizophrenia --- background, basically off-topic, does not address the subject
• 5 Charities committed to changing public perception --- organisations that would like to change the definition, tangential to the subject
• 6 Science of schizophrenia and comorbid conditions --- discussion of the science, again, off-topic
• 7 Global moves to change the construction of schizophrenia --- international desire to change the definition.

The article, in short, skirts about what "social construction of schizophrenia" means, barely mentions whether it actually happens or happened, and touches on various people's wishes to change something, possibly such a social construction.

In the hope that the citations actually discuss the topic, and that the problem is merely poor wording in the article, I looked at a sample of the cited sources that seemed to be being used to support claims of social construction. [17], [29], [39], [52] do not mention "social construction" at all. [10] does discuss "social construction", but is only slightly about psychiatric disorder and doesn't (I think, search doesn't work on the scanned text, so it was all by eye) mention schizophrenia at all.

This all looks very much like that vaguest and worst of charges, original research by synthesis. Many of the citations talk about social matters; some discuss construction[ism]; some talk about schizophrenia; I found none that did all of these at once, as would be necessary to establish notability. Perhaps some of them use synonyms for these terms, and do in fact discuss the article's topic: but if so, it was too opaque to be discernible. I think we need to WP:TNT delete this article as unencyclopedic, without prejudice to its being recreated in a form which scientifically educated editors can actually understand: and with any luck, ordinary readers too. The current article is not accessible in that way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding WP:TNT as additional rationale. AtlasDuane (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE. per TNT and essay. Mason (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Farmer (American football)[edit]

Kirk Farmer (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 08:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football. Joeykai (talk) 08:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep, per @Spiderone Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is badly written currently, but he did play quarterback at a Power Five program, appearing in 31 games with 2,812 passing yards and 26 passing touchdowns. Power Five QBs almost always receive SIGCOV, and Farmer is no exception. E.g., here (part 1/part 2), here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. Cbl62 (talk) 11:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep More than enough coverage for sigcov. Themanwithnowifi (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. View are split between "keep" and "merge". Neither requires deletion, so this particular discussion can be closed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hollyoaks characters (1997)[edit]

List of Hollyoaks characters (1997) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

"The following is a list of characters that first appeared in the Channel 4 soap opera Hollyoaks in 1997". This poorly referenced plot summary is some of the most ridiculous listcruft I've seen in a while - and there's over a dozen similar articles in Category:Lists of Hollyoaks characters. It's reasonable we have List of Hollyoaks characters, but no, we don't need to have variations of it "by year of introduction". This fails WP:LISTN badly. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, Lists, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Hollyoaks characters (1998) and rename to List of Hollyoaks characters (1997–1998). We actually do need to have it by year of introduction, as if you edited soaps, you would know that most of them do not run by series/seasons, but operate in a continuing run, meaning that marking characters by year is the most appropriate way of doing it. I'm not denying that there is a lack of sourcing so I think that merging them and working on the sourcing is the most appropriate avenue, rather than flat out suggesting a removal of information. – Meena • 10:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said, one list of characters is reasonable. A dozen, give or take, is not. Why List of Hollyoaks characters (1997–1998)? Why not List of Hollyoaks characters (1997–1999)? Or List of Hollyoaks characters (1997–2007)? We have one list for each year, each and every one poorly sourced and nothing but a plot summary, and that's way too many - by a lot. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Amending vote to keep - merging to a 1997–1998 is still a good option IMO as it preserves info and collates it but improvements are being made to sourcing as we are working hard in the WP:SOAPS community. Our lists meet WP:LISTN. – Meena • 12:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep as the yearly lists are really important to soap operas. As Meena has said above, soap operas do not have seasons and thus the yearly lists are important as it provides a bit more of an overview of that soap's year. Soap operas have so many characters that it would not be possible at all to fit them all into one page, especially the more recent pages (e.g. post 2000) where there are loads more characters due to an increase in episode counts. I also disagree that the page is completely unsourced. Yes, there are a lack of sources but that can be improved. I have now added a source to Dennis' section and Jill has her casting and a bit of reception both sourced. The other information are storylines (which per WP:SOAPS do not need to sourced) or on the individual character pages. There is also another source on the talk page which I will add later on (as I am currently abroad right now and cannot do much). I would not oppose merging this with the 1998 list (or even the 1995–1996 list) but it cannot be merged with too many as otherwise would be way too long and cause size and issues accessibility issues (see WP:Wikipedia is not paper and WP:Article size which warns against pages being too big as it can cause loading and download issues). Also, I disagree strongly that the character yearly lists are fancruft as most – especially the more recent ones – include casting, development, reception and more real world information. Years ago, there was a discussion as Soap Operas (e.g. EastEnders) would have "List of Minor X 1997 characters (X year)" in the articles, but as it is difficult to distinguish between minor and non minor (especially as several characters in the lists were not minor at all) and several other factors they decided to stick to the yearly pages to make them complete and comprehensive. The Soaps community have worked extremely hard in sourcing all of the yearly articles and making them as relevant to the real world as possible and this article with less sources should not mean that all other articles suffer because of it. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:IMPORTANT does not trump NLIST/GNG. And the fact that some similar articles are well soruced does not help here, per Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If nobody fixes this during this discussion, it will likely be deleted. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I was referring to the fact that you said above that "each and every one poorly sourced", when if you look at some of the other ones that is clearly not the case when the sourcing is much more extensive. The sourcing here can be improved but it is not completely unsourced, and I am currently trying to improve it further. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sourcing (meeting WP:V) is good, but articles need to meet WP:GNG/WP:NLIST too. Are there any reliable lists out there that present lists of Holloyaks characters in a year by year format? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments provided by other editors. From what I've gathered about Hollyoaks in the various discussions here, these lists do genuinely seem like they are valuable to the discussion of the series. However, I do feel that this is more of an issue in terms of cleanup and a need for improved sourcing states more than it is a need for a deletion discussion. I feel that if the notability of these groups of characters cannot be proved, that's when a discussion should take place, but even then, that is something for a merge discussion, not for an AfD. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Hollyoaks characters was closed as a merge. Since we are at almost a week here with very few comments, I'll ping all participants of that related discussion who have not commented here yet: @Jclemens, Siroxo, Therealscorp1an, DrowssapSMM, XxLuckyCxX, QuicoleJR, Livelikemusic, Soaper1234, Fourthords, AnemoneProjectors, Dawid2009, Raintheone, and (Oinkers42):. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A list of Hollyoaks characters is notable therefore there is no reason to delete this. Merging it with List of Hollyoaks characters is not reasonable since there are 29 years of characters and that will continue to increase as the show continues. A single list of every character with details is not reasonable given the length, so it is reasonable to divide it into multiple lists. These more detailed character lists for the British and Australian soap operas came about because many years ago certain editors were in the habit of creating individual articles for nearly every character that had appeared, and these lists were then the result of many merges. A character would have their own section in one of these lists where some real-world information is available. I think this is a bad faith AFD and should be closed as such. AFD is not the correct place to propose merging articles. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 10:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I am fine with this WP:FANCRUFT getting deleted too, don't worry. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A list of characters in Hollyoaks meets NLIST. AFD is not for discussing what is included and excluded in such lists. Bad faith nomination. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 11:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We are not discussing a list of character in Hollyoaks, but an artificial and arbitrary 1997-only split of it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Meena's suggestion. Doesn't seem like we need a separate article for every year, and doing it by twos isn't much better (doing it by decade would be best), but it would be a good start. DrowssapSMM (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge by decade - I think List of Hollyoaks characters (1990s) makes way more sense than by year. Especially when other soap operas like The Bold and the Beautiful do the same thing. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The reason is that The Bold and the Beautiful has a much lower cast turnover than Hollyoaks (American soaps in general prefer to recast characters and keep them longer running rather than introducing new characters). In 2010, 46 regular or major recurring characters were introduced alone. Merging them by decade would only mean that some of the later lists would have 300+ characters and this is in no way manageable or accessable, especially with the amount of storylines, development and reception that soap opera characters get. Another soap opera uses the decades lists and it got tagged for being too long and a split was suggested. In 1997, Hollyoaks aired only 2 episodes a week and now they air 5, so the cast has expanded singificantly and that is why there are more characters. Merging by decade would not work for Hollyoaks or other British soaps as it would make the lists way too long. It is a case by case basis - I recently merged 6 articles together to form a decades list as that was relatively short, and this article would fit well with the 1998 article as they are both relatively shorter than the newer ones. Also, just wanted to note that soap operas do not have episode lists or season breakdowns like other TV shows, and the yearly lists support in showing what happened in the show that year (which will have 300+ episodes) in addition to sourced development, reception and casting. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed with DaniloDaysOfOurLives here. A decades list may work for the first decade since the cast turnover and episode output was low, but it would be illogical and inappropriate to merge every decade since the lists would become too long to navigate comfortably. Oinkers42, if you know little about soaps, have the courtesy of doing some basic research before suggesting such a huge and risible decision. – Meena • 15:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Haven't researched in depth, but my understanding of soaps is that "new characters introduced at X time" is pretty standard secondary coverage across the genre, so I am guessing this meets NLIST via contemporaneous coverage. I would support editorial decisions to improve the state of things for our readers with merging and editing, but I don't necessarily see a reason for AfD to enforce such. —siroχo 17:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not too familiar with Hollyoaks, but I'd suggest Keeping for the time being. I think a proper discussion at WP:SOAPS should be held about the content of the articles. (I.e: Which of these characters are notable, is merging feasible, are there sources that justify the lists, etc) I'd assume those at SOAPS would know more about the best way to do this information, and about whether attempts at mergers are viable or not, especially given that these lists are prevalent among a variety of series. Sourcing needs to be improved, not outright erased, before anything should be done.

I also believe that opening several separate merge discussions for these lists was an unwise idea, and should have been discussed on SOAPS' talk page first. It splits up the discussion among numerous pages and makes actually tackling the problem inconvenient for all editors involved. I do agree that some further reassessment of some of these articles is warranted, but just bulk starting a bunch of discussions and debates is making the problem more difficult to handle. Pokelego999 (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There is a collective discussion ongoing with the aim of improving articles. The list needs work and real world information needs to be added now. It has generally been accepted that lists of characters by year are a good destination to include characters such as those in the list. We can work on this list now.Rain the 1 09:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as Meena suggests. This doesn't need an article of its own. Merging to List of Hollyoaks characters (1997–1998) would keep the information better organized. WonderCanada (talk)
• Keep - There is clearly work going into all these articles to improve them. It would be much better to look at working on these articles rather than just deleting them. Like Pokelego999 has mentioned, it would be a better idea to have had this discussion in once place, rather than have multiple discussions popping up everywhere. Due to the format of a soap opera, it is difficult to merge the lists into a single list of characters or even one for a decade. There is absolutely scope for these earlier lists, such as 1997, to become as well developed and sourced as the later lists, such as List of Hollyoaks characters (2019), and the efforts to achieve this are underway. Soaper1234 - talk 19:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would have thought that this would be obvious to experienced editors but an article can not be Merged to a page that does not exist. So please do not propose red link articles as a Merge target unless you are willing to quickly create a suitable Redirect target yourself. Mentioning nonexistent articles as Merge targets perhaps assuming someone else will create these articles for you will not be happening. So, if you want your comments to be taken seriously by a discussion closer, do not ask for the impossible. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Taking Liz's note into account, it seems a single existing merge target as consensus is unlikely (though some have agreed in principle with Meena's suggestion). I think the decision of how to organize these articles is probably best left to editorial decisions as suggested by Pokelego999. —siroχo 07:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is that merge discussions are dominated by editors from SOAPS who pile on saying "all is fine, leave our lists alone". See any of the merger discussions at pages listed at Category:Lists of former characters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  PS. I started those merge discussions in good will shortly after starting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Hollyoaks characters. The problem we now have is that the AfD discussion was 'merge', due to the input of non-SOAP editors, whereas the merge discussions seem frequented only by SOAP-affiliated editors are are very much 'don't merge'. I am at a loss what to do next to achieve consistency yet avoid FORUMSHOPPING. @Liz - any thoughts for best practices? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll also @Vanamonde93 who closed that AfD - what do you recommend I should do after the merge discussions there end up in very likely 'don't merge'? (To be clear, this issue is semi-related to this AfD, particularly in the context of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Neighbours characters, also closed by Vanamonde, that ended up in non very well enforced, clearly, "Merge into single article".). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To be completely fair to the SOAPS editors, you've given them practically no time at all to improve articles. They're likely to hit keep so they can actually have time to work on these articles and improve them. You've basically imposed a time limit on their efforts to improve these articles, which is detrimental overall to the project. This is why I say a discussion in SOAPS should have been started first. Time would have been given to openly discussing the improvement of these articles, and deletion should only have been discussed if it could be proven that these articles were impossible to improve. Judging by the current ongoing efforts of WikiProject SOAPS, sources seem to exist out there, and a discussion about this beforehand likely would have allowed for this to come about with the need to panic about things getting deleted faster than they could be improved. Pokelego999 (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't think of good options here, unfortunately. AfD does tend to get more outside input, so if you're dealing with lists that are entirely redundant (I don't know if that's the case here) you could bring them to AfD instead. Alternatively, you could attempt a single more widely advertised merge discussion for multiple articles. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Piotrus, I'm writing this out of respect for you and the process you've demonstrated over time. If you're worried about forum shopping and starting to accuse other active editors of piling on, maybe that's a sign you've made an honest, good faith mistake here and it might be time to step away from this topic.

  Given your general thoughtful approach to AfDs, I am assuming you are less familiar with this specific subject matter. Soap operas, especially at their very apex in the 1990s and 2000s have a lot dead tree coverage. Within this coverage there is a substantial amount useful secondary analysis and coverage. If you read a couple issues of a soap magazine, you'll have a better understanding of the type of coverage I'm talking about. (In America a good example is Soap Opera Digest, I think Inside Soap is a rough equivalent for the UK.) The content issues you may be unearthing here may be one of Wikipedia simply not having enough editors working on soaps. But there is no need to rush, and editors have the choice not to prioritize the topics that you think are most important.

  Now, for this annual type list we're discussing here, from a strict policy perspective nearly any time-based delineation of new characters, down to the week would very likely qualify for NLIST. For any year, there is even more coverage in annual reviews. Any year-based delineation of character introductions, for any major soap opera very likely qualifies for NLIST. While I'm not strictly opposed to taking advantage for cleanup, AfD is not an ideal place to make editorial decisions, so I think it's clear that absent a broad consensus to merge, we should leave this in the hands of editors who are interested in working on the relevant articles.

  As for the other "former/current" discussions, based on my limited knowledge the current/former split seems a little less common as it's much more common to discuss arrivals/departures/returns than strictly former characters, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the "former" lists meet NLIST as well, given the amount of coverage out there. I don't think it's necessary to attempt so many merge discussions across so many different talk pages all at once. In these cases, it's always helpful to remember that perfection is not required.

  I truly hope this perspective helps. —siroχo 17:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Siroxo I did read your message, but TL;DR, one list of characters is preferctly good for pretty much any work of fiction. Certainly a dozen+ is way too much, by common sense. Information on which year a character debuted it (or retired from the show) can be included in the general lists, which could even be sortable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This idea of "Every piece of fiction should only have one list" sounds good on paper, but in practice some franchises work best split up. (As an example, the various by Generation lists of Pokemon, which, while in need of improvement seperately, is regardless unfeasible as one list.) Is Hollyoaks, among other Soaps, one of these franchises? It depends on if the articles can be filled with reliable sources, which SOAPS is working to achieve. If SOAPS can succeed in sourcing it, your "common sense" argument is a moot point.

  In any case, while merge discussions are a possibility for articles like these, the more pressing concern being put upon SOAPS right now is preventing this information from outright being lost or erased without their input. These discussions have put pressure on the wrong places in the Project. Yes, merge discussions are a good idea. But held under the threat of deletion without any attempts at improvement first? That's just not the way things should be handled, and it puts stress on SOAPS editors. Pokelego999 (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The lenght of an article makes sense except 99% of what we have in those articles are plot summaries, and those are generally not encyclopedic content per MOS:PLOTLENGTH. WP:SOFTDELETION preserves content to be resued at such a time editors want to do so, while preventing plot-summary only (or primarily), non-encyclopedic content from violating WP:GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Deletion should not be based on the current state of the article, but rather the availability of sources. To prove the existence of sources, it's better that the editors aren't feeling forced to work towards saving seven+ articles from being removed from the site before they can do anything about it. Pokelego999 (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Softdeletion (redirecting with preserving history) is not removal from the site, just temporary blanking of articles not meeting our minimum criteria, with no prejudice to them being restored later. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as Siroxo. Ingratis (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Editor draftified article.‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

98XX[edit]

98XX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

no indication of notability. Theroadislong (talk) 06:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 06:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I think I was sending this to draft and the same time this AfD was being created, and the AfD tags are on the mainspace page (which is also R2 CSD'd) and a draft has been created. I'm not sure how to fix this issue.  // Timothy :: talk  07:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phon Martdee[edit]

Phon Martdee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG Zafir94 (talk) 06:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, Thailand, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Here's the 2010 Muay Siam profile piece mentioned in the article. It's interview-based but quite in-depth. Searching variants of his name in Thai doesn't turn up anything else substantial online. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. Tagged since 2016. The Muay Siam piece is not a significant source. Subject does not meet criteria notability WP:KICK as a competitor and also as an instructor and promoter.Lethweimaster (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't appear to meet any SNG. I don't see significant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources that would meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 procedural close‎ - nomination by a now blocked sock. firefly ( t · c ) 18:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Yalouh[edit]

Mohamed Yalouh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article doesn't prove notability and is also full of wrong information. The best way to resolve the issue is not to improve the article, but to delete it.

1. Ref-1 (This news was collected via a press release, from Moroccan scientific and technological association,OFEED, also this website is a blogging site who posts advertisement.)
2. Ref-2 (404, Page removed)
3. Ref-3 (This is just a passing mention)
4. Ref-4 (No news here)
5. Ref-5 (website is out of service, no news)
6. Ref-6 (only passing mentions, award is not internationally recognised.) Here is their website.Tisias And it clearly says it majorly promotes Canadian and American inventors.
7. Ref-7 (Not a biography)
8. Ref-8 (404 page not found)
9. Ref-9 (Again This news was collected via a press release, from Moroccan scientific and technological association,OFEED)
10. Ref-10 (This is an interview article)
11. Ref-11 (This website is out of service)

Also, I would like to add that, the person on the article doesn't want himself to be on Wikipedia. I can prove his identity and request. Reqsezu (talk) 06:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No wayy 71.202.180.54 (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There is a clear assertion of notability. To make a case for deletion, you're going to need to show that there are no reliable sources that support these statements. This means doing your own search for sources. See WP:BEFORE. ~Kvng (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Curovic[edit]

Darren Curovic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG Zafir94 (talk) 06:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I nominated this 12 years ago and it was deleted. Still not seeing anything to meet WP:BIO. Most of the sources provided are kickboxing related and not independent. 2 small mentions in gnews. Nothing in Australian search engine, Trove. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I actually voted to keep this article in the original discussion, but criteria and my experience have changed substantially since then. His IFMA medals were for amateur events which are now specifically excluded from showing WP notability by WP:NKICK. In addition, I'm not seeing multiple instances of significant independent coverage to show that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Elmowy[edit]

Noel Elmowy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Looking at the sources, doesn't look like there's many that pass GNG. Not sure if this page passes elibility criterion Ortizesp (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A number of unreliable sources such as Facebook provided. 1 hit in gnews and only 1 article links to this. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. LibStar (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is all I find [21], trivial coverage. What's used in the article isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bihari folklore[edit]

Bihari folklore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lack of reliable sources, full of wp:or. Fails WP:V. — Mikeanand (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. What can be sourced properly can be transferred to the article on Bihar (the state) or the Biharis (its people). Should sufficient sources turn up, this can become its own article again. Cortador (talk) 11:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Mythology, and Bihar. Skynxnex (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article is a mess, but I cannot understand the Fails WP:V comment. The books cited exist, appear to meet everything in WP:RS, and are directly relevant to the subject. Without some specific reasons to dismiss the RSs, there is no policy-bases rationale for this AfD. Perhaps the nominator could expand on the perceived problems? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Last1in: The only problem I have is the fact that it is based on the synthesis of sources. I wrote "Fails WP:V" as a lot of the material is unsourced/poorly sourced. I have no problem if we keep this article after removing the original research. I don't think it is ready for the main space just now. Maybe, after some work in the draftspace in order to properly source it, it will be ready for the main space. Thank you.— Mikeanand (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to add, a merger of the reliably sourced content from this article to Bihari culture can also be a option to go for. Thank you.— Mikeanand (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no consensus here right now but I'm willing to relist it once again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I also think this article is a mess, but cleaning it up would be better than just deleting it. WonderCanada (talk)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Something's Going On. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tell Me It's Over (Frida song)[edit]

Tell Me It's Over (Frida song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article was previously deleted for not meeting GNG/WP:NSONGS in August 2015 (song released in 1983). Previous editors created a redirect to the album, and it was recreated earlier this month without reliable citations to verify notability. I cannot find sources to overrule the previous deletion. Significa liberdade (talk) 04:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Something's Going On: found no additional coverage or signs of notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tell Me It’s Over is a Frida single. I would argue that it is notable. It has been released in Japan and is popular with fans and critics. Why should it be deleted? There are also sources and clippings relating to the song. DalexB (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DalexB care to link those sources and clippings you say exist? Because that's the one thing that would define notability here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are in the references. DalexB (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, fails WP:NSONG. Probably needs cleanup as the article reads that the single did not chart but some other song titled “I Know There’s Something Going On” did and there's a cite for that, why is this song getting credit another song's charts/success? What is actually going on under the release section, is it for this particular song or for an album? ihateneo (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Vuylsteke[edit]

Richard Vuylsteke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not quite sure what he is (academic? diplomat?), which is itself a bad sign, but occupying positions in various organizations doesn't make him notable. Fails WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hong Kong and Taiwan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

  People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

  • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

  Sources
  1. O'Connor, Christina (2017-07-18). "A Full Circle". MidWeek. Archived from the original on 2023-09-17. Retrieved 2023-09-17.

     The article notes: "When Richard Vuylsteke arrived at the East-West Center to begin his new job as president, he garnered a bit of attention for the haste at which he moved into the position. He landed in Hawai‘i from Hong Kong on Dec. 30, 2016, and insisted on starting the job by Jan. 1, 2017. ... Throughout his career, Vuylsteke has constantly been on the move. He’s had a varied career that spans industries — including the military, academia and journalism — and most recently was president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong. But his appointment at the East-West Center is something of a full circle — Vuylsteke was a research assistant there during his time as a graduate student at University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa in the 1970s and 1980s. ... Vuylsteke grew up in Illinois and spent a year in India as a Fulbright scholar and three years in the Army before coming to University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa as an East-West Center scholarship recipient for graduate studies in Western and Chinese political philosophy."

  2. Blair, Chad (2016-08-26). "New President For EWC: Richard Vuylsteke succeeds Charles Morrison". Honolulu Civil Beat. Archived from the original on 2023-09-17. Retrieved 2023-09-17.

     The article notes: "The East-West Center Board of Governors announced Friday that Richard Vuylsteke, an East-West Center alumnus “with extensive experience throughout the Asia-Pacific region,” has been named as the next president of the institution. ... Vuylsteke was a Fulbright scholar at the University of Rajasthan, India. He earned his Ph.D. in Asian and Western Social and Political Philosophy at the University of Hawaii Manoa."

  3. Leong, Lavonne (2017-04-18). "Talk Story: Richard Vuylsteke". Hawaii Business. Archived from the original on 2023-09-17. Retrieved 2023-09-17.

     The article notes: "Vuylsteke (pronounced VUL-stek) has had a global career that has carried him through universities, journalism, the military and the business world. He recently left his post as president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong to assume leadership of the East-West Center, whose mission is to promote cross-cultural understanding and dialogue among Asia, the Pacific and the United States. Vuylsteke is the center’s first president who is also an East-West Center alumnus."

  4. Hrushka, Anna (2017-03-03). "A variety of challenges for Richard Vuylsteke". Pacific Business News. Archived from the original on 2023-09-17. Retrieved 2023-09-17.

     The article notes: "When Richard R. Vuylsteke started his new role as president of the East-West Center on Jan. 1, he was returning to familiar territory. Vuylsteke was an East-West Center scholarship recipient in the 1970s while he attended the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Since his first stint at the Honolulu-based center, Vuylsteke’s career has led him to work in a variety of sectors including academics, business, government, journalism, NGO management, think tanks and most recently as president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong."

  5. "In Brief". South China Morning Post. 2008-02-25. p. 3. ProQuest 266596470. Archived from the original on 2023-09-17. Retrieved 2023-09-17. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2023-09-18 suggested (help)

     The article notes: "The American Chamber of Commerce announced that Richard Vuylsteke, former executive director of AmCham Taipei, had been appointed its new president from today. He will succeed Jack Maisano, who had served as president since February 2005. The new president had been executive director of AmCham Taipei, Taiwan's largest and most active foreign business organisation, since August 1999. He also taught for four years at the US Foreign Service Institute school, and was senior editor of the Free China Review, now named the Taiwan Review, for 12 years and wrote extensively for publications based in the United States, Taiwan and Hong Kong."

  6. Singson, Ben (2023-08-23). "Hawaii wildfires weigh heavy on minds of those with Jacksonville ties". Journal-Courier. Archived from the original on 2023-09-17. Retrieved 2023-09-17.

     The article notes: "Richard Vuylsteke, an Illinois College graduate and professor for the Daniel K. Inouye Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies in Honolulu, said he was not aware of how badly the fires had destroyed Lahaina until later into the night. He said the images of the community after the fires were "painful to look at.""

  7. Culpan, Tim (2001-10-09). "Richard Vuylsteke speaks on functions of AmCham". Taipei Times. Archived from the original on 2023-09-17. Retrieved 2023-09-17.

     The article notes: "Richard Vuylsteke has been the executive director of the American Chamber of Commerce in Taipei since September 1999. Tasked with keeping the Chamber functioning day by day, Vuylsteke's role is to keep the lobbying effort moving forward, coordinate with other members, and help people have fun. He spoke with special contributor Tim Culpan about the executive functions and workings of Amcham"

  8. Lams, Lutgard (2006). Fell, Dafydd; Klöter, Henning; Chang, Bi-yu (eds.). What Has Changed?: Taiwan Before and After the Change in Ruling Parties. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. p. 258. ISBN 3-447-05379-8. ISSN 1612-572X. Retrieved 2023-09-17 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "According to Richard Vuylsteke, former senior editor at the Free China Review, pressure on adhering to the careful wording that was in line with government policy was much more effective for the newspaper, the Journal. Under the editorship of Vuylsteke, the Review was able to muster more freedom to push the limits. The editor recalls that they were the first ones to use the word martial law in print in a government publication instead of the phrase emergency decree, which nobody really understood the exact meaning of."

  9. Lin, Syaru Shirley (2016). Taiwan's China Dilemma: Contested Identities and Multiple Interests in Taiwan's Cross-Strait Economic Policy. Stanford: Stanford University Press. p. 153. ISBN 978-0-8047-9930-0. Retrieved 2023-09-17 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "AmCham head Richard Vuylsteke, who had direct contact with senior Taiwanese officials, continued to represent local firms that wanted more extensive liberalization but did not want to confront the government directly. He pointed out that “many companies have been spinning off divisions that concentrate on China operations and listing them on the HKSE. Others are delisting in Taiwan altogether. The main result is to sap the strength of Taiwan's financial markets" (Vuylsteke 2009; AmCham 2006). He attacked the TSU for preventing the CSTED from advocating closer economic ties with China."

  10. Heenan, David (2005). Flight Capital: The Alarming Exodus of America's Best and Brightest. Mountain View, California: Davies-Black Publishing. p. 190. ISBN 0-89106-202-5. Retrieved 2023-09-17 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Small surprise, then, that returnees and newcomers are expressing appreciation of Taiwan's capital city. ... "It's improved significantly in the past fifteen years. It's a very livable city and it's much more affordable than Hong Kong or Tokyo." Richard Vuylsteke, a nineteen-year resident, agrees. As executive director of the American Chamber of Commerce, he describes the country generally as "one of the easiest places in Asia for an expatriate to live. Between 85 and 90 percent of those posted here would like to extend their stay.""

  11. Wolf, Burt (1994). Burt Wolf's Table. New York: Doubleday. p. 125. ISBN 0-385-47274-9. Retrieved 2023-09-17 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Each time I visit the Republic of China in Taiwan I spend a few hours with a friend of mine, Richard Vuylsteke. Richard has devoted the past thirty years to the study of Chinese culture, and his writings on the subject regularly appear in the Free China Review. During my most recent trip I was talking to him about the traffic in Taiwan and my failure to understand what was going on in the streets. To me it was utter chaos. To Richard, however, Taipei's traffic is just another example of how Chinese thought patterns and their physical manifestations differ from those of the West. He pointed out that local traffic is totally understandable once you view it in the light of Taoist doctrine."

  12. "East meets west in the islands of Hawaii". Illinois College Quarterly. Illinois College. Summer 2017. Archived from the original on 2023-09-17. Retrieved 2023-09-17.

      The article notes: "He was an East-West Center grantee in the 1970s, earning M.A. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Hawaii at Manoa, specializing in Western and Chinese political philosophy. He has taught courses at the University of Hawaii and Chaminade University in Asian history and social, political and legal philosophy. Vuylsteke has served as president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong, president of the American Chamber in Taipei, editor-in-chief of the Taiwan Review, and area studies coordinator for the U.S. Department of State Foreign Service Institute in Taipei."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Richard Vuylsteke to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the current page is anaemic but notability is determined by the existence of sources not their use in the article and Cunard seems to have unearthed enough coverage to get us over the GNG bar. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Akkar explosion[edit]

2021 Akkar explosion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unable to find sustained significant coverage in English or Arabic. No lasting effects as defined by WP:EFFECT. News story in violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Lebanon. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - clearly a noteworthy event and is supported by multiple reliable sources. - wolf 09:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Quick WP:BEFORE D1 search finds recent coverage from DW, Reuters, etc. Even without that, WP:NTEMP applies. Article needs touchup with investigation and societal repercussion (plus new sources), not deletion. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last1in, literally no one needs to be wikilinked to BEFORE. If, instead, you had provided a few of the stories you found, and they were good, I could have closed this as a keep already. In the absence of such evidence I can't do that. Drmies (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drmies, publicly calling me out for failing to do what AfD nominators no longer even bother with makes it clear that I no longer understand the process. Withdrawing my !vote. Thanks & Cheers, Last1in (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • -Erm... wtf just happened here? - wolf 03:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

        What happened is that I walked away rather than collect more nasty little asides from an Admin. If I want this kind of behvaiour, I can get it at the office. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, haven't done a deep BEFORE, but I see some signs that this has been picked up into academic work.[22][23]. Alternatively a merge to Lebanese liquidity crisis may be appropriate. —siroχo 05:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Nimbarka Sampradaya#Sri Hansa Bhagwan. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Hansa Bhagwan[edit]

Sri Hansa Bhagwan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced. Fails WP:GNG. Perhaps redirect to Nimbarka Sampradaya. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support the redirect call. Chronikhiles ^(talk) 14:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• (1st choice) Delete, (2nd choice) redirect to Nimbarka Sampradaya#Sri Hansa Bhagwan. This is an article that has existed for two years. It consists of a lead and six sections. Section 1 is not in English. The article is so badly written that there appears to be no relationship between the lead and the sections. The article's main source is a book called: Srimad-Bhagavatam by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada published by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness;^[24] this is a modern interpretation of the Brahma Sutras (and therefore has POV issues). There are some other sources, but the Wikipedia article does not give their titles.

The section on Sri Hansa Bhagwan in Nimbarka Sampradaya does not have any citations. So I am a bit worried that it might be deleted, and then we would be left with a redirect to an article that did not mention the topic of the redirect. Because of this, I think deletion would be a better option than changing to a redirect.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

Any editor should feel free to go to WP:REFUND to restore and rewrite this article according to advice given in this AFD discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anandamayi Kali Temple, Brahmanbaria[edit]

Anandamayi Kali Temple, Brahmanbaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

NN building. Fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Hinduism, and Bangladesh. UtherSRG (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Sree Sree Anandamayee Kali Mandir" spelling: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

• Delete or rewrite as an article about the looting of the temple in March 2021. The temple is notable for one event: being looted in March 2021. Of the citations: [1] was a 2021 article that said the temple was 120 years old; does not explicitly support 1900 (the source would just as well support 1898 or 1902). [1] and [2] are both about the looting. A search using a different English-language spelling of the name of the temple produces more news stories about the looting of the temple in March 2021.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Toddy1 that if there is a reliable topic here its the 2021 events, not sold on the temple itself being notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gayeshpur Padmalochan High School[edit]

Gayeshpur Padmalochan High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

NN school. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. UtherSRG (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability. At the time of writing there are two citations. One of these is the school website; I checked this for JSC and SSC exam results and found that the school website gave different figures than the figures in the Wikipedia article. The other citation is to a news website (Prothom Alo) and was about a meeting to organise a school reunion for for former students; the Wikipedia article does not use any of the information in this news story.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Toddy1's findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Candace Kane's Candy Factory[edit]

Candace Kane's Candy Factory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I can't find anything besides the one IGN review. QuietCicada (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It does have a Gamezebo review. However, 2 reviews is still too small to satisfy GNG requirements. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The game does not have enough sources to meet GNG. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

St. Kateri Tekakwitha Catholic Secondary School[edit]

St. Kateri Tekakwitha Catholic Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. TheLonelyPather (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator. @Eastmain added sources. TheLonelyPather (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Canada. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, I just kind of assumed all high schools had a page because all of them seem to :) CommieKarlovy (talk) 02:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added some references. The school passes WP:NSCHOOL. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Whew, thanks! I will see how can I retract this AFD nom. TheLonelyPather (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. @Eastmain added sources. TheLonelyPather (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nimbarka Ashram, Sylhet[edit]

Nimbarka Ashram, Sylhet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

NN building. Fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Hinduism, and Bangladesh. UtherSRG (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability. I checked the five citations, none of which supported the content they are cited for. Four of the citations mention the temple in passing; I cannot find anything in citation [2] that mentions the temple. Nothing relevant found in English-language searches on Google.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 speedy delete‎. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aleppo Township Volunteer Fire Company[edit]

Aleppo Township Volunteer Fire Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

just seems to be a volunteer fire department for a really small township. typically these types of topics are not notable and don't require an article made about them. B3251 (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. B3251 (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks to have no coverage in any reliable sources. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please do not remove this article of mine JustinKurt1411 (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey there, I know that it sucks to have an article you created deleted/nominated for deletion when you're a newer editor and it can feel discouraging to the work you put in to it, trust me I know - my very first article was deleted for practically the same reason. That being said, it is important considering whether the article you're creating is going to be encyclopedically significant or not. For incredibly local departments (i.e. fire departments), they generally aren't going to be notable enough to be on Wikipedia - thus, the only fire departments you see on Wikipedia are generally major ones. I recommend taking a look at WP:ORG. Best wishes. B3251 (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pennsylvania. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely non-notable. Elshad (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Gjs238 (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Nothing I find shows notability under WP:GNG or WP:NCORP.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kumarikunda Shaktipeeth[edit]

Kumarikunda Shaktipeeth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

NN building. Promotional and fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Hinduism, and Bangladesh. UtherSRG (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. None of the citations show notability. Citations [1] and [2] do not even mention the subject of this article. Citation [3] is Wikisource.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]