Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< January 06 January 08 >

Purge server cache

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! 22:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eggshell planet[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Eggshell planet (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)

Although this article is much more developed than the version deleted in 2021 (so ineligible for WP:CSD#G4), I cannot find any more recent sources or evidence of widespread use in the scientific community; all references are popular science coverage of a single paper. As such, this still appears to be a non-notable neologism. Complex/Rational 23:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment Although WP:NASTRO does not explicitly apply here, it states that popular media can be used as reliable sources to meet notability for astronomical objects. I believe the same principle also applies here, meaning the pop media is sufficient independent coverage to meet WP:GNG - both GNG and NASTRO accept pop media. Per WP:NEO, To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term. There is no doubt the pop media sources discuss the term and concept in detail, so I think NEO is a non-issue here. Darcyisverycute (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, there's nothing inherently wrong with popular science sources. The concern here is that they all report almost exactly the same thing around the same time and are based on the university press release. Even though some of these sources are independent of the subject, they are not really independent of each other: per WP:N, It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Complex/Rational 14:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the explanation. Looking at the pop media sources again, I'm inclined to agree with your reasoning, so I will retract my !vote. Darcyisverycute (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whether the article is titled "Eggshell planet" or "Very thin lithosphere planet" it is too soon to have an article on this scientific topic. This is work by a single research group. Their paper, a model calculation arguing such planets are theoretically possible rather than a discovery, is a primary source. Wait until there are secondary sources in peer-reviewed journals. The press coverage is all based on the press release put out by the university:
Ogliore, Talia (November 10, 2021). "Tread lightly: 'Eggshell planets' possible around other stars" (Press release). Washington University in St. Louis. Retrieved January 8, 2024..
Universities love to do such press releases. All the sources in the current article are either from the authors of the original paper or date from the publication of that press release. StarryGrandma (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice against a later recreation if and when this becomes an actual, established scientific term rather than a concept from one research group that managed to get their press release churned. XOR'easter (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google scholar only finds one paper using the term in this way, and that describes the research that spawned the press release that all the sources are based on. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul the Venetian[edit]

Paul the Venetian (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)

Paul the Venetian is one of the lesser known Masters in Theosophy. There is a serious lack of reliable sources from academic or historians that have covered Paul the Venetian. All of the sources on the article Bailey, Leabeater, Prophet etc are entirely unreliable. I would say per lack of independent reliable sources this article is not notable and should be deleted. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Star Mississippi 19:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iqbal Mohammed[edit]

Iqbal Mohammed (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 couldn't find any mention of the subject in any reliable sources. None of his short films listed in the article received reviews or awards. Does not fulfill notability criteria. Broc (talk) 15:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No mentions of his short films that I can find, working as a pharmacist isn't notable here. Also, sourcing used is simple announcements of the film's premier or primary items. Oaktree b (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The second source is _maybe_ acceptable, but the other two definitely are not reliable. Fails WP:BLP. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Star Mississippi 19:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roady (Mousquetaires)[edit]

Roady (Mousquetaires) (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)

From this and its French WP article, plus a Google search, I couldn't find enough to show they meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. A WP:HEY keep thanks to Firsfron. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill, Renville County, Minnesota[edit]

Churchill, Renville County, Minnesota (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 does not meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. बिनोद थारू (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the 1967 USGS topo map shows just a handful of buildings but there is a notation "town hall". --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per James.folsom. This makes sense -- looking at many old maps, it looked like there was never a community there so this explains the town hall. Thanks for the information. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The townhall you see there is for the township and has nothing to to to with Churchill. The last standing structure from the town was a church that was razed 2008. It had been built in a small settlement called Churchill in 1890. Even knowing this information doesn't allow for the discovery of anything notable about the place. It's might as well be an archeological site now.James.folsom (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1920 Polk's says

    CHURCHILL, Renville county. A settlement n. w. of Hector on the C M & St P Ry the banking and shipping point and po which see for names

    That's all that I have. I cannot find anything joining the dots from the 1920s "settlement" to the 1995 co-op pig farm, or to Joseph Churchill from 1857, or to the 1916 Churchill Creamery, Hector that gets a passing namecheck in the History of Renville County. These are so far apart in history that they could conceivably be coincidental, and not even in the same place in the county. Uncle G (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Churchill is listed as a settlement, village, or community in multiple sources, including several early 20th century history books. The name appears as both Churchill and as Church Hill, which is why some editors may have missed discussion of the settlement in two 1916 history books. I have expanded the article. More work will follow. Several of these sources include significant coverage of the community, including discussion of the church, creamery, rail site, school, and a major 1904 storm which damaged many buildings. Additionally, the Minnesota Department of Transportation estimates Churchill still has a population of 20. There is much history here between the late 1800s and 2008, when the Renville County Historical Society decided to end their stewardship of one of the last original buildings in Churchill. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is not notable because it exists see WP:GEOland"A feature cannot be notable, under either WP:GNG or any SNG, if the only significant coverage of the feature is in maps," and "Even the smallest geographical features usually may be found in numerous reliable sources: you can easily see creeks in maps, sand banks in navigation guides, hamlets in census tables, etc. There may be hundreds of them. They do provide reliable information about the subject. However this guideline specifically excludes them from consideration when establishing notability, because these aggregate sources tell us nothing about why a particular object is distinguished. Still, they do contribute to the satisfaction of the requirement of verifiability." Additionally, All of the references in that article that are not maps or gazetteers are also not applicable because they only mention Churchill in biographies, news articles and websites. If you read these sources you will notice the subjects in all of them are people, churches, creameries or storms. None of those sources have Churchill as the subject and this is inherently required for a source about Churchill to be significant. See WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention," and WP:SIGNIF. The notable subjects occurring in relation to Churchill, also do not make it notable. See: WP:GEOLAND "Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events." The best thing to do would be to move this to an article about the church.James.folsom (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Improvements make it clear this is was an actually existing populated community. Carrite (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - There has been an incredible update and sourcing just this month. It went from a one-sentence blip, to full-page history content that goes back to 1876, complete with 3782 characters (603 words) from 15 sources, and a file map image of Churchill. Looks really good. — Maile (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Maile. The sourcing will continue. The Renville County Historical Society met for years in Churchill, and they have access to a ton of offline sources, which they are now sharing with me. I'm supposed to be receiving a package this week. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 21:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie Hack[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ellie Hack (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)

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

  • As the article has only been soft-deleted once, salt seems very much like overkill to me. Nfitz (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep" There is one feature article in She Kicks magazine; all other sources of length are from the various teams so are not independent. She Kicks probably would not be enough for me except that I found many mentions where she made the only goal and/or the winning goal of the match. This coverage is from reliable independent sources. I realize these are mentions, not significant coverage (which is why I am not bothering to add to the article), but they demonstrate ongoing coverage of her career as well as the key role she has on these teams. If the decision is not to keep this article, may I suggest moving it to the draft space for more development? I suspect there are more sources, I just have not figured out what British newspapers or magazines cover women's football. Rublamb (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rublamb, the She Kicks page is a routine transactional announcement and does not contribute to notability (all signings/departures are reported, and these are derived from press releases from the football clubs so are not independent anyway). Match reports are also considered routine game coverage and discounted by NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are sufficient third person sources to justify that this article has notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those are brief mentions in match reports which you know isn't significant coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "feature article" in She Kicks is a 4-sentence (including quote) routine transactional release and does not contribute to notability at all. Routine match reports also do not contribute. No evidence of actual SIGCOV.JoelleJay (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

  • Delete: Still playing for the Lewes football club per recent websites, but simply confirming she exists isn't enough. These are simply match reports on the team's website. Oaktree b (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there's (at least) two half-decent references in the article. She get's other coverage for matches, such as this. Nfitz (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a one-sentence mention in a match play-by-play. It does not count toward GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said it counted towards GNG, at least by itself. I did say there's two others. Nfitz (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Draftify (if that's what you want to do). The best source has three non-quote sentences and the rest of the sources are one sentence passing mentions in game recaps. That is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a WP:Biography of a living person and I hope everyone realises that while articles from mainspace often get deleted, these WP:Articles for deletion discussions remain accessible on the Internet forever, permanently linked to their name. To the article creator and re-creator @Dwanyewest: Although you are probably have the best intentions in your advocacy of this player on Wikipedia, you also have to consider that an underdeveloped stub about a football player is sure to be a lightning rod for controversy, and triggering this type of extended discussion where various editors debate and dissect their existing media coverage simply fuels more chatter on the Internet that isn't all that positive. The fact that one of the most active Wikipedia editors from WP:WikiProject Football and associated task forces is recommending that this article is not only deleted but also "salted" underscores that another possible consequence is that the player would essentially not be eligible for their own Wikipedia article in the future. I'm not sure what the right solution is here – I initially recommended draftification to allow the article creator and other editors to further develop the article and publish it in the future when more meaningful coverage about the player is found – but if there aren't enough editors to get behind that, then maybe the solution is to simply delete it, just so we can put this protracted discussion to rest and try to minimise any further embarrassment and annoyance to the living person(s) to whom this name belongs. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The first reference contains the only secondary source comment that her training is “regular”.
    #2, an interview, is entirely non-independent, #3 is very brief and non-independent, #4 brief routine mention of facts, #5 first three paragraphs are facts, not secondary source content, until paragraphs 4-5 that are direct quotes from her coach, not independent, and too close, #6 is sideline routine coverage of the game.
    #7&8 are just data, primary source material.
    everything reported could be summarises as facts in a table, there is no in depth independent secondary source coverage. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Agree with SmokeyJoe's source eval above. Sources in the article and found in BEFORE are mill sports news, database listings/name mentions, nothing that meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  08:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the source analyses above by SmokeyJoe and JoelleJay. I don't think that SALT is needed at this stage, though. That said, Hack is clearly not in the public eye given that she has only played 2 games this season and 8 the season before in a second tier semi-pro league. She is still young so if she does work here way up to WSL and put herself in the public eye (and gain the WP:SIGCOV that would usually come with) then maybe we can look at restoring this in future, although I would prefer Draft and AfC at that stage, personally. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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! 07:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caspian Oil and Gas Exhibition and Conference[edit]

Caspian Oil and Gas Exhibition and Conference (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 is a conference run by the Azerbajain government to promote itself and its resources. There is no independent reliable sourcing on this subject. It is purely covered by outlets linked to the Azerbajain government. Thenightaway (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – per nom. In addition, there are unsourced claims + ref spam, so WP:TNT in spite. TLA (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Feel free to re-nom at a time when there might be any input. Star Mississippi 23:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Stalinsky[edit]

Steven Stalinsky (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)

As per reasons elaborated in the message box: WP:NPOV, WP:NOTCV, WP:CITEKILL, WP:NOTADVERT, and egregious and consistent violations of the Manual of Style—MOS:PUFFERY; MOS:TERRORIST, etc. The article was written by Justinimg, whose only contributions on Wikipedia have been to this article, and to the article for Interface Media Group, with whom Stalinsky is affiliated. The account in question clearly either belongs to an individual paid by Stalinsky to write the two articles, or likely Stalinsky himself (WP:COI). Despite efforts by such users as Horse Eye Jack to remove the most egregious puffery, what is left still consists entirely of unreliable, one-sided, weasel-worded, unreliably-cited, puffed up advertisement. This stands unfixable due to WP:GNG; no independent and reliable sources exist, and those published in reliable sources are authored by Stalinsky himself, and most reliable and independent sources regarding MEMRI TV make unsubstantial references to Stalinsky, if any. yaguzi (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It appears that the article was written by Shadegarden in 2013. Justinimg expanded it in 2016-17. GoingBatty (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that the 2013 article was 4 paragraphs and Special:Diff/654062278/789152138 is a tenfold expansion that removed all four of those original paragraphs and orphaned their sources in Special:Diff/728981405, it is not unfair to say that Justinimg (talk · contribs) wrote the article. Uncle G (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 as the article satisfies the general notabiltiy guideline. I JethroBT drop me a line 08:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radyo Katipunan[edit]

Radyo Katipunan (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)

There does not seem to be significant coverage by independent reliable sources. MarioGom (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. MarioGom (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The station is more of a community radio than a college radio. All the sources in the article are secondary. The first source talks about the station. The rest of the sources talk about the station's programming. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎🙃 10:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG per Astig's argument. Sources mentioned are reliable enough, secondary and in-depth IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 21:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Satid Sri-Uthai[edit]

Satid Sri-Uthai (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 fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 21:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Jews[edit]

Notable Jews (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)

We already have Category:Jews, it doesn't make much sense to list them all on a page. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OctoGreeko You are allowed sub pages to your user space. I have created User:OctoGreeko/Notable Jews work page - just work to your heart's content on that page, then it won't matter if the original list is deleted here. — Maile (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OctoGreeko It will be a lot less convenient when it has thousands and thousands of people on it! I hope Lists of Jews, which was linked below, helps you with what you're doing? -- asilvering (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. OctoGreeko (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Should be moved to userspace if the author finds the list convenient, but I agree it isn't doing any good in mainspace. CycloneYoris talk! 22:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No set criteria other than "notable" would be someone who qualifies under the WP BLP guidelines. Ajf773 (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. It's also worth noting that in addition to the category, we have Lists of Jews. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These are usually quiet attempts to eventually either create an attack page or end up being derailed into one, which is the most likely result here. Categories handle it well already. Nate • (chatter) 23:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but how exactly would I "attack" someone with a list? Why should anyone even consider this possibility? OctoGreeko (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Not you personally, but as someone who has to deal with list vandalism consistently there are bad actors that take articles like this and warp the original editor's intention into something else entirely. Nate • (chatter) 21:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand. OctoGreeko (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MrSchimpf. Great name for a band, terrible idea for a list or article, which all experienced editors just know will become a mess. Apologies to the Newbie, but we've seen this rodeo before. We already have similarly-named lists, so this will immediately become a content fork. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 21:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samurai Troopers (Ronin Warriors) CD Dramas[edit]

Samurai Troopers (Ronin Warriors) CD Dramas (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)

While Ronin Warriors or Bandai_Namco_Filmworks#1980s may be a viable ATD, I'm not sure BLAR is the best course of action for an 18 year old article. There may be sourcing, but I'm having trouble finding any due to the age of this drama Star Mississippi 21:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 07:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Investments of Azerbaijan[edit]

Investments of Azerbaijan (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 is a bizarre article. Half of the article is a badly written version of Economy of Azerbaijan and the other half mentions without any sources a few investments by SOCAR. If there is any content worth keeping, it can be merged with those two articles. Thenightaway (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Economy of Azerbaijan: No independent notability. Owen× ☎ 21:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is unlikely that people will ever search for "Investments of Azerbaijan" specifically, so there's no need for are redirect. Cortador (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with above. -- asilvering (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Investment in Azerbaijan#Azerbaijan Investment Holding. TLA (talk) 06:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan Investment Holding[edit]

Azerbaijan Investment Holding (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 was an Azerbaijani state initiative from 2020 that a COI account immediately created a Wikipedia page for. There is no independent reliable sourcing for this organization. The article is solely based on Azerbaijani government communications. Thenightaway (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Argus Press#Argus Specialist Publications. Liz Read! Talk! 07:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Gamer[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Computer Gamer (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 due to lack of sources except scans of magazine itself, along with WP:NRVE. EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them) (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Argus Press#Argus Specialist Publications. I wish there were more sources on the magazine online, since I think it's nice to have knowledge readily accessible of an otherwise defunct, little-known magazine from before the World Wide Web.
    But I looked through as many sources as I could of "Gamer Magazine" on Internet Archive, and most of the coverage I found are small mentions - not enough to show sustained, significant coverage that passes WP:GNG. Either way, I think it's worth having a redirect with a one-sentence blurb or so about the magazine, in case anyone wants to look up the magazine in the future and see a bit of info on it.
    This is what I found that addressed the magazine directly:
    • "Games Mag Closes", Crash No. 41, p.10 - Short article about it and ZX Monthly closing [1]
    • What Poke? Spectrum Arcade Players Handbook - A short blurb about it closing [2]
    • All other sources I could find that addressed the magazine directly were about one sentence long[3][4][5][6][7]
    • There are also two unreliable sources that I'm leaving here in case others see these magazines and think they are reliable - they look to be self-published e-magazines created by a YouTuber, with no editorial oversight[8][9] - Whisperjanes (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the publisher seems fine, the magazine was only around for two years, so likely won't have much more written about it at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support a redirect. EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them) (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 07:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CJ International House[edit]

CJ International House (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 separately notable enough for its own article imo; no academic or news mentions i can find about it. toobigtokale (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete College dormitories definately don't meet WP:Geoland Run of the mill place that doesn't merit an article WP:run-of-the-millJames.folsom (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG - no sources given for why this place is notable. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is one of those articles which could be re-written to be notable if any additional sourcing exists, but given the language barrier I'm not sure if it does. SportingFlyer T·C 07:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 07:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sulaiman Shah[edit]

Sulaiman Shah (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 individual is not notable, and does not receive sufficient coverage in reliable sources. He is merely a minor figure during the Siege of Baghdad (1258), as can be seen from the weighting of this article, which focuses near-totally on the siege and nothing on the article subject himself. Given the plurality of similarly named people, I do not think a redirect is the best idea, and there is very little to merge to the siege article (which I am in any case rewriting).

Was initially tagged for PROD with the above rationale, but the tag was later removed by Kvng, who felt that the arguments against WP:ATD were "potentially controversial". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There is barely any coverage, let alone anything significant. The entry was unsourced until 2020, when an IP added some background information that doesn't specifically pertain to the subject. Aintabli (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Appears to be a minor figure in the siege, most of what's now in the article is about the siege and not this person. I can't find anything either. Oaktree b (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 21:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WQEK-LD[edit]

WQEK-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)

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV. This technically survived a bulk AfD earlier this year but there is nothing to show this station individually meets the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails GNG and NORG/CORP. Found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. No objection if a consensus redirect emerges, but I can't find one I think is useful.  // Timothy :: talk  13:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Star Mississippi 18:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious (video game series)[edit]

Delicious (video game 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)

No indication of notability and referenced by primary sources (official websites and Facebook posts), tagged for nearly a decade. Looking through the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, I can barely find anything on it. The name "delicious" is a common word, but also searching with developers Zylom, GameHouse and Blue Giraffe I get practically nothing. Fails WP:GNG. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 07:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E-government Development Center[edit]

E-government Development Center (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 page is intended to promote a recently created "e-government" initiative by the Azerbaijan government. There is no reliable sourcing of this organization or anything that otherwise indicates that it's notable. Thenightaway (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: yet another non-notable Azerbaijani government body article created by a likely COI/SPA/UPE. Owen× ☎ 22:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 22:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University of Technology, Jaipur[edit]

University of Technology, Jaipur (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 notability guidelines. The only secondary source I can find beyond the routine coverage in the article (half of which is inaccessible regardless) is [10] talking about the university getting blacklisted for scholarship irregularities. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your link doesn't work. --vuo (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article could do better, but its notability is not in question. --Bedivere (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Universities typically have inherited notability, IIRC. However, article is slightly WP:PROMO at the moment, could use cleanup. TLA (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 22:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DZPA-FM[edit]

DZPA-FM (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 significant coverage in reliable sources. A redirect target could be Bandera News Philippines. MarioGom (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. MarioGom (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and NORG/CORP. Found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. No objection if a consensus redirect emerges, but I can't find one I think is useful.  // Timothy :: talk  13:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 List of women artistic gymnasts. Selectively as noted herein. Star Mississippi 18:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of current female artistic gymnasts[edit]

List of current female artistic gymnasts (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 purports to be a directory of currently competing gymnasts, but the newest reference is more than three years old. Most of the entries are redlinks, and many are probably children. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:LISTPEOPLE, and WP:BLPSOURCES. Any blue links should already be present in List of women's artistic gymnasts. pburka (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Lists of people. pburka (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Anything with "current" in the title will instantly become out of date. Those who think this list is important might like to suggest adding a column for "years active" to List of women artistic gymnasts, which currently has a column "Dates" which means "Date of birth (and death)". PamD 09:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any list with so many red links is also vulnerable to links turning blue incorrectly - as to Annie Young (politician, died 2018). I'll dab that link now. PamD 09:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, though of course the creator of that, and any, article, should have done a check of "What links here", to pick up on any stray unintended incoming links. PamD 09:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 22:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DWGM-TV[edit]

DWGM-TV (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 significant coverage in RS. Could be redirected to List of GMA Network stations. MarioGom (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. MarioGom (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and NORG/CORP. Found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. No objection if a consensus redirect emerges, but I can't find one I think is useful.  // Timothy :: talk  14:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 per G5. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anne Barrington. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 13:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Ozols[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Alex Ozols (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. Synthesizing a lot of news reports about non-notable cases a lawyer represented does not WP:SIGCOV make. Nothing in the references is about Ozols, besides directory listings. ~ A412 talk! 19:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have recently created a page for the lawyer Alex Ozols. I understand your concern about the perceived lack of notability in the referenced cases and the absence of information about Ozols in the references. I would appreciate it if you could take the time to review the references more closely, as you'll find instances where the cases are indeed notable, and Ozols has been mentioned in reputable sources and TV news for his significant contributions. He is widely recognized for his legal expertise, particularly in high-profile cases involving individuals such as San Diego business executive Gina Champion-Cain, Cruz Marcelino Velazquez Acevedo, Marine Gunnery Sgt. Pablo Cortes, and Tieray Jones. Please refer to the sources listed below for your thorough review:

  • Keep There is no apparent justification for the claim that Alex Ozols lacks notability. He contributes regularly to various news outlets, with credible sources, including, providing ample biographical information. Putting aside specific details, Ozols is a legal analyst on national TV media, backed by legitimate citations from national newspapers. A comparative review of American media commentators and lawyers meeting Wikipedia's standards reveals that Ozols is on par with many listed individuals. I am open to enhancing the article to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines and seek guidance for constructive contribution, emphasizing the need for consistent standards to maintain the platform's credibility. I am receptive to improving the article based on your suggestions for a collaborative and mutually beneficial effort.Carindem (talk) 10:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Carindem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep I appreciate your attention to the notability assessment of Alex Ozols. Contrary to the suggestion that the references provided fail to meet WP:GNG, I would like to emphasize that Alex Ozols, a notable lawyer, has garnered substantial coverage in reputable news outlets and made several television appearances. These references extend beyond mere directory listings, providing a comprehensive view of his legal expertise. I am more than willing to offer a detailed breakdown of Mr. Ozols's notable cases and achievements, along with corresponding references, to demonstrate the depth of his impact on the legal field. You can find some of the links below that can verify the notability of Alex Ozols.


  • Delete. Unfortunately, the "keep" arguments do not seem to be based on an understanding of Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
  • The references cited in the article start with a biography written by Ozols himself, followed by an interview on the web site of a university to which he has a personal connection, and they continue with pages which don't even mention him, others which only briefly mention him or quote from him, non-independent sources, and so on... none of them are substantial coverage of Ozols in independent sources.
  • 14 references are given above by Schounrich; those given by Pierrestik are just a selection of those from Schounrich, and add nothing new. All of them are just reports of court cases in which Ozols acted, and they vary from one brief mention of his name as a lawyer acting in the case to a few quotes from what he said in connection to the case. None of them is anything like substantial coverage of Ozols.
  • Apart from the list of references, the comments from the three "keep" accounts include such statements as, for example, "you'll find instances where the cases are indeed notable", which is of course not the same as a lawyer acting in the case being notable, "Ozols has been mentioned in reputable sources and TV news", but being mentioned isn't enough. Then there are just assertions of notability without evidence, such as "has garnered substantial coverage in reputable news outlets", but as I have tried to show, no evidence of such substantial coverage has been provided. JBW (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I concur with the nom and JBW - there are no sources that satisfy all three of WP:RS, WP:IS, and WP:SIGCOV. Therefore, this fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree See my argument below that Ozols meets SIGCOV and is covered by RS. Stellarnelson (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep I read through both the keep and delete arguments. Now let me get to the nominator's comments:
  1. GNG is a very vague guideline, and it certainly isn't clear that Ozols doesn't meet GNG.
  2. As for SIGCOV, it isn't clear that he fails SIGCOV either. This is plenty of coverage, so we can't say that Ozols doesn't meet SIGCOV guidelines. Here's an excerpt from the article: "Alex Ozols has appeared as a television and print legal analyst for CNN,[34] MSNBC,[35] Fox News,[36] CBS News,[37][38][39] Crime Watch Daily,[40] Good Morning Britain,[41] One America News Network,[42] Newsmax,[43] Cinncinati Enquirer,[44] CBC News, ABC News and NBC News." These are all RS, not conspiracy theory or obscure spam websites.
  3. There are 7 notable legal cases that Ozols had played key roles in, all with plenty of significant media coverage.
  4. From a notability standpoint, Ozols certainly is notable enough, see my points #1-#4 above. Check Category:Lawyers from San Diego carefully, and you can see that Ozols is just as notable as many of the other lawyers in San Diego with their own Wikipedia articles. Furthermore, whether there are PROMO (doesn't look promo to me), UPE/COI issues remains to be seen, and should be dealt with separately.

Stellarnelson (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC) — Stellarnelson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Stellarnelson, you may think WP:GNG is vague, but none of the experienced editors on this AfD have had any trouble interpreting it (every single one is voting delete). Rules-lawyering will not help you here. What will help your case is if you can find significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. I have no idea whatsoever why you think that excerpt you have quoted in your #2 point counts as significant coverage; it very plainly does not. Appearing as an analyst is not significant coverage of a person. Is there biographical coverage of this person or their cases in independent sources? That's what you need. -- asilvering (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of SIGCOV in IRS, clearly PROMO.
JoelleJay (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 22:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atakum Dam[edit]

Atakum Dam (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)

Search for sources in Turkish produces no results. Dam not included in the official list of Turkish dams cited in the External links section. Dam likely to be known by another name but no basis for keeping this article. Mccapra (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is more than one dam in Atakum. But neither Karakavuk nor Kurugökçe nor the one above OMÜ (Aksu) are notable in my opinion. Chidgk1 (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I couldn't find any evidence of notability. Owen× ☎ 20:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although dams are notable structures, it is impossible to verify about this dam. Neither any source exits nor it could be verified by geographic coordinates in map. nirmal (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 GMA Network radio stations. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DXYK[edit]

DXYK (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 significant coverage in RS. Can be redirected to List of GMA Network radio stations. MarioGom (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. MarioGom (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Nothing found with SIGCOV that would support a stand alone article. Name mentions, promo, database listings, are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV. Redirect per nom as an WP:ATD.  // Timothy :: talk  04:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 GMA Network (company). Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYSS-TV[edit]

AfDs for this article:
DYSS-TV (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)

There does not seem to be any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. This could be redirected to GMA Network (company). MarioGom (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is one of the oldest TV stations in the Philippines outside Metro Manila, and it's one of the major originating TV stations of GMA Network. -Cutieboy2023 (talk) 08:49, 08 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind pointing out the independent reliable sources that support notability as a standalone article (not as part of GMA Network? MarioGom (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Nothing found with SIGCOV that would support a stand alone article. Name mentions, promo, database listings, are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV. Redirect per nom as an WP:ATD.  // Timothy :: talk  04:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. without a viable target as there was with gymnasts, no ATD Star Mississippi 18:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of current National Football League staffs[edit]

List of current National Football League staffs (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 is a corporate directory of the various teams that make up the National Football League. It includes some notable people, but most of the positions are clearly non-notable (e.g. senior personnel executive, director of team administration, CFO, travel coordinator). (Some of the people in these positions are notable because of previous careers as professional athletes, but that doesn't contribute to the notability of this list.) Note that the contents of the page itself is just a series of templates (e.g. Template:Buffalo Bills staff); I don't have a position on the notability of the individual templates, but I believe that this grouping of them fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. pburka (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Theosophical Society Pasadena. Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise (magazine)[edit]

Sunrise (magazine) (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)

A non-notable occult magazine, since being created in 2006 not a single reference was added to the article. I believe deletion is valid per lack of independent reliable sources. Not seeing any evidence this magazine is notable. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 a redirect to HDMI#Licensing‎. TLA (talk) 05:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HDMI Licensing[edit]

HDMI Licensing (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)

Non notable no sources Isla🏳️‍⚧ 18:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete sounds like a potentially notable article (by the title), but you are correct, no sources that I can find. Geardona (talk to me?) 18:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 18:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian blues[edit]

Indian blues (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 appears to promote specific bands. It doesn't provide any history of, or notability for, an "Indian blues" genre of music. Brian Kendig (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. RL0919 (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DF Music Organization[edit]

DF Music Organization (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 sources of information or official company resources MaxBokstf (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Saiful Azam. Clear consensus. Also, there seems to already be most of this article's content under Saiful_Azam#Service_with_the_Pakistan_Air_Force_(1960–1971), feel free to add on to it if appropiate. TLA (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan-Israel Dogfight (1967)[edit]

Pakistan-Israel Dogfight (1967) (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)

It seems like a small incident in a much larger conflict and could be Deleted or at best Merged to Saiful Azam as it is already mentioned in less detail at Six-Day War. If the consensus is that it should kept, I think a different title might be appropriate as Pakistan wasn't a major participant in this war. This also might be a borderline contentious topic as while Pakistan isn't an "Arab" country, this subject did involve an Arab-Israel conflict. I don't deal much with articles in the contentious topic area so I thought a discussion would be best. Liz Read! Talk! 17:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Aviation, Pakistan, and Israel. Liz Read! Talk! 17:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. New article about two airplane downings on different days. Not on one military operation as the article suggests. The downings were by the same pilot and that is already mentioned everywhere, including in his biography. No need to rehash that yet another time as misleading WP:OR. gidonb (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Saiful Azam - this article is about two incidents in which he was involved. Marokwitz (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Saiful Azam. Content worth keeping. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The information is already at the target and the merge suggestions, while well-intended, do not address the concern that we would create a redirect from a non-existent military operation. gidonb (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge only sourced content to to Saiful Azam. Completely unneeded CFORK.  // Timothy :: talk  04:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Annie Besant#Works. RL0919 (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ancient Wisdom[edit]

The Ancient Wisdom (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)

Non-notable occult book written by Alice Bailey. No references for a stand alone article. Not seeing any reliable secondary sources that cover this book in detail. Deletion per lack of reliable sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC) Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Tallapragada Subba Row. Sandstein 19:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

T. Subba Row Collected Writings[edit]

T. Subba Row Collected Writings (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)

A non-notable Theosophy book with no reliable references on the article. There is no academic coverage of this book. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Sandstein 19:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WJDP-LD[edit]

WJDP-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)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tennessee. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is another one of those stations licensed in an early 2010s filing window that has only ever carried national services without really attaining significant (or any real) coverage. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The owner's website is in Flash, and Edge Spectrum has pretty much been a tolling abuser since the mid-2010s, so this has no true N at all outside actually getting on the air before Edge got their hands on them. Nate • (chatter) 01:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 18:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WCTZ-LD[edit]

AfDs for this article:
WCTZ-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)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tennessee. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing is here to indicate this station meets the WP:GNG, due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. This was part of a bulk AfD last year that closed as no consensus‎ but that was more about some of the other stations included than this one, and the 2015 AfD was back when WP:NBROADCAST was still a guideline. Let'srun (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: More-or-less another run-of-the-mill DTV America/HC2/Innovate station with no real local content, nothing but national services, and no significant (or any) coverage. I did want to note that the 2015 AfD being conducted under the looser "notability standards" of the old NBROADCAST/NMEDIA is actually surprisingly irrelevant — even in 2015, the tide had already turned against the notability of stations that had yet to go on the air, and that incarnation of the article was actually userfied, where it somehow remains to this day. (Though nominally about the same topic, the current article is not associated with the previous article.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Annie Besant#Works. Star Mississippi 17:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Study in Consciousness[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Study in Consciousness (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)

A non-notable work by Annie Besant that lacks any references. Fails WP:N Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources
    1. Whiting, Lilian (1905-02-26). "A Study of Consciousness review". The Times-Democrat. Archived from the original on 2024-01-08. Retrieved 2024-01-08 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review was published in 1905, so it is in the public domain. The review notes:

      A very remarkable book by Annie Besant entitled "A Study of Consciousness" has been recently published, and this volume is a valuable contribution to the literature of philosophy and ethics. Mrs. Besant regards the entire solar system as the field of human evolution, and her study of the unfolding of consciousness in human life through this vast evolutlonary space is one of such profound significance and wide scope that it may be truly regarded as an epoch-making book in latter-day literature. Mrs. Besant teaches that the solar system comprises seven great modifications of matter; that on three of these (the physical, emotional and mental) the normal evolution of humanity proceeds. On the two succeeding planes—those of wisdom and power, the distinctly spiritual life—or the life of the spiritual rather than of the bodily consciousness begins; whereas the two latter of the seven planes (the sixth and the seventh) are so spiritualized that the physical body must be discarded before the individual can enter on them. "The first five planes," says Mrs. Besant, "form the field of the evolution of consciousness, until the human merges in the divine. The two planes beyond the five represent the sphere of divine activity, encircling and enveloping all, out of which pour forth all the divine energies which vivify and sustain the whole system. They are at present entirely beyond our knowledge, and the few hints that have been given regarding them probably convey as much information as our limited capacity is able to grasp. We are taught that they are the planes of divine Consciousness, wherein the Logos, or the divine Trinity of Logoi, is manifested, and wherefrom He shines forth as the Creator, the Preserver, the Dissolver, evolving a universe, maintaining it during its life-period, withdrawing it into Himself at its ending."

      When one has achieved the higher evolution of the spiritual self he can not longer live in the dense atmosphere of any lower plane.

      This work is—perhaps inevitably—largely technical in its construction, but it richly repays a careful study. Mrs. Besant considers the formation of the atom, spirit matter, the sub-planes and the planes; the astral bodies, the desire-body, the thought-body, and other forms; the dawn of consciousness on the astral plane; the many aspects of consciousness, as the real and the unreal; the sub-consciousness, the waking consciousness and the super-physical consciousness. We find Mrs. Besant explaining that waking consciousness is limited and conditioned by the physical brain so long as one is in the physical body, and thus any injury to the brain interferes with its manifestation. "However highly developed may be a man's consciousness," says Mrs. Besant, "he is limited by his brain so far as its manifestations on the physical plane are concerned, and if that brain be ill-formed or ill-developed, his waking consciousness will be poor and restricted. As self-consciousness grows more vivid on the physical plane it enriches with ever-increasing rapidity the content of consciousness on the union?" Mrs. Besant notes, and she adds:

      "When the Self has grown so indifferent to the vehicles in which he dwells that their vibrations can no longer affect him; when he can use them for any purpose; when his vision has become perfectly clear; when the vehicles offer no opposition, since the elemental life has left them, and only the life flowing from himself animates them; then the Peace enfolds him and the object of the long struggle is attained. Such a one, Self centered, no longer confuses himself with his vehicles. They are instruments to work with, tools to manipulate at his will. He has then realized the peace of the Master, the one who is utterly master of his vehicles, and therefore master of life and death. Capable of receiving into them the tumult of the world and of reducing it to harmony; capable of feeling through them the sufferings of others, but not sufferings of his own; he stands apart from, beyond, all storms. Yet is be able ever to bend down into the storm to lift another above it, without losing his own foothold on the rock of the Divine, consciously recognized as himself."

      The exposition of the super-physical consciousness as given by Mrs. Besant in this volume is one of exceptional interest and value.

      "Super-consciousness is," she writes, "a great complexity, and covers a large number of phenomena. Dream, as said, is part of it; so are all the workings of the astral consciousness asserting themselves as premonitions, warnings, visions of happenings distant in space or time, vague touches from other worlds, sudden intuitions as regards character or events; also all the workings of the mental consciousness, lower or higher, that appear as intuitive grasp of truths, sudden insight into casual connections, inspirations—mental or moral—flashes of genius, visions of high artistic beauty, etc. These irruptions of the super-consciousness into the physical plane have the character of unexpectedness, of conviction, of imperious authority, of lack of apparent cause. They are unrelated, or only indirectly related, to the contents of the waking-consciousness, and do not justify themselves to it, but simply impose themselves on it."

      The closing of the avenues of the physical senses opens the avenues of the super-physical senses, and "distant occurrences are seen; vision pierces through physical barriers, far-off speech becomes audible." This book is one of intense interest and of exceptional importance to all students of philosophic thought and the phenomenon of life.

    2. "In Occult Realms. Mrs. Besant's New Book on Theosophy Is Out. "A Study in Consciousness" She Calls It—Good For Scientist and Layman Alike". The Topeka Daily Capital. 1905-03-26. Archived from the original on 2024-01-08. Retrieved 2024-01-08 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review was published in 1905, so it is in the public domain. The review notes:

      "A Study in Consciousness," Mrs. Annie Besant's newest book on theosophy, is one of the most important contributions to the science of psychology put out in many years. Any book from the pen of this famous writer and lecturer on the occult would attract the instant attention of the earnest student. But a production such as the present one, which is the result of ripe experience in a realm that holds vital interest to the thinker, is bound to leave a strong impress upon the literature of the day. With the wave of advanced thought that is spreading over the Western world becoming more pronounced year by year, and the great scheme of theosophy being grasped more clearly, the mysteries, so-called, of the "other side" of life and the "science of the emotions" taking on a new meaning, there has arisen a demand for a wider exposition of the "Wisdom Religion" adaptable to the use of the public. In her new book Mrs. Besant apparently seeks to fill this want. The result is an array of facts and a fund of experiences that will appeal not only to the student of the occult, but to the general reader. She analyzes the forces of will, desire and emotion, shows the effect upon the human being when these powers are left to work at random, and the mighty factors they become in the evolution of man when intelligently directed. In a fascinating manner the writer describes the creation of the atom, and in speaking of the work of the "shining ones," says:

      "There was thus a vast work of preparation accomplished before anything in the way of physical forms, such as we should recognize, could appear; a vast labor at the form side of things before embodied consciousness, save that of the Logos and His Shining Ones, could do anything at all. That which was to be human consciousness at this point was a seed, sown on the higher planes, unconscious of all without it. Under the impelling warmth of the Logis life, it sends out a tiny rootlet downwards, which pushes its way into the lower planes, blindly, unconsciously."

      The book while worthy the time of the closest student is yet so illuminated that the "lay member" may enjoy and profit by a perusal of it. "A Study in Consciousness" is from the press of the Theosophical Book Concern, Chicago.

    3. Trew, Corona G. (July 1945). "The Drama of Consciousness: Another keynote book reviewed at the London Shadow Convention in December: A Study in Consciousness". The Theosophist. 66 (10): 146–147. Retrieved 2024-01-08 – via Internet Archive.

      The review notes: "The sub-title to this great work of Dr. Besant's is "A Contribution to the Science of Psychology," and it is often overlooked, yet it gives the key to the attitude required of the student in approaching this work. Most works on psychology—dealing with human consciousness in its varied manifestations—start with the individual, man the thinker, here and now. Almost more than any other science, that of psychology in the West today tends to be empirical, working from experimental observations. In contrast to this, the greatness of A Study in Consciousness is that it starts with universal principles and causes—the First Cause and the beginning of all manifestation. Thus in the opening pages one is introduced to the study of the One Universal Creative Consciousness and the field in which That acts, as a necessary preliminary to any understanding of individual human consciousness. There is presented a magnificent stage panorama, the scenic background, upon which the drama of the unfoldment of consciousness is to be played. The Introduction and first chapters deal with this vast dramatic background."

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

    Cunard (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Cunard thanks for finding this information. However none of those sources are reliable they were written by Theosophists, these are not reliable independent sources. The Theosophist is a fringe occult magazine it isn't independent of the subject, nor can be used to establish notability. It fails WP:RS. The other two reviews you cited are from newspapers. I am not opposed to citing newspapers but those reviews were not written by neutral academics, historians or specialists. The first review you cite was written by Lilian Whiting, she was a Theosophist in her personal life. Whiting even authored a book [11] for Aryan Theosophical Press. She was a personal friend of Annie Besant. The content you are citing is highly biased. It is incorrect to call this significant coverage from reliable sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mostly agree with Psychologist Guy. If these are the best sources available, we can't possibly write a neutral article on this topic. Within philosophy, ethics, and psychology — the ostensible fields of the work — it constitutes a WP:FRINGE theory, and we have no counterbalancing coverage to meet WP:PARITY. Whiting was a spiritualist, and after the turn of the 20th century ... sought solace in numerous religious sects, becoming interested particularly in the Bahai faith and in Theosophy [12]. She would have been uncritically accepting of Theosophist views, and indeed her review is fawning. The Theosophist is a journal of the society itself, so is obviously not independent of the subject. And the Topeka Daily Capital review has no byline and has an even more uncritically flattering character than Whiting's review. It may have been written by an uncredited Theosophist or someone closely aligned with the movement, or it may merely be a reflection of common attitudes toward the occult at that point in history. But we have no sources, such as from a historian of religion, to properly contextualize it in that way. We can't cover it neutrally, and thus should not cover it except noting the basic fact of its publication in Annie Besant. Jfire (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Switching to redirect to Annie Besant#Works per Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Notability after further review of editors' comments. Most books published in 1904 with two 1905 book reviews and one 1945 book review would easily pass the notability guideline. But as this is a book on a fringe topic, the standards are higher because the sources must be from unimpeachably non-fringe sources to comply with the neutral point of view policy. Cunard (talk) 08:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I didn't research this, I think the above editors have done a good eval, I'd endorse a Redirect to Annie Besant#Works.  // Timothy :: talk  04:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 as wrong venue. As noted below, WP:MFD is the proper place to discuss the deletion of drafts. (non-admin closure) --Finngall talk 19:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Chamupa Chenuka[edit]

Draft:Chamupa Chenuka (edit | [[Talk:Draft:Chamupa Chenuka|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)

Although, this is a real person , but the information is not enough(not notable) and it does not meet Wikipedia's standard. That is why it is up for discussion , except the creator provides solid proof. DahSound (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Daystar Television Network stations. Star Mississippi 17:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WNTU-LD[edit]

WNTU-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)

Subject does not meet the GNG; too much detail. Delete or redirect to List of Daystar Television Network stations. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Sandstein 19:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WZMC-LP[edit]

WZMC-LP (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 GNG. The fact that it almost became an NBC affiliate is irrelevant. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tennessee. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and NORG/CORP. Found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. No objection if a consensus redirect emerges, but I can't find one I think is useful.  // Timothy :: talk  05:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Sandstein 19:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WIIW-LD[edit]

WIIW-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)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Most references are to FCC databases. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tennessee. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and NORG/CORP. Found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. No objection if a consensus redirect emerges, but I can't find one I think is useful.  // Timothy :: talk  05:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Greta Van Fleet. The nominations of the other band members, as well as the non-nominator editors, whom are thoroughly experienced, found consensus. TLA (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Kiszka[edit]

Jake Kiszka (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 is about a band member of Greta Van Fleet. It doesn't show any notability separate from the band, apart from Guitar World praising one of his guitar solos. Suggest the article is redirected to Greta Van Fleet until he does something notable outside of the band. Sionk (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Kiszka (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Kiszka. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Greta Van Fleet. The previous nominations of the other band members, as well as the two non-nominator editors, whom are thoroughly experienced, found consensus. TLA (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Kiszka[edit]

Sam Kiszka (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 is about a band member of Greta Van Fleet. It doesn't show any notability separate from the band, apart from two interviews with the press - and interviews are basically not that independent of the subject. Suggest the article is redirected to Greta Van Fleet until he does something outside of the band. Sionk (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Kiszka (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Kiszka. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Daystar Television Network stations . The two non-nominator editors are thoroughly experienced and found consensus. TLA (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WDNM-LD[edit]

WDNM-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)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Delete or redirect to List of Daystar Television Network stations. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. RL0919 (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Institute for Hermeneutics[edit]

International Institute for Hermeneutics (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; no significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Google search only returns trivial listings. RetroCosmos t • c 15:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 08:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Rejection Show[edit]

The Rejection Show (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 notable. No references. Fuddle (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some sources that easily could be come references (largely found through newspapers.com/archive.org): front page feature story in the Los Angeles Times A1 A16 (2005 and was widely syndicated at the time); fairly strong mention about it in an article about Matthew Diffee originally from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram [13] (2005); feature in the New York Daily News about the show in the context of a particular comic [14] (2005); nearly full page in Newsday about it [15] (2004). A first-party source would be book Rejected: tales of the failed, dumped and canceled by Jon Friedman, who created The Rejection Show, which has significant chunks about/derived from the theater show [16] (2009). All Things Considered did a story about and interviewed Friedman, probably in response to the LA Times story(?) titled "Commentary: Artists, writers and comics can present their rejected works at 'The Rejection Show' in New York City" [17] (wiki library link). New York Times three paragraph story about Valentines day talking about the show (with a couple of quotes from Friedman [18] (wiki library link) (2009).
    I can't find any thing much more recent but that isn't really required for an article and the amount of significant coverage it received seems sufficient unless I'm missing something. Skynxnex (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 List of DC Comics characters: N. All non-nominator editors, whom are thoroughly experienced, agreed to merge (or keep). I have accordingly transferred some of this to List of DC Comics characters: N, please feel free to contribute‎. TLA (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nocturna (DC Comics)[edit]

Nocturna (DC Comics) (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, fails WP:GNG. WP:ALLPLOT article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Merge, Redirect, not sure why we are at deletion, it's not clean up. Hiding T 22:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 DC Comics characters: W. All non-nominator editors, whom are thoroughly experienced, agreed to merge (or keep). I have accordingly transferred some of this to List of DC Comics characters: W, please feel free to contribute‎. TLA (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weeper (DC Comics)[edit]

Weeper (DC Comics) (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 standalone notability at all. Reads like a FANDOM page, fails WP:GNG miserably. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of DC Comics Characters: W. The sources provided by Daranios do not illustrate SIGCOV. The two books and Comicbook article are just recaps on Weeper's comic role, and while the Inverse contains a pittance of commentary, one article is not enough to support a whole Wikipedia article. There might be physical sources that can help, but unless those come up, there doesn't seem to be enough coverage for this guy. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Pokelego999. I don't think there is enough coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV, but there is something small to WP:PRESERVE elsewhere. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Sandstein 18:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Round (Theosophy)[edit]

Round (Theosophy) (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)

Non-notable Theosophy topic that has no reliable independent coverage. No academic historians have covered this topic. The article has not had any reliable sources in over a decade. Most of the content from the article is taken from Arthur E. Powell a Theosophist. I believe a deletion is necessary here per lack of sourcing. This is not a notable topic. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Curuppumullage Jinarajadasa#Works (selection). (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Art as a factor in the soul's evolution[edit]

Art as a factor in the soul's evolution (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)

None of the sources on the article are reliable or indicate notability. The article cites and takes its information from theosophy.world and cwleadbeater.wordpress.com. Neither of these sources are reliable. The article should not have been created as lack of secondary sources exist independent of the subject. The creator is likely to be a throwaway account with no other edits [19]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Withdrawn, topic is notable and has a lot of sources CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

Software effect processor[edit]

Software effect processor (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)

Seems to be a neologism. Does not appear in Google search, Google news or in book literature (Google books, scholar, JSTOR, etc.) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Software. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a neologism. Shepard 2013 discusses both hardware and software effects processors. The problem is that you are researching by phrase matching, so text like "there are an incredible number of external software and hardware effects processors available today"(Shepard 2013, p. 197) simply won't turn up for you.
    • Shepard, Brian K. (2013). "Effects Processors: Polishing your sounds". Refining Sound: A Practical Guide to Synthesis and Synthesizers. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199922949.

    Uncle G (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, it's on me then. This AfD is not valid anymore, but idk how to close this. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. RL0919 (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Dhabi Media Summit[edit]

Abu Dhabi Media Summit (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)

There is very little to indicate that this is a notable subject. There is not much coverage by independent, reliable sources of this UAE state initiative. The coverage is all by involved outlets and by state-owned media. If there is anything worth keeping, it can be merged with Mass media in the United Arab Emirates. Thenightaway (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Ascended master. RL0919 (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masters of the Ancient Wisdom[edit]

Masters of the Ancient Wisdom (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 has been unsourced for over a decade. A scan through the editing history shows a problematic account promoting Theosophy has edited heavily in the past and a blocked sock-puppet. A better solution would be to delete this article and redirect to Ascended master where the same context is discussed Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 08:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ecovis International[edit]

Ecovis International (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)

Repeatedly declined at AfC but moved into mainspace. The sourcing does not look to me like it supports notability as there is a lack of in depth coverage from independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 10:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 08:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shin Seung-kyung[edit]

Shin Seung-kyung (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 individual notability, not fleshed out and unlikely to be in near future toobigtokale (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 08:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Kwang-suk[edit]

Lee Kwang-suk (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 individual notability, not fleshed out and unlikely to be in future. toobigtokale (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South Korea. toobigtokale (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nomination seems like an unlikely claim. 12-year career with several hundred games. A Korean speaker should look at this. Geschichte (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a Korean speaker. toobigtokale (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – More than 100 appearances for Jeonbuk Motors, one of the main teams in South Korea. The article needs improvements, but I don't think it's a reasonable deletion. Svartner (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If a native Korean speaker has not had success finding SIGCOV in Korean, I trust that such coverage does not exist. JoelleJay (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nominator has not given any indication whatsoever that they have tried finding SIGCOV in Korean. Geschichte (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've searched and couldn't find anything past a few trivial mentions in passing. To verify, you can Google "이광석" 축구. 김광석 is a different person, also a soccer player that has more significant coverage, hence the exact quotes. There's also a politician and an academic with the name 이광석, hence "축구" ("soccer"). toobigtokale (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - @GiantSnowman:, Geschichte has a point... Korean background does not necesarily translate to source finding... I found [20], [21], [22], [23], among many more Korean sources. He definitely has offline sources well, having played for one of most well known Korean teams duirng late 1990s to early 2000s. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above; I note (via Google Translate) that his name in the new sources is spelt 'Gwang-seok' rather than 'Kwang-suk'. GiantSnowman 20:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cauon is his university's newspaper and gyeongnamfc.com is one of his clubs which means neither is independent of Lee. Dougal18 (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There was some confusion here, but GNG and SPORTCRIT has been established. His 12-year career with several hundred games strongly hinted at that. Geschichte (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 08:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Im Kyung-hyun[edit]

Im Kyung-hyun (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 individual notability outside of team. Not fleshed out and unlikely to be in near future. toobigtokale (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 08:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

European route E95[edit]

European route E95 (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)

Hardly cited and unfortunately this Eurocrat’s dream never came true Chidgk1 (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Russia, Turkey, and Ukraine. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, according to WP:NROAD, international road networks (such as the International E-road network)(...) are typically notable. Aintabli (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think this is a typical road network - it would go through a war zone in the Black Sea - there are no car ferries from Samsun to Ukraine - there is only freight RORO directly to Russia Chidgk1 (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's recentism. This wasn't always a war zone. And what makes you think that this Eurocrat’s dream never came true? Apart from this having nothing to do with the EU (the normal context for the word "Eurocrat), it seems just as real as any other "E" route. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no opinions on other ‘E’ routes. But this is hardly recent - there have been no public ferries between Samsun and Ukraine for years now. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether it's recent or not depends on what you compare it with, and has no bearing on whether we should keep or delete this article. Would you suggest deleting our article on the big bang because it happened nearly 14 billion years ago? And you didn't answer my question - what makes you say "unfortunately this Eurocrat’s dream never came true" in the nomination statement? This route appears at [24], which is linked on the article's talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NROAD specifically mentions this road network as being typically notable. If you think that's not the case you're better off doing a RfC to get them taken off the notability policy first. Jumpytoo Talk 20:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 08:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Heart of Asia[edit]

The Heart of Asia (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 has been extensively edited by multiple editors, some of whom have tried unsuccessfully to redirect. The sourcing is exceptionally poor and much of the content is entirely unsourced. I don’t see the kind of in depth sourcing that would support a stand alone article and my preference would be a merge of basic content and redirect to Heart of Asia Channel but given the past edit warring I’m bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 09:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. I see a consensus to Delete this article. That doesn't mean that an article on this subject could never exist, it's just a comment on this specific version of this article. Liz Read! Talk! 08:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 Liberal Party of Australia preselections[edit]

2023–24 Liberal Party of Australia preselections (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)

An article like this is inappropriate as it deals with the inner workings of the Liberal Party and thus can't possibly ever be comprehensive and will always contain ad-hoc results. The factions are largely original research and are not official, unlike the impression this page gives off. There are no other Wikipedia pages for the preselection processes of political parties in Australia (that I know of), and for good reason: They are a time sink, never will be comprehensive, and the information can be covered better elsewhere on Wikipedia, such as on the articles for individual politicians. Steelkamp (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Agree with nom, as only spotty and second-hand reporting of preselection ever occurs - ie that we never get fresh and direct data from returning officers published in an official manner. Another problem for this kind of holistic article about preselection contests is that it cannot reasonably meet a satisfactory level of completeness. For example, Liberal preselections for the seats of Parramatta and Werriwa have occurred, but there is no way of us knowing whether those were contested or not, or what sort of contest took place if one did - thus making an article such as this impossible to be at least at a level of completeness necessary for Wikipedia. I know from my own original research that the contest for Parramatta preselection had multiple candidates but has not been reported in any reliable sources. Yet another problem with this, also present in the local government articles initiated by the original creator of this page, is that it treats these contests as one big election, when they are in fact separate contests unrelated to one another. Nonetheless, I think it would be entirely appropriate for preselections as reported by the press to be more prominent on Wikipedia - it should be on the pages of MPs and significant candidates instead though. Open to see what others reckon. J2m5 (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, the notable contests could go to either MP's or rivals pages, or perhaps to electoral division pages. Newystats (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be untenable for these results to be on articles for MPs, except as prose. As a repository of election results, these could be on article for the results of the electoral division, such as Electoral results for the Division of Sydney, but also in an article like Results of the 2022 Australian federal election in New South Wales. The general election results are duplicated in the articles for the electoral division and for the election itself, so the preselection results can follow this example. If we have enough preselection results for a particular division, we can have articles like Preselection results for the Division of Sydney. We may also, instead of having an article for each party about preselections, combine them into one article, such as Preselections for the 2025 Australian federal election. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are rarely those results for us to publish. I would like to see you try making "preselection results for the Division of Sydney" – you would hit a wall almost instantly. For the record, I want this information to be included as prose on candidate pages. J2m5 (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not create such an article, as contested preselections are too sporadic for any given seat. Meanwhile, contested preselections of an entire general election would have enough content to easily justify an article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Previous discussion has occurred on this at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Australian politics#Preselection article appropriateness for Wikipedia. J2m5 (talk) 09:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The successful candidates will end up in the various articles on the next Federal election, and the sourcing isn't really sufficient for an article on how that particular sausage was made. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is a fantastic idea. Why shouldn't we cover preselection elections? The information can be displayed differently - I agree with concerns about identifying political factions, for example - but this is great information for readers to be provided with. These are essentially the same as American primary elections, but with much smaller electorates, of which Wikipedia's coverage is very strong. We have reliable media sources reporting on the results of these preselection contests, which are the same sources that are good enough to cite everything else we write about.
I don't need to remind everyone that deletion discussions concern notability for the topic itself, rather than the current state of the article. This is obviously a notable subject, as it is covered broadly across Australian political news media. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some revisions to the article, addressing some of the issues myself and others have found, and also changed the title to Liberal Party preselections of the next Australian federal election to align with other Australian election articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion discussions do not only concern notability but also an whether the format of an article is appropriate for Wikipedia. Australian preselections are not like American primary elections at all. Calling them "preselection elections" illustrates a fallacy here – a good number of the most important preselections are not elections at all but direct appointments. This article will never reach a standard of completeness that is appropriate for Wikipedia. Most electorates will be left unknown as to what preselection happened there. The information covered by this article is notable - it should instead be covered by candidate and MP articles where those individuals are notable themselves. J2m5 (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A discussion about format is very different to one about deleting the article. The information can be noted on articles of candidates, but we also have articles of election results.
    • Let's change this article to one for all preselection elections for the 2025 election, not only the Liberals.
    • The article should only contain information that can be obtained from reliable media sources.
    • No factions in the election boxes, but relevant factional affiliations can be discussed in prose. Parties with official factions (such as Labor) could be included in the election boxes, but I would rather not.
    • No election boxes for unopposed preselections.
    What's the fallacy with "preselection elections"? There is no such fallacy, and I use this term to distinguish from unopposed preselections. If we have results for all the preselection elections that are reported in the media, then the article is complete. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this coverage would mostly interest political party (just Liberal at this stage) members and only for the limited time span before an election where sitting members are not challenged. Changing the page to Preselections of the next Australian federal election hasn't helped. We don't have a date for that. When the elction happens, this page becomes redundant. The more important votes for each seat and all candidates (not just the major parties) will be rcordered in other pages such as Results of the 2022 Australian federal election in Victoria. Teraplane (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These results are reported in mainstream Australian newspapers, they obviously appeal to broader audiences. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it does seem like original research. I think some preselections might be notable if they receive national coverage but none here would. SportingFlyer T·C 10:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What content is original research? The preselection results are sourced from national media sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete supposed coverage in Australian media is limited usually to if there is a controversy, but otherwise the preselected candidate can have their name mentioned in the relevant elections article. LibStar (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Japanese clothing. I've seen some very promising articles come out of WikiEducation courses but the editors rarely return to work on them after the school term is over, unfortunately. Liz Read! Talk! 08:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal wardrobe change in Japan[edit]

Seasonal wardrobe change in Japan (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)

Unneeded and very poorly sourced CFORK OR essay of Japanese clothing. No objection to a redirect, but there is no properly sourced content that would improve the target in a merge.  // Timothy :: talk  08:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep At least for a month or so Redirect to Japanese clothing. Creator User:Penerrantry was an instructor for the course Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/UC_Berkeley/Reading_Japanese_Texts_(Fall_2023). At least give them time for a response. Right now, they might be on a semester break. Maybe they will finish it when they return for the Spring 2024 semsster. — Maile (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There appear to be other unattributed direct translations in the list on that userpage, and those articles are from the fall of 2022, not the fall of 2023. There doesn't appear to be a drive to improve these later on, and the attribution remains a problem. Dekimasuよ! 14:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The top of the talk page says this instruction was for Fall 2023. What you see as 2022, is sectioned off as the prior year's contributions. But then, again, unless we get activity from this editor, we won't know. — Maile (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no particular problem with redirecting as an intermediate solution, but anything that is determined to be a copyright violation still must be removed from the page history, and this seems like an unlikely search term. Dekimasuよ! 06:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Japanese clothing or move to user space for continued editing if desired. Translated articles need to be properly attributed. They also need to meet en-wiki content guidelines and I agree that this one doesn't at rhe current time so we don't really want it as a separate article. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that it's an unusual search term so there is no need for a redirect; the attribution issues are also a good reason to delete rather than redirect. If the editor comes back to work more on it they could request undeletion (I'm with Dekimasu in that I don't think that's terribly likely). I was expecting to make a keep argument for this, especially given that there is a history section that presumably has some good sources out there, but I had no luck looking for sources. I'm sure they're out there somewhere, but until someone finds them, it's a delete from me. -- asilvering (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kokkallur[edit]

Kokkallur (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)
  • Delete Fails WP:NGEO. Cannot find any mention of the village in any of the Indian 2011 census tables nor any other information on google demonstrating WP:GNG. Tooncool64 (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Kerala. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This appears to be listed as a village, amsom or desom in the census of 1971 and the census of 1981. The Kerala Gazette lists numerous houses of numerous people and a post office. According to sources there was a weekly market [25]; a school [26] [27]; a health sub-centre, which became a people’s health centre [28]; rock cut caves [29]; iron ore prospecting and field studies: [30] [31]; rubber products [32]; and a building called Manatha kandy House, which was the address of an author: [33]. From these English language sources, this seems to be a populated place within NGEO. To make any further progress, it will be necessary to transliterate the name into Malayalam script. James500 (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a populated place under WP:GEOLAND. In addition to the many sources put up by James500 it's verified in 2015 as the name of a ward within the Balussery Panchayat on the Government of Kerala's website here:[34]. It's signposted on the Kerala State Highway 34 as this image shows [35] Rupples (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 08:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Economic Reforms Analysis and Communication[edit]

Center for Economic Reforms Analysis and Communication (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)

There is nothing to indicates that this is a notable research institution. There is no reliable independent sourcing on this organization. The organization was created by the Azerbaijan government in 2016 and the page was created by a COI account in 2019 who is singularly focused on promoting the Azerbaijan government. Thenightaway (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unable to find mentions outside of press release churnalists. (this comment is by User:RetroCosmos. Liz Read! Talk! 06:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 06:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Strategic Studies under the President of Azerbaijan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Center for Strategic Studies under the President of Azerbaijan (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)

There is nothing that indicates that this is a notable research institution. The purpose of this Wikipedia article is to promote the subject. Thenightaway (talk) 14:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete or at least remove its excessive details. Jothefiredragon (talk) 08:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails notability guidelines, I couldn't find sources online. Sgubaldo (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 06:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akim Badalov[edit]

Akim Badalov (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)

Run of the mill bureaucrat. The subject heads one of the agencies that are part of the Ministry of Energy (Azerbaijan). Thenightaway (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Kenya women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mercyline Anyango[edit]

Mercyline Anyango (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)

Redirect to List of Kenya women's international footballers. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. All I found were passing mentions (2021, 2022, 2023, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 06:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blow-Up (DJs)[edit]

Blow-Up (DJs) (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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 G12 (major copyright violation) Liz Read! Talk! 06:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valluvan Kadav Sree Muthapan[edit]

Valluvan Kadav Sree Muthapan (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)
While this article is in a dire state and I can't find any English sources, it comes from a country with a non Latin script so maybe sources exist in however the name is written there? If there isn't, then delete. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Searching in Tamil "வள்ளுவன் கடவு முத்தப்பன்" nothing come up. Look not notable to me. 84.247.96.4 (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am under the impression that the official script of the official and most widely spoken language in Kerala is Malayalam script, not Tamil script. Kerala says that Malayalam is spoken by over 97% of the population there, with Tamil spoken by less than 2%. Kannur district says that Malayalam is spoken by over 98% of the population there, with Tamil spoken by a "small minority". James500 (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. I just wanted to note that I don't think that this AFD closure is a verdict forever and ever. Given better sources in the future, there could be an article on this subject. Liz Read! Talk! 05:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Areeka Haq[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Areeka Haq (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 creator of this article is blocked due to undisclosed paid editing. The subject of this article is known for creating TikTok videos, but I question the notability as the sources covering her are primarily gossip and routine updates. – DreamRimmer (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Both primary editors have been confirmed as socks. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AungKaung932 Star Mississippi 14:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe Myanmar 2017[edit]

Miss Universe Myanmar 2017 (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 has no references, and so is inconsistent with the principle of verifiability. The national beauty pageant may have bee notable, if reliable sources covered it, but this article about it is not. Since this article contains the names of living persons, the policy on biographies of living persons applies, which says that they should be supported by footnotes. Draft was created by now-blocked sockpuppet, and was then rescued from G13 by being moved to article space, but fails verifiability. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 05:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tal Edgars[edit]

Tal Edgars (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)

disputed draftification. Moved back to mainspace immediately after being returned to draft by Reading Beans. It remains promotional. Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – WP:PROMO, unsourced claims, and random, unnoteworthy-for-Wikipedia awards. Sources are lacking as well. TLA (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 05:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum Boy[edit]

Maximum Boy (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:NOTBOOK. The only sources that I can find are sales listings, encyclopedia-style websites, library catalogues, and user-created reviews. There are two newspaper articles listed in the references, but the citations are incomplete and I cannot verify their content. Johnj1995 (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - I agree that this page needs more sources and needs a cleanup. However, the sources that are used in the "Notes" section show notability due to the real world context, so I think it is worth keeping.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: There's coverage in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, but I can't find anything else. I've expanded the WaPo reference in the article, which can be accessed via TWL. With both those sources, it seems that it barely has enough coverage to pass the two review requirement at WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 22:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murugesvaran Subramaniam[edit]

Murugesvaran Subramaniam (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)

After a search, I only see one independent source that contains significant coverage ([36]) and it is unclear if it is reliable or not. Either way, one source is not enough to pass WP:BASIC. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the highest non-commissioned position in the UK. A Google search shows numerous articles about his appointment. The article certainly could do with more citations, but there is no reason to delete it. For certain he passes notability, I find questioning this unusual. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherent. If you know of numerous articles about his appointment, please provide them. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your decision to draftify it back at the beginning of Dec 2023. However, the version I approved via WP:AfC was much better. I notice that @Plyworth, @AviationEnzo and a couple of others have continued to improve it.
I have posted to WT:MILHIST, let's get a few more opinions. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are other articles about previous highest non-commissioned officers of the UK air force. See Warrant Officer of the Royal Air Force. Obviously this article needs more inline citations. Perhaps there is a little more that can be found about him. I think he is notable enough to have an article, just like some of the other recent incumbents. Donner60 (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ldm1954 FormalDude In addition to the RAF official site citation, which is presumably reliable in addition to the citation cited in the nomination, see https://currentaffairs.adda247.com/subby-subramaniam-appointed-warrant-officer-of-uks-raf/, https://indiapost.com/subby-subramaniam-appointed-warrant-officer-of-uks-raf/; https://www.darpanmagazine.com/people/globalindians/subby-subramaniam-appointed-warrant-officer-of-uks-raf/; https://asianlite.com/2023/news/uk-news/subby-subramaniam-named-warrant-officer-of-uks-raf/; https://newskarnataka.com/world/europe/uk-subby-subramaniam-appointed-warrant-officer-of-raf/06042023; https://ommcomnews.com/world-news/subby-subramaniam-appointed-warrant-officer-of-uks-raf; https://www.cityairnews.com/content/subby-subramaniam-appointed-warrant-officer-of-uks-raf; https://www.sakshipost.com/news/subby-subramaniam-appointed-warrant-officer-uks-raf-177468. There are more. Seems notable enough with these. Donner60 (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, that certainly is enough to pass notability. I guess I should've searched his nickname, my mistake! ––FormalDude (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 04:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Oncology Institute[edit]

American Oncology Institute (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)

Lacks independent coverage. Cited references are paid per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Fails WP:NCORP. Aronitz (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 04:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aziz Ullah Marwat[edit]

Aziz Ullah Marwat (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 not passes NPOL as a local politician from Pak. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 08:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete being chairman of a tehsil council does not make the subject notable. Mccapra (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:GNG and fails WP:NPOL due to not receiving any significant press coverage beyond mayoral election results. - Wiki.0hlic (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 04:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesh Kumar Rai[edit]

Ganesh Kumar Rai (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 not passes NPOL. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 08:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a key party spokesperson the subject has some coverage, but not in-depth coverage directly about him as a subject. Mccapra (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Football America[edit]

Football America (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)
  • Withdraw As per above.
Tooncool64 (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Merrill (fandom editor)[edit]

Jon Merrill (fandom editor) (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)

Little to no information exists about person. Single self-published source. Failed GNG. - Skipple ☎ 03:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Theatre. - Skipple ☎ 03:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Saw this earlier and wasn't quite sure what to make of it—after a closer look I agree that this appears to fail GNG. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 04:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Little to no information about this guy exists and appearing in a random documentary doesn't make someone notable. --StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per StreetcarEnjoyer and nom. BTW, if I am reading its WP article correctly, the documentary film apparently played at only one film festival and never had a wider release. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India–Montenegro relations[edit]

India–Montenegro relations (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)

Prod that was restored. No third party coverage of relationship, only primary sources provided. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, India, and Montenegro. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete - I did a quick Google search on this topic and it looks there aren't sources that are independent of each government that cover the topic. Interstellarity (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Be on the lookout for new sockpuppet accounts of Nittin Das evading their ban. This article has been extensively targeted by that abusive user. --Yamla (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: couldn’t find any relationships of the two countries other than the websites of their consulates. No outside sourcing proving that they have a mutual relationship. HarukaAmaranth 春香 13:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Another example of a standalone article being created for every combination of two nations, no matter how insignificant their connexion may be. The subject is not encyclopaedic, the sources presented are all WP:PRIMARY (government press), and there is no secondary analysis, depth or other indication of notability. I can find no scholarly treatment of this relationship nor mentions in reputable journals. Merging to one or both countries' articles might be possible, but I can find no info particularly worth merging and no sourcing on which to base such a merge. Redir begs the question of which country to redirect towards (and do we really expect this as a search string?). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. Daniel (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nativ College Leadership Program in Israel[edit]

Nativ College Leadership Program in Israel (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)

Delete and redirect to United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. Fails WP:GNG per WP:BEFORE. Sources are all WP:SPS. Longhornsg (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Daniel (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CleanGenius[edit]

CleanGenius (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 piece of software does not seem to be significant or notable, as I am unable to find any reliable secondary sources that cover it. Most of the sources for this article are primary, and of the three non-primary sources, two are just websites that reupload application downloads and one I'm not sure about. Still, I don't think coverage in one potentially reliable source is enough to qualify an entire article. Plus, the creator of the article was blocked for only making advertising edits, making it a conflict of interest. --StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above JM (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Daniel (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WZPA-LD[edit]

WZPA-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)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Daniel (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WDUM-LD[edit]

WDUM-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)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. While a redirect would be a viable ATD, there are several places where he's mentioned, there's no clear redirect target. If one is subsequently created, happy to provide the history thereunder. Star Mississippi 15:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulieh Janneh[edit]

Abdulieh Janneh (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 sufficiently meet the NSPORT and GNG criteria InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frigyes06 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, thank you for nominating the article as it gives us a chance to improve it. Please see some new revelations at Talk:Abdulieh Janneh#This him? where we are trying to determine if Pa H. Jammeh the Olympian is the same person as Pa H. Jammeh, new solicitor general in Gambia. The approximate age would line up, and if the connection can be established there is a wealth of WP:IRS sources covering Pa H. Jammeh's contemporary career that could be used in the article. What we do know, is that the subject definitely meets WP:NATH twice over, as a two-time top-8 finisher at the Commonwealth Games. --Habst (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Does NATH cover relay team members? I don't think that the Commonwealth Games qualify as the highest level of international competition since it's only confined to the former British colonies which decided to join. If either, or both, fail, NATH fails for inclusion, and I personally have some doubts about the connection. Consider maybe reaching out to his office directly. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @InvadingInvader, thank you for your questions. Yes, WP:NATH does cover relay team members for point (1) -- if they were not meant to be included, they would have been specifically excluded as in points (7) and (8) "non-relay". Because the Commonwealth Games includes Kenya, Ethiopia, and Jamaica, it is actually usually the highest-level international athletics competition outside of the World Championships/Olympics, because those three countries are usually ranked #2, #3, and #4 behind only the United States in track and field. --Habst (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it’s not higher than the world championships than it doesn’t meet NATH on its own. Invadinglnvader (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @InvadingInvader, thank you for the challenge because it's important to understand the inclusion policies. WP:NATH actually does not cover World Championships qualifiers or Olympians at all one way or the other -- the history of this policy is complicated, but you'll notice that none of the numbered points at NATH currently make any reference to Olympians or WC athletes (reference is made to disciplines being in the Olympics/WC, but not Olympic athletes or Olympic performances/placings). So any argument about Olympians or World Championship qualifiers on the merits of their Olympic participation or status of a competition compared to WC is outside the scope of NATH entirely.
    Understanding this, the subject actually does meet NATH twice over for placing in the Commonwealth finals, in fact this specific competition is mentioned in the first numbered point of NATH. Because of this, I would love to work with you to find sources and improve the article, instead of mass PROD-ing these Olympic 200m athletes and seeing that the vast majority are being kept so far in the subsequent discussions. (However, I am thankful that your proposed deletions have led to all these article improvements.) What do you think? --Habst (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    even then NATH states that SIGCOV is likely to exist. Do you have any other SIGCOV besides databases? Invadinglnvader (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @InvadingInvader, thank you for responding. Yes, there is substantial SIGCOV of Pa H. Jammeh the solicitor general of Gambia. As mentioned above, the current challenge is to determine if he is the same person as the subject of the article, and that is why I think that the nomination should be withdrawn as keep until this question is resolved, or until a proper search of Gambian media from the 1990s can be performed. --Habst (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't this warrant draftifcation instead of extancy on the Wikipedia mainspace? Per WP:BLP, we must get the article right. If he is still living, we can't include unconfirmed facts, and until proven by the most reliable of secondary sources, connections between the solicitor general and the figure in question are original research. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @InvadingInvader, thank you for replying. There are no unconfirmed facts in the article, everything in the article is confirmed and cited by reliable sources. The association in question has always been on the talk page, not the actual article which is permitted. --Habst (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why shouldn't we draftily the article though? Further refinement is necessary, and without this connection, the subject (based on the apparent lack of SIGCOV to justify inclusion as of writing) does not meet GNG. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The previous relist was never transcluded to the log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We have no evidence of SIGCOV meeting GNG, which is required. I've also removed the SPS (Lulu.com book).
JoelleJay (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for responding and for scrutinizing the sources. I replaced the Lulu.com book with two other sources saying the same thing. What do you think about the purported association at Talk:Abdulieh Janneh#This him?? I think that in the interest of improving the article, we need to fully investigate all of these threads before a deletion decision is made. --Habst (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That nickname pattern seems relatively common in the Gambia. I found several other Pa Harrys.12 There needs to be considerably more linkage before we can reconsider this a NPOL situation, and right now the subject definitely fails GNG with the sources we have. JoelleJay (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for your research, that is very helpful. The reason why the association on the talk page is possible, is because the year of birth would line up (via stated education), and both the first and last name are matches. Yes, there are some people with the Pa Harry given name, but most of them don't have the other details aligning. I think this demonstrates that more research is needed into the subject -- knowing certain details could also exclude the connection, which would be just as helpful. --Habst (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No secondary source content, not in the article, not in the limited sources. This athlete will remain listed in multiple articles, 1992 Summer Olympics, 1993 World Championships in Athletics – Men's 100 metres, etc, where his listing is a mere mention, and if more than a mere mention is possible, add more information in relation to the athlete and the event. There is nothing to support a general independent biography. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Wiki hosting service. Liz Read! Talk! 04:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of wiki hosting services[edit]

Comparison of wiki hosting services (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)

For an initial personal disclaimer, I am not a Wikipedia regular but I am an editor on other wiki projects and wiki farms. If WP:PROMOTION is considered this page clearly reads like a promotional page and the criteria for comparison seems to be meant to allow readers to choose one of the services for their wiki - which is What Wikipedia is not. I do not see how this page can be read as anything else than a biased guide for users to choose their preferred wiki host for their project rather than an article that belongs on an encyclopedic project. What other purpose does this page realistically serve?

The title itself "Comparison of wiki hosting services" is very misleading as it should really be "Comparison of notable wiki hosting services" which does not make sense as an article anyway and does not seem to adhere to the spirit of WP:NPOV by selectively listing only wiki farms that already have a Wikipedia article. It is hard to see the usefulness of a page that compares an extremely limited amount of wiki hosting services. There is also a refusal to accept any non-notable companies themselves, even though this is permitted by this policy as I understand it.

The MediaWiki.org version is more complete and fair and I argue here that a page like this has nothing to do on Wikpedia and is better suited for MediaWiki.org only. JaredFForester (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment is there a notability issue with the article? What you have brought up so far are issues that can be fixed without deletion (WP:Deletion is not cleanup) Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If they can be fixed I have not seen a willingness to do so. After my original edit was rejected I took a look at the history and uncovered a very frequent pattern of new users adding entries and them being removed on the basis that only notable ones are added even though as I have said in my deletion argument the way I understand the lists policy is that there is no such rule. JaredFForester (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC) — JaredFForester (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Lists. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are many comparisons of sites/software/services on Wikipedia. If different features/characteristics should be compared, that's something that can be addressed on the article talk page (or by just fixing it). Wikipedia has several kinds of lists. Most are lists of examples rather than exhaustive lists, and as such use some version of WP:N as criteria for which examples to include. I don't recall where it's documented, but there's definitely a preference against including the word "notable" in the article title, since it's kind of a jargon term on Wikipedia and because that's kind of the default. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the difference in those instances is that a lot of the non-notable ones are very niche and unused while in the case of wiki hosting services there are a lot of very popular wiki hosting services that are not mentioned. Also, some of the other lists do list companies/sites that do not have Wikipedia articles. I believe that in terms of wiki hosting there is a large number of alternative websites that are not listed and the page listing such a small number of hosting sites has little use. JaredFForester (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its a valid navigational list and information list as well. Category:Wiki farms has additional things that can be added to it. Dream Focus 15:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What is its encyclopedic value though? And I must disagree that it can be described as a valid list when it lists 5 'notable' wiki hosts while 100 exist. In other areas, such as search engines, the amount of other wiki hosts is negligible and they niche services. That is not true for the alternate wiki hosting services and if editors consider that this page should not be deleted I would still think the very least that could be done is allow the addition of other services even if they do not have standalone articles since there is no policy which explicitly disallows this practice. JaredFForester (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article previously had other things listed which don't have articles, someone erased them. It was previously six times larger. Dream Focus 11:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case if the outcome is to keep I would encourage an administrator to assert that there is no rule preventing listing non-notable articles. JaredFForester (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename it only lists the notable ones so rename it to Comparison of notable wiki hosting services 72.94.190.201 (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This request for deletion seems to stem from your frustration that several of your edits to the article have been reverted. That sounds a bit like being a little bit sour rather than having an actual reason for the article being deleted. -- Original Authority (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right in that respect but the reason behind this is because I was surprised that it is necessary to have an existing article (which is not in any policy) in order to add it to the list. The reason I cite for opening this is exactly that. If there was no "only notable" rule invented specifically for this page there would be less of an argument for deletion. JaredFForester (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:CFORK or Draftify to revise the scope and cleanup the list.
Out of 5 listed services only Fandom (website) fits the description, the rest are examples of Groupware software. Out of these four groupware products only Confluence (software) and PBwiki have a secondary source that positions the software as a wiki hosting service:Sankar (2009). This source is extremely weak as it also calls Google Sites a 'structured wiki' (whatever that means), and refers to online spreadsheets and calendars as 'wikis' too. More importantly, when introducing the list it mentions wikimatrix.com, a defunct website that used to call mention of Confluence and other products on its list sponsored listings. The article in the current form is effectively a WP:CFORK of the List of collaborative software, featuring Confluence possibly because it was called a wiki hosting on a sponsored listing website.
I agree that 'only notable' is a reasonable criteria for inclusion in a navigational list that doesn't meet WP:NLIST criteria but, with apparently only 1 entry appropriately sourced, I'm failing to see the navigational value of this list. I'm hesitant of considering other alternatives for deletion as it's unclear what independent secondary sources can be used to clean it up. Category:Wiki farms proposed above simply repeats the sponsored listings from wikimatrix.com reprinted in the aforementioned Sankar (2009). Another source, referenced in the article, wikimatrix.org, is effectively a personal homepage and doesn't meet WP:RS requirements. PaulT2022 (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with a partial merge with Wiki hosting service if it helps to form a consensus. PaulT2022 (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2024 (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, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete by only allowing 'options with pages' you automatically create, regardless if it is intentional or not, a promotion which is against Wikipedias rules. Comparisons in general on Wikipedia are in my opinion only justified when every well known party is included which is here clearly not. Other comparison sites work since all notable and important public parties are listed here where in this case its not. Additionally few points on this existing comparison are flawed and vague, as an example what do you exactly mean with "subdomain" (In POV of a user not knowing much). And additionally some points are straightly false and some are written like advertisements. So its better to delete it. G Utopia (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC) — G Utopia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    It's not. That's standard for Wikipedia lists, and not what Wikipedia means by promotion. I note this AfD was opened by a single-purpose account attempting to add their own site to the list and created the deletion nomination when it was removed per standard procedure. Now it's attracting more single-purpose accounts to delete. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WikiTide is definitely not the nominator's "own site". SevenSpheres (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:NLIST, Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. While the current entries are no doubt biased in what seems an attempt to maintain a clear inclusion criteria (each entry having their own Wikipedia article), which could be revisited on a discussion on its talk page, I can see a clear informational value of the article as it is. The single-purpose account nature of the nominator who themselves agreed the nomination is in part due to frustration about being reverted, also makes the AfD nomination weaker. Work would be best spent, in my opinion, writing articles for other notable wiki farm services, which makes adding them to this list/comparison article less controversial. Darcyisverycute (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as I'm not seeing a consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • My thoughts: This list is very short, listing only five hosting services, and as PaulT2022 says it seems that of these, only Fandom is actually a wiki host as opposed to collaborative software, so there's arguably only one wiki host listed. I don't think this should be kept as is, leaving three options - either delete the list, partially merge it to Wiki hosting service (which is also short), or expand it to include more wiki hosts. In the latter case, it's unlikely that any other wiki host qualifies for a Wikipedia article, given that articles on at least two of the most popular, Miraheze and Wikidot, have been deleted for lack of notability in the past (some wikis hosted on these sites are notable but apparently not the hosting sites themselves, which makes sense). Additionally, MediaWiki.org already has a more complete list of MediaWiki hosting services specifically. SevenSpheres (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I feel like this has been said many times: "the content should be expanded" is not a delete rationale. "The content should be reduced" is not a delete rationale. "The article needs to be cleaned up" is not a delete rationale. WP:Deletion is not cleanup. jp×g🗯️ 20:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Wiki hosting service. "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article" even when notability isn't in doubt, and this seems like a good case for using that discretion: it doesn't help readers to keep a five-entry list separate from a four-paragraph article. Obviously this can be revisited if the combined article ever becomes so long a split is needed, but there's no prospect of that happening anytime soon (especially since the list is rightly being limited to entries with some modicum of notability). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep proposer seems to be arguing for a delete because it needs to be renamed (?) as well as admittedly having made this to be POINTy in one of the above replies DarmaniLink (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Extraordinary. Both articles are short and there seems to be no need for a separate article. Most “delete” !votes above seem to have invalid rationale. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as fair alternative to deletion. NavjotSR (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Star Mississippi 18:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One World (TV series)[edit]

One World (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)

Non notable work. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • commentI was able to find thishttps://culturecrossfire.com/movies-tv/remembering-tnbc/
    Cray04 (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Keep. No coverage immediately evident on Newspapers Extended during the aired time period, but maybe others can find something? now Cunard has found several good sources! Cheers! BBQboffingrill me 03:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (obviously as the creator of the article) I should've known that Jax 0677, would AfD the article, after previously adding maintenance tags, shortly after the article was active (all within a 24-hour period, mind you), I'm guessing the article was previously prodded without pushback. I definitely remember the article did not have any references prior to its deletion, well it does now. One World was never popular in the same realm as Saved by the Bell, so finding third party online active references that discusses the show alone will be difficult, especially for a show that is 25 years old. I don't remember TV show articles being deleted on Wikpedia for being a "non notable work". The show lasted three seasons with 39 episodes and aired on a major network, that's a lot more than many shows that were canceled with less seasons and episodes. I'll try my best to find more references to add the article.
QuasyBoy (talk) 08:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@QuasyBoy, they don't need to be active per se. If you come across a link that's not active, you go to Wayback Machine and see if it's worth using. Doing a quick search, all that comes up is IMDb, Movie Database, Rotten Tomatoes, TV Guide, and where to watch it. Just because it was aimed at the same demographic as Saved by the Bell is irrelevant. A lot of shows aimed at the same demographic weren't as popular as Saved by the Bell. It's about verifiability as you know. What you should have done is had this article in draftspace or your sandbox and worked on it there. After such time, you would submit it for approval. In fact that's where it should be now. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @QuasyBoy: there's nothing wrong with adding maintenance tags to an article if the tags are warranted, which they are in this case. The articles does need more inline citations, and the article may not meet the notability guidelines. Criticising someone for tagging the article is not helping your case. Your list of references that are not formatted as inline citations are not very helpful. If you'd like to try and save the article, formatting them as inline citations regarding what they back up would be a good place to start. I've removed one source that was a clear WP:REFBOMB. See this edit: [40] Sources that "don't even namecheck the subject at all, but are present solely to verify a fact that's entirely tangential to the topic's own notability or lack thereof", cannot be used to establish notability.
I really empathise with you wanting an article on this subject. I hope you find better sources that demonstrate notability. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I decided to try and format the remaining four sources as inline citations for you. One only verified the show was on the TNBC Saturday morning lineup, and another only states it was not popular with children in grades one to six. One was another REFBOMB that didn't mention the subject, so naturally I got rid of that. Regarding the final source: you cited pages 139 and 156 of the book, but I'm not seeing matches for "One World" for either of those pages in Google Books preview: [41]. Please specify what those pages reference in the article, otherwise we'll need to get rid of that one as well, even if the article is not deleted. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that adding maintenance tags was a bad thing, I am well aware that they are of common practice on Wikipedia. My issue is Jax 0677 adding those tags and then hours later adding the AfD tag, as if to get more attention to the article (I forgot to mention that he started the redirect link, before I removed it, then with me adding content). But I do welcome your edits to the article, anything to make it better. QuasyBoy (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're definitely not wrong that "finding third party online active references that discusses the show alone will be difficult, especially for a show that is 25 years old". This is, however, an unfortunate reality in general. I don't write a lot about TV shows, but I've written a decent amount of video game articles and for example it's much more time consuming to establish notability for lesser-known pre-internet era games. Have you considered searching through the Internet Archives magazine rack? Or any sort of equivalent (if one exists)? If the show ran for three seasons enough material should have been printed about it to establish notability. This, however, unfortunately doesn't change the fact that if you can't find it, the article shouldn't stay in it's current format. If it looks like this will be deleted it might be an idea to transfer it back to draft space so give yourself more time to find sources. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion on the website. I'll look into it. QuasyBoy (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per @Mrc. Think theres something here. But not in its current state, wit WP requirements Cray04 (talk) 11:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drafitify: It should be in draftspace or the QuasyBoy's sandbox where it can be worked on ie: finding references and improving notability which are the cruxes. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have since added an awards and nominations section. With the show being nominated and winning a few awards, how much more notable can you get? QuasyBoy (talk) 06:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It could obviously get a hell of a lot more notable. The sources you have found are not impressive. I very much don't think "Culture Crossfire" meets WP:RS, and if this article is kept I think I'll be taking that source to WP:RSN myself to see how acceptable they think it is there. I'll be surprised if they don't reach a consensus to get rid of it.
That being said, purely due to the awards and the sources for them (which again are nothing to be write home about; one is just a PR release, though they are both acceptable IMO), I'm inclined to vote this as a weak keep at present. @Mr. C.C.: what are your thoughts now considering the awards and the sources for them? Damien Linnane (talk) 10:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Damien Linnane, @BBQboffin stated it perfectly below. I'm in agreeance. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 06:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no sources showing the TV series was nominated for or won any awards; instead individual actors who acted on the show won them. And these are not major awards like Emmys, they are from one Hollywood magazine which apparently issued them from 1995-2000 and then stopped. BBQboffingrill me 22:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So the TV series itself needs to win awards or be nominated to be considered "notable" now? It not enough that the actors were recoginized for their performances on the show? The Emmys is not the be all end all in terms of TV show award recognition, as minor as the YoungStar Awards were. If we are just deleting TV show articles based on non-notability and lack of satisfactory references, I can name plenty of TV show articles that should be deleted on Wikipedia right now. Apparently airing for three seasons, 39 episodes and on major network is not enough to be "notable". QuasyBoy (talk) 07:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there's a specific guideline on this, i.e. whether a notable award for acting on a show confers notability for the show itself. Obviously the show itself winning or even being nominated would be much more notable (though it never was). And obviously it would be much more ideal if it was a more prestigious award, but the YoungStar Awards are notable nonetheless, and if someone wins a notable award for acting on a show, I think that should at least count for something. I must stress I would strongly prefer to see more sources in the article as the current sourcing is not ideal, but in the absence of being shown a guideline or strong precedent saying awards for acting on a show do not confer notability for the show itself, it's still a weak keep from me. QuasyBoy is not wrong that there are indeed many articles on even less notable shows that have yet to be deleted, however, this should have no bearing on this discussion as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to TNBC#History with the current plot logline As is the article is anemic, but I do feel it needs to go somewhere, with a draft article in that space and a re-appraisal over time. The big problem with these types of 'under the radar' shows after the Children's Television Act went into effect is that they were by design under the radar and lacked sources wholesale outside of 'star' series like The Weird Al Show and Saved by the Bell for all of its various classes post the original series. Nate • (chatter) 22:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. MrSchimpf's comment got me thinking, and this New York Times article while a brief mention, may be just enough to source a line about the show being part of an attempt to comply with the CTA; you even have a quote from Engel talking about how hard the shows are to produce and how they are relatively unpopular. I think that's (barely) enough real world mention to support the article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Even though it's only a short mention, this is a great source Xymmax, and it fits in well with the sentence on popularity that was already there; thanks for finding it. I've just integrated the source into the article. Sourcing could still be a hell of lot better of course, but this drags things a little further across the threshold for me at least. I'm bolding my vote here so it's easier to see by the closer. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, option that have been mentioned have been Deletion, Keeping, Draftifying and Redirection. Maybe one final relist will keep this from being closed as a No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I have no objection to redirect to TNBC with history, or draftify. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no objection to either of those as well. BBQboffingrill me 02:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify and redirect to TNBC#History: Best of both worlds. Redirect will keep the blue link, and draftify will provide the time and space to improve. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [reply]
    Keep: per Cunard below - UtherSRG (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Li, Alice (1999-01-06). "'One World' Is Exception to Trite Teen Comedies". The Plain Dealer. Archived from the original on 2024-01-11. Retrieved 2024-01-11.

      The review notes: "However, "One World," (11 a.m., WKYC Channel 3) created by Robert Tarlow and produced by Peter Engel Productions in association with NBC Enterprises, manages to escape a similar fate – by a hair's breadth. The recently debuted half-hour comedy involves a complicated foster family and its trials and tribulations. The opening, which has the "family" collectively spray-painting the name "One World," indicates the show's desire to appear "fresh." This effect is questionable, because of how well all the members seem to get along despite their different races, cultures and backgrounds. The "beautiful people" syndrome persists. "One World's" scripts are cleverly written. Each line brings subtle humor. What a shame some are missed, because of some actor's occasional inability to carry them out."

    2. Spreier, Jeanne (1998-09-27). "CBS spruces up Saturday mornings". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2024-01-11. Retrieved 2024-01-11.

      The article notes: "On Saturdays, KXAS-TV (Channel 5) is sticking with Hang Time, City Guys and this year adding the new One World (all rated TV-Y7). The new show, promoted as a family comedy, centers on a white couple who have adopted a house full of racially diverse teens. The opportunity for easy humor is rife, and the show's writers abuse the potential. Sui, for instance, tries to make conversation with her new teen sister, Jane: "Have a boyfriend?" she asks. "Give me an hour," Jane snaps back. Weak, weak, weak. One World just doesn't work as a family comedy - the dialogue and scenes are too sophomoric. And the sassy conversation makes it inappropriate for preteens - not as true of NBC's other Saturday morning shows."

    3. "Tune in: One World". New York Daily News. 1998-09-20. Archived from the original on 2024-01-11. Retrieved 2024-01-11 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "The Blake family won't be compared to the Brady Bunch, or even to the "Eight Is Enough" clan, for they are truly unique a kind of mini-subset of our society. "One World" is Peter Engel's ("Saved by the Bell) first family comedy series, and it is mainly about relationships and how to get along with each other. It focuses on a household with six teens of various ethnic and racial backgrounds who are adopted by ex-baseball player Dave Blake and his artist wife, Karen. Living under the same roof, these teens find out they are similar to other families, but most important, they learn acceptance and respect for each other's differences, and they learn the meaning of family love."

    4. Wayne, Renee Lucas (1998-09-18). "Big fat close-up". Philadelphia Daily News. Archived from the original on 2024-01-11. Retrieved 2024-01-11 – via Newspapers.com.

      The interview notes: "Although One World - NBC's newest half-hour comedy in the Saturday morning Teen NBC lineup - explores the challenges of belonging to a big family, it's not your average Brady Bunch roundup.Those who populate the fictional Blake household at 10:30 a.m., are a multicultural posse of six foster teens from rough circumstances who, together, learn the meaning of family and a place called "home." As a streetwise kid named Neal, West Philly native Harvey Silver not only plays the role but lived it. Placed in foster care at the age of 4 - he's lived at the Carson Valley School in Flourtown and at Southern Home Services in South Philly - the 22-year-old actor brings to the character not just talent, but experience.'

    5. "'One World' top show with teens". Orlando Sentinel. 1998-12-20. Archived from the original on 2024-01-11. Retrieved 2024-01-11 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "NBC's One World has won rave reviews from critics and teens alike for its timely topics and colorful characters. In this episode, Marci (Alisa Reyes) mistakenly believes she got her new job as assistant manager only because she is Cuban."

    6. Ith, Ian (1998-09-20). "Entertainment - Bellevue Twins Are Acting Up in Hollywood". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 2024-01-11. Retrieved 2024-01-11.

      The article notes: "Bryan Kirkwood is on the airwaves Saturdays at 3:30 p.m. in his role as Ben, the musician big brother of a multi-racial family in "One World" on NBC (KING-TV). The plot: A well-to-do California couple adopts a gaggle of kids, all of varying ethnic and racial backgrounds. Of course, regular-family hijinks ensue, combined with 30-minute solutions to bigger social questions. "It's kind of like a Brady Bunch of mixed ethnicity," Bryan says. "The cool thing is they don't do the stereotypical stuff at all. I'm kind of like the stud with a sensitive side.""

    7. Harris, Lee (1998-09-06). "Lampooning golf punks; Disney spins out a new 'Charlotte's Web; Woo is back; 'One World' for all". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2024-01-11. Retrieved 2024-01-11.

      The article notes: "Six racially diverse teenagers are living together with their adoptive parents in One World (NBC, Saturday at 9 a.m.). In the series debut, the Blake family prepares for the arrival of the newest member, Jane (Arroyn Lloyd), a rebellious teen who has spent her life in foster homes. For ages 13-16."

    8. "Drama Choice". Daily Record. 2001-02-05. Archived from the original on 2024-01-11. Retrieved 2024-01-11.

      The article notes: "One World ... You may think this is based on Woody Allen and Mia Farrow's life, but I couldn't possibly comment"

    9. Rice, Lynette (1998-03-31). "'One World' joins NBC's Sat. family". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 351, no. 47. p. 150. ProQuest 2393598048.

      The article notes: "NBC will bolster its Saturday teen programming block with "One World," a half-hour comedy about six racially diverse teens who five with their adoptive parents. Bowing Sept. 12, "One World" will mark NBC's first Sat urday morning foray into family-skewing comedy."

    10. TV Guide: Guide to TV. New York: TV Guide. 2005. p. 513. ISBN 0-7607-7572-9. Retrieved 2024-01-11 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes that One World aired on NBC between September 1998 and January 2001 and episodes were 30 minutes long. The book notes: "Ben Blake: Bryan Kirkwood; Jane Blake: Arroyn Lloyd; Neal Smith: Harvey Silver; Marci Blake: Alisa Reyes; Sui Blake: Michelle Krusiec; Cray Blake: Brandon Baker; Dave Blake: Michael Toland; Karen Blake: Elizabeth Morehead. A Saturday-morning kids show about a Florida family with six foster children who come from different backgrounds."

    11. Terrace, Vincent (2007). Encyclopedia of Television Subjects, Themes and Settings. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. ISBN 978-0-7864-2498-6. Retrieved 2024-01-11 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Blake are a childless couple who are the adoptive parents of five children on NBC's One World: Jane (Arroyn Lloyd), Ben (Bryan Kirkwood), Marcie (Alisa Reyes), Sue (Michelle Krusiec) and Neil (Harvey Silver)." The book also notes: "Sue Blake (Michelle Krusiec) is the adopted Oriental daughtter of Karen and Dave Blake , a 16-year-old South Beach High School girl becoming a member of the Women's Olympic Soccer Team on NBC's One World." There likely is more information, but it is hard to find through the Google snippet view.

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

    Cunard (talk) 08:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup, you nailed it! Changing my !vote to keep. BBQboffingrill me 16:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Amazing!!!, Thank you Cunard. QuasyBoy (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cunard, I have added these sources to the article just now, as a teen myself. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 22:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cunard's sources, well done. Toughpigs (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Daniel (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WEFG-LD[edit]

WEFG-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)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Most references are to FCC databases. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Daystar Television Network stations. Daniel (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WELL-LD[edit]

WELL-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)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Delete or redirect to List of Daystar Television Network stations. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Daniel (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KRDH-LD[edit]

KRDH-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)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 List of Daystar Television Network stations. Daniel (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KPXH-LD[edit]

AfDs for this article:
KPXH-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)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Delete or merge into List of Daystar Television Network stations. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to List of Daystar Television Network stations. Fails WP:GNG. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 01:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of Daystar Television Network stations: This is what the result of the 2019 AfD should have been, but at that time the notability standards in this topic area were still lax enough that, despite the lack of any significant coverage, it was kept because the consensus of the time was that the real question was deemed to be "how do we handle the fact that this was once a repeater of KPXC-TV?" It wasn't exactly independently notable then, either; four-to-five years later, though, it's become increasingly clear that far fewer LPTVs actually meet the GNG than the number of articles on them would suggest, and articles that arguably should have been gone years ago are finally being culled. KPXH's Ion/KPXC past should be relegated to a note on the Daystar list and mentions at KPXC-TV; it does not need an article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 per author's request. Materialscientist (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skomota[edit]

Skomota (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 an internet personality. The subject does not really have an "official account" where they frequently update statuses and such, he is known for winning R3 million on lottery and his dance move. All of this is just 15 minutes of fame, sources are "according to" non-WP:RS. dxneo (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not an internet personality ?
In the introduction paragraph, I stated that "Skomota is a social media influencer[1] reason being he attracts too much viewers on every podcasts. For everything podcast skomota was trending. The thing is you stay in  South Africa but you are behind. Skomota has been trending on the socials for about 6 months now and he's still taking social media by storm.
Does the line "he is known for winning R3 million on betway" not supported by a reliable sources. If you find source I have used to supporty statement not reliable, do mind to go look for better source.
15 Minutes Fame
fifteen minutes fame how ? When Skomota is busy trending every weekends and being booked every week like any other Performing artists  ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dxnathi (talk • contribs) 10:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further more, the article is a product of CSD G5 as I believe it was created by a sockpuppet of Nathanielbapela012 and Stevence SA. A checkuser might be needed. dxneo (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.thesouthafrican.com/lifestyle/celeb-news/local-celebs/the-inspiring-story-of-social-media-sensation-skomota-breaking-18-november-2023/

Dxnathi (talk) 08:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_January_7

Leave a Reply