Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< November 15	November 17 >

Guide to deletion

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!} 22:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Neumann & Associates

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

using Wikipedia for advertising yvanyblog^(talk) 23:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Management, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete miles away from meeting WP:CORP. SmartSE (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:NCORP TipsyElephant (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable entity BoraVoro (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of reliable third-party coverage. Current sources are all self-written entries in listings. Pichpich (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no claim of notability and none of the sources that would be necessary to support the claim are here. Alansohn (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 (moved to draft space)‎. ... discospinster _talk 00:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vishesh Hemraj

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

Test article yvanyblog^(talk) 23:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Shellwood (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 22:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raymund C. King

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

The references contained in the article are either not reliable sources or are not independent of the subject. My own searches have not turned up anything better. WP:BIO does not seem to be met. SmartSE (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, New Mexico, and Texas. SmartSE (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. I could also find no significant coverage online. Sgubaldo (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper Saxe

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

No evidence of notability, no evidence that this character warrants a page. No sources relating to the character, just an imdb page for the actor. This was previously moved to the draft space on Nov 5 and then moved back without any actual improvement. I would support redirecting to the main TV series or another related article. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 15:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 15:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually it was draftified and the draft was abandoned and the creator produced another article with no improvements, thus the article and draft coexist. Article is a copy edit from Tommy Egan, and one thing I dislike about AfD is that notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article although the article is poorly written and should be draftified (but cannot be as draft already exist). I would prefer PROD as the subject played a main role in Power and spin-off Power Book II: Ghost meaning they are probably notable. dxneo (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dxneo: - thanks for the note. Sorry I have been afk (do people still say that?) for the past several days or so and was not ignoring your thoughtful response here and on my talk page. I appreciate you taking the time to lay out your arguments. The state of the article certainly caused me to question the character's notability, but I did do a BEFORE inquiry before bringing it here. Obviously we all miss things and maybe this is the case here since the state of the article skewed my thoughts.. but my search stills appears to suggest to me that despite being a character in these shows and this being verifiable, there is not significant in-depth coverage of the character in RS to warrant keeping the article. I note that despite OTHERSTUFFEXISTING that many of the main characters in the show either do not have articles or had their articles deleted (well at least in one instance). I appreciate your input and I invite others to disagree with me, but this is my position and frankly it's just easier to let this run its course at this point. But really, thanks for your thoughtful contributions. Cheers! ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you El, I was actually planning on rewriting the whole article to adequately signify the notability of the character, however I'm currently experiencing mobile data problems therefore I am going to lean towards ~~draftify~~ for now (WP:AtD), if that's possible since there's already a draft. The below mentioned (green) sources are more than enough to pass notability, hopefully someone will takeover. dxneo (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Since the AfD hasn't been withdrawn I'm just gonna assume the nominator did not do WP:BEFORE as it states here that the subject was a series regular in the original Power from 2014 to the very last season in 2020, and here that their role was reprised for the spin-off Power Book II: Ghost. As a Power Universe fan, I know the character played a main role for three seasons in the spin-off and I can definitely cite the whole internet to prove it as there are countless RS (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and probably more) on the character. Article needs cleanup and proper citing to comply with our guidelines or incubation so that it can be adequately improved. dxneo (talk) 09:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirect, as suggested by the nominator (to what target article?) or a draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, I believe that the page has potential and the character is notable, I will personally attend to the page as mentioned above with more RS. dxneo (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify since there's someone willing to work on it in draft space. Pretty clear. Ping User:Liz, I think we can close it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse the draftify suggestion as nominator. Thanks all ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 19:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Gilbert (design executive)

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

Deeply promotional article - PROD and G11 declined, so here we are. IBM executive, not notable per WP:GNG, not exceptional or outstanding but littered with the language of cultural transformation and 'the philosophy is to identify users’ needs as a starting point.' (Seriously?) That apart, "Corporate presidents, chief executive officers and chairpersons of the boards of directors of companies listed in the Fortune 500 (US) or the FTSE 100 Index (UK) are generally kept as notable." This ain't that. Fails WP:BUSINESSPERSON. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Technology, Computing, Internet, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For transparency: I PRODed the article while assessing the article for WikiProject Oklahoma because it struck me as promotional and the sourcing was not great. There has been sourcing improvement since the PROD, but it still probably doesn't meet WP:GNG. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Oklahoma and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable per refs in the article: The Irish Times,^[1] The New York Times,^[2] Fortune^[3][4]

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All interviews, so don't take us past GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish Times article interleaves Gilbert's comments with commentary of its own (558 words out of 1364 by my subjective count). It's not a classic interview - sort of a hybrid.

The Fortune articles have some of their own prefatory commentary (301 and 385 words).

The New York Times article is not an interview at all -- it's a lengthy profile of Gilbert and IBM overall. It has a few short quotes from Gilbert but not a lot. 699 words about Gilbert and 2269 about IBM's design efforts overall (which Gilbert is leading).

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 07:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say The Irish Times provides significant coverage of Gilbert; most of it is quoting him directly or indirectly about changes at IBM, and very little is about Gilbert at all. The New York Times talks more about Gilbert's career and such, but not a terrible lot here either. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources given by A. B. are sufficient to meet WP:BIO and they are not simple interviews where the subject spouts whatever they like. SmartSE (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to the sources as described above, there are a few mentions of the individual in Gscholar talking about design, I'd give it a pass. Oaktree b (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on my research, the mentioned article is notable enough to be kept; albeit this is better to add more prominent sources to the page, as well. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Bhitabaria Union. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bhitabaria

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

Per WP:NGEO. NGA is considered an unreliable source. Nagol0929 (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Nagol0929 (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added two more references to verify existence.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bhitabaria Union - Places are not notable simply because they exist. WP:GEOLAND gives a presumption of notability to legally recognised populated places, but the only thing that has legal recognition demonstrated in the sourcing is the union parishad (Union council) of Bhitabaria, which we already have an article about at Bhitabaria Union. We have no information about the village separate to this union council. FOARP (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bhitabaria Union. Not seeing multiple sources meeting general notability.

Flurrious (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley Children Society

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

Non-notable NGO, i removed many references of their Official site which was used as references. — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, India, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Dear Mr. Syed A. Hussain Quadri,

we understand that you have marked the Wikipedia page for NGO organization for deletion. we are writing to you to request that you reconsider your decision.

We are currently in the process of retrieving as much notable information as possible from the internet and the Wayback Machine. We understand that it may take some time to do this, but we are committed to providing reliable sources that will prove the authenticity of this organization.

We believe that this page is important because it will help to raise awareness of organization. It will also provide a valuable resource for people who are interested in learning more about our organization and its mission.

we would be grateful if you would give us some time to complete the process of gathering reliable sources. We are committed to working with you to ensure that the Wikipedia page for organization is accurate and informative.

Thank you for your time and consideration. CAJaganaddamRJY (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CAJaganaddamRJY: who is "we"? Wikishovel (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
we , wikipedia family CAJaganaddamRJY (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not yet notable by WP:ORG. Article is a lot less promotional than it was, and the worst of the WP:REFBOMB has been trimmed, but what's left is nearly all primary sources: listings of their charity registration, donation pages on various sites, links about their founder that don't mention the organisation, etc. I can't find significant secondary coverage of the organisation in WP:RS, just short articles in local news about their projects. Wikishovel (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I received an email from a company proposing to create a Wikipedia page for me in exchange for a payment ranging from $1000 to $1500. I'm curious to know if this is a legitimate service provided by Wikipedia or if it might be a potential scam. CAJaganaddamRJY (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a scam: please see WP:SCAM. Wikishovel (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for information CAJaganaddamRJY (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ,Less promotional , may be reviewed , organisation looks like, it has less presence in digital news, their images with children and work makes me feel genuine work and very old organisation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badugun (talk • contribs) 03:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC) — Badugun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Thanks for addition of information CAJaganaddamRJY (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the said sources are verifiable, Requesting Admin to Acess again , while we try to improve the quality content on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAJaganaddamRJY (talk • contribs) 11:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC) — CAJaganaddamRJY (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Thanks for addition of information & Research, Happy Diwali (Festival of Lights) CAJaganaddamRJY (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been significantly improved and is no longer promotional. While the remaining references are primarily primary sources, there are also short articles in local news about the organization's projects. and Verified by Nasscom Bigtech Foundation, These articles can be used to support the article's claims, and additional secondary coverage may be found in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.249.141.157 (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC) — 117.249.141.157 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Thanks for addition of information & Research, Happy Diwali (Festival of Lights) CAJaganaddamRJY (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been significantly improved and is now about a notable NGO. The editor has removed many references to the organization's official website, which is a good sign that the article is becoming more balanced and objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.28.246.117 (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC) — 103.28.246.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Thanks for addition of information & Research, Happy Diwali (Festival of Lights) CAJaganaddamRJY (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, can you re asses now, CAJaganaddamRJY (talk) 08:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources do not establish notability, this does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Votes from sock puppet accounts as seen above or attempts to canvass other users such as [5] or [6] are not helping matters. - MrOllie (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I intended to seek assistance in enhancing notability and kindly asked users to review and make necessary modifications, additions, or deletions to information or sources. However, I was surprised to see a swift decision to nominate for AFD or move to drafts. Regarding concerns about sock puppet accounts, I've previously mentioned that people residing in Andhra Pradesh, specifically the Rajahmundry area, are familiar with this topic. If any users express a desire to delete the article in a discussion, it shouldn't be considered as sock puppetry. Additionally, intentional efforts by individuals to comment positively while secretly acting as puppets in a deletion debate should be taken into account. CAJaganaddamRJY (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep found news articles, feel it follows wikipedia notability guidelines, as it has reliable sources

https://smileychildrensociety.in/img/medias/blanketsannouncement.webp

https://smileychildrensociety.in/img/medias/worldartday2021.webp

https://smileychildrensociety.in/img/medias/SLATESPOTAVARAM.webp

https://smileychildrensociety.in/img/medias/blaskslatehindi.webp

https://smileychildrensociety.in/img/medias/PrajaSakthifeb2022.webp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40F0:118D:8684:54CA:C474:1D04:B12E (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC) — 2409:40F0:118D:8684:54CA:C474:1D04:B12E (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete not notable. blatant attempt to push this article through. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has undergone significant improvements, moving away from promotional content and reducing excessive referencing. It is noted that verification on several websites, including Give.do, Nasscom BigTech Foundation, GuideStar, and Give to Asia, involves thorough documentation checks by the respective NGOs. The absence of an online presence, news coverage, and valid documentation prevents the creation of profiles on these platforms, adding a layer of credibility to the verification process.

While acknowledging the concern about the predominantly primary sources, it is crucial to recognize the genuine efforts made by the editor to trim excessive referencing and create a more balanced article. Notably, there is a mention of short articles in local news covering the organization's projects, adding a layer of secondary coverage.

The editor has successfully removed references to the organization's official website, indicating a commitment to objectivity and balance. The organization's verification by Nasscom BigTech Foundation further adds credibility to its notability.

It's essential to consider that the organization may not have a significant digital footprint, yet the genuine work and longstanding presence are evident from images showcasing their efforts with children. The focus on improving the quality of content on Wikipedia and the request for Admin review demonstrate a commitment to transparency and adherence to Wikipedia guidelines.

In conclusion, given the efforts to address concerns, the credibility of verification sources, and the organization's significant local impact, it is recommended to keep the article. Further improvements and collaborative editing may enhance its overall notability on Wikipedia. CAJaganaddamRJY (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - References fail WP:ORGCRIT. The number of IP !votes here is also concerning. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page includes references from approximately 24 websites, with the majority of them undergoing verification primarily through the documentation check process of specific NGOs (such as Give.do, Nasscom BigTech Foundation, GuideStar, Give to Asia, etc.). These verification processes often necessitate the submission of valid and authenticated documents by the respective NGOs. Notably, the absence of an online presence, news coverage, and valid documentation may prevent the creation of a profile for a particular NGO on these platforms. It is likely/not that this page will be accessed and discussed mainly by editors who possess knowledge about charitable organizations and are familiar with the intricacies of the verification procedures employed by these websites. CAJaganaddamRJY (talk) 10:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not determined with quantity (other than "mutiple" which indicates more than one), it is about quality. Adding more references is just creating a WP:REFBOMB.

Comment - Hey Editors, after research in website found on google, i got some links which states the organization's presence have a look ! thank you

Some Websites tell about this organisation

1)https://fundraisers.giveindia.org/nonprofits/smiley-children-society

2)https://pages.razorpay.com/smiley

3)https://paypal.me/smileyindia

4)https://www.linkedin.com/company/14996302

5)https://in.linkedin.com/company/smiley-children-society

6)https://www.f6s.com/smiley-children-society

7)https://bigtech.nasscomfoundation.org/user/192588/organizations/174102

8)https://self4society.mygov.in/story/special-gifts-to-smiley-children-society-angara-feeding-center-children/

9)https://self4society.mygov.in/story/broken-hand-of-old-lady-rescued-by-smiley-children-society/

10)https://greatnonprofits.org/org/smiley-children-society

11)rss feed : https://www.smileychildrensociety.in/blog-rss.xml

12)https://smiley-children-society.fandom.com/wiki/Smiley_Children_Society_Wiki

13)https://www.betterplace.org/en/organisations/57332-smiley-children-society?utm_campaign=email-notifications&utm_medium=www-betterplace-org--en--organisations--57332-smiley-children-society&utm_source=organisation_manager_notifier-organisation_registration

14)https://www.startus.cc/company/smiley-children-society — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAJaganaddamRJY (talk • contribs) 04:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of this remotely meets the sourcing requirements. MrOllie (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article

Shortcuts

WP:NEXIST

WP:NPOSSIBLE

The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any.

Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAJaganaddamRJY (talk • contribs) 04:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The subject fails GNG and NORG, regardless of the refbombing and the half-dozen IP votes. JTtheOG (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
half-dozen IP votes : I can see this for every article for deletion, and i tried to trace them who is it.. i think its a part of escalation and showing a new reason that by a particular team/group, in front face : it shows like a positive in debate, but in real its looking like.. the author has making it done as puppets so delete this page thats it !

Editors are also coming to conclusion by this other than checking actual notability or related websites or online presence .

today morning i have seen two IP Address removed AFD tag, and then some editor again reverted it !

im aware that, debate must be closed by a administrator, so i will not try to do this cheap tricks ! CAJaganaddamRJY (talk) 05:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I looked at the sources. I appreciate your dedication to this, but I would advise you to take a look at WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist so the closer can assess this discussion in light of possible sockpuppetry or canvassing going on.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability guidelines for organizations and its associated primary criteria. A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. No, the references in the article do not meet the primary criteria, and no, CAJaganaddamRJY, do not bludgeon the process. Tails Wx 02:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some one Posting All the Afd's Here, from here i think canvassing going on ^[1] CAJaganaddamRJY (talk) 04:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tried to get information from Reputed websites and pasted here

1. Behance - Smiley Children Society Work Images^[2]
2. Give.do - Conforming Legal Nature of Organisation^[3]
3. Medium.com - Story about childrens day by Founder^[4]
4. Andhra Pradesh Times - Manufacture of Disposable Pads for Women^[5]
5.Guide Star - Guide Star Certification of Smiley Organisation^[6]
6. Great non Profits.Org - EIN Certification for Smiley
7. Andhra Pradesh Now - Smiley Gets FCRA Approval News^[7]
8. NGO Darphan - Indian Govt. Website ^[8]
9. AndhraOnline.in - Location Verified Business Profile^[9]
10. Idealist - Pothavaram Feeding Center^[10]
11. Self4Society.mygov.in - Smiley Story from Govt Website^[11]
12. Andhra Pradesh Now - YSR Award Nomination^[12]
13. NGO4u.com - Legality ^[13]
14. Google Maps - Smiley All Branches ^[14]
15. NGO Foundation - List of Members in Smiley Children Society ^[15]
16. StartUS - Org Info ^[16]

CAJaganaddamRJY (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.reddit.com/user/Wiki_AfD_Watch/
^ https://www.betterplace.org/en/organisations/57332-smiley-children-society?utm_campaign=email-notifications&utm_medium=www-betterplace-org--en--organisations--57332-smiley-children-society&utm_source=organisation_manager_notifier-organisation_registration
^ https://give.do/nonprofits/smiley-children-society
^ https://medium.com/@loyal_purpureus_mouse_350/shaping-tomorrows-citizens-a-call-for-transformation-in-today-s-children-e44bbdf479c7
^ https://web.archive.org/web/20230329102154/http://andhrapradeshtimes.in/rajamudry-ngo-smiley-children-society-women-to-manufacture-disposable-sanitary-pads-says-founder-prudhvi-moses.html
^ https://guidestarindia.org/Summary.aspx?ccreg=12121
^ https://web.archive.org/web/20231118185825/https://andhrapradeshnow.in/Smiley%20Children%20Society%20Receives%20FCRA%20Approval%20for%20Global%20Fundraising.html
^ https://ngodarpan.gov.in/index.php/home/statewise_ngo/6581/28/475?
^ https://mandapeta.andhraonline.in/profile/smiley-children-society
^ https://www.idealist.org/en/nonprofit/a74c63ee2bfa485b85b66bf5c9cb7540-smiley-children-society-pothavaram
^ https://self4society.mygov.in/story/children-in-pothavaram-feeding-gets-gifts-smiley-children-society/
^ https://web.archive.org/web/20231118185612/https://andhrapradeshnow.in/Smiley%20Children%20Society%20Nominated%20for%20YSR%20Lifetime%20Achievement%20Award%202023.html
^ https://www.ngo4you.com/list-ngo-east-godavari-andhra-pardesh/
^ https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1raYpD682tKVE6MAjg3hUKusnWE4zsCE&ll=17.065082505028865%2C80.25028565000001&z=9
^ https://www.ngofoundation.in/ngo-database/smiley-children-society-contact-number-address-details_i107172
^ https://www.startus.cc/company/smiley-children-society

None of this remotely meets the sourcing requirements. MrOllie (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails both general and organisation specific notability guidelines. No useful, significant coverage online. Sgubaldo (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 07:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Modi'in Ezrachi

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp: notability under GNG or SNG. North8000 (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Police, Companies, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no indication that this company meets WP:NCORP. BD2412 T 02:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a quick search of the company name returns English sources with a company profile, Haaretz articles, and even a Pulitzer Center piece that notes the company as "the largest security contractor currently employed by the Israeli government". There are even more sources in Hebrew --DannyS712 (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the four refs found by DannyS712 plus 6 more that I found and added to the article.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to assess new improvements to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Remove all content that isn't sourced which is a fair bit of it and then re-assess after we see what's left.

MaskedSinger (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's an older Israeli company and it is a larger Israeli company, on a national scale. As pointed out above me, there is plenty of sourcing. So absolutely no reason to delete. IF IT WAS part of a larger group, a merge could have been considered. From what I could find, it is a family-owned corporation and its own entity. Which brings me back to the sourcing. DannyS712 found sourcing in English. That's awesome! Between 10, 100, and 1000 SIGCOV sources in Hebrew, 100 would be my best estimate. I added just one that was relevant to the rest of my answer. gidonb (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 FinTech Hub, Kolkata. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical City, New Town

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

Planned tower fails WP:NBUILD Dewritech (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, and West Bengal. Skynxnex (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: TOOSOON, but it's possible that this will be notable. The coverage provided isn't quite SIGCOV but this might be an important structure when its built. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Standard office building built on spec in a city also being built on spec; it's a PROMO. Nate • (chatter) 00:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voorts, you have a good idea. Note though, that a draft will get deleted in 6 months if it's in draft space. This building may not have even started then. An alternative would be for some editor to step forward and ask that the article be moved to a subpage of their own user page where there is no expiration date.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What about merging the content to a new section for Planned Developments in the FinTech Hub, Kolkata article? Rupples (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after Merge proposal mentioned.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like the merge proposal. With something like this, moving to draft is just 6-month delayed deletion. Better to keep the history in mainspace, so that it can easily be reconstructed if/when it is finished and discussed in reliable indept sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: target seems reasonable to me – while not appearing notable on its own (yet), it seems due for inclusion in the article on the district when so much is still under development there. Tollens (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Social networking pedagogy

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

No refs and nothing verified on the page for many years, with a notability tag since 2012. It looks possible that the topic is notable but the current page reads like an unverified essay and needs WP:TNT JMWt (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Education. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've yet to complete a search on this, and I have to head offline now, but I will note this paper that describes a "social networking pedagogy", but attributes its creation to David Trend and Henry Giroux rather than Thomas Patrick Huston and Hallie DeCatherine Jones. This article also mentions the term, and gives a bit of an overview about applications in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Article text at present will need to be wholly rewritten if kept, so I'm half-inclined to go towards WP:TNT, but I want to complete a more comprehensive search first. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Publicly accessible link to the second article: [7]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eleven years should have been enough time for adding citations, and as pointed out above, the content would likely need to be thoroughly rewritten and corrected anyway even if suitable references are added. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hardin High School (Texas)

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under SNG or GNG. No GNG sources and as a result has only a few sentences of the basics plus sports team info. North8000 (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this recent contributions. Sources and additional info fulfill GNG and NSCHOOl guidelines.

BurgeoningContracting 04:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those were some nice additions. I am genuinely not concerned how this ends up; I'm just trying to do my job properly. On the latter point, wp:nschool is basically (a tougher version of) GNG, i.e. GNG with the org restriction added to GNG sources. I don't see any sources that meet even basic GNG. Even some edge case GNG sources would be enough to make me switch to "keep". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, user:North8000. I am struggling to understand what you mean by "basic GNG" sources. The general notability guidelines state no fixed amount of sources is required. There are different sources from three news orginizations present, all reflecting a neutral point-of-view. They are obviously independent from the subject, as are other government sources present in the article. I don't see their reliability being an issue.

It would be greatly appreciated if you could elaborate.

I wasn't referring to any of those aspects, I was referring to ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". So a (independent published) source that writes about the school in some depth. Even one of those would make me switch my opinion to "keep". And I'm just one person here, that may not be needed to have the article kept. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BurgeoningContracting BurgeoningContracting 14:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

North8000, NSCHOOL is not tougher than GNG: it just says the school must meet GNG or NORG. If it meets NORG, it will automatically meet GNG, so (in my opinion) it might as well just redirect to GNG. Others have commonly interpreted this as requiring for profit schools to meet NORG, while public schools are only required to meet the less-stringent GNG. Either way, GNG is the applicable standard for this public school. — Jacona (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would not argue against what you just said, it prima facie logically follows NSCHOOL as written. What I was referring to is that with NORG mentioned, it often / defacto calibrates (or otherwise influences) GNG to include the additional NORG criteria when applying GNG. I'm not pursuing that approach, just explaining my choice of words. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There has been considerable expansion to the article. It currently has 22 references. This is enough to meet the general notability guideline, and then remember that according to policy. Sources do not have to be online. This school is in its 85th school year. The internet is by comparison, brand-spanking-new. Most of the sources for a school this age are going to be offline. Anyway, off the soapbox, what's been added to the article provides sufficient coverage to meet GNG, even though it's bound to be a small minority of the coverage that exists. Jacona (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just went through all (currently) 22 references and can't find one with even 1/4 of GNG coverage. I can't even find one that even writes a few sentences about the school. There are database type entries, several about a sporting event, one about a bomb threat, one is Google maps showing where the city of Hardin is, others with a passing factoid or a list where they are included. North8000 (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- North8000, this source is better than any currently in the article. — Jacona (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jacona: That looks really good. IMO that moves it into edge case regarding GNG in which case my recommendation switches to Keep. North8000 (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 G7 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Cricket World Cup 1st semi-final

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

Unnecessary content fork. Typically, World Cup semi-finals don't warrant a separate article from the parent article, this is no different. Besides which, it goes on about a match from 2011, between two cricket rivals (which warrants greater notability). Only the final should be covered in any greater detail. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Cricket. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the nom, not notable in its own right. Not opposed to a redirect though if there's a good target. Jenks24 (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing is here to suggest that this meets WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a semi-final match in a major tournament is generally not independently notable unless something very notable or unusual occurs within the game, which does not seem to be the case here. I oppose a redirect because “2023 Cricket World Cup 1st semi-final” is an unlikely search term. Frank Anchor 22:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan, India, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete. This is an obvs fork and unnecessary. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abilene Christian University College of Arts and Sciences

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

WP:INHERITORG While the parent organization might be notable, there's nothing to indicate that the College of Arts and Sciences is. Wozal (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, United States of America, and Texas. Wozal (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back (selectively) to the parent article on the whole university. This college has 2000 students, when the whole university has 6000. I note a lot of redlinks, which in turn suggests that it is not separately notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is there anything to really merge though? Abilene Christian University College of Arts and Sciences (as an article name) is already significantly longer than Abilene Christian University. People linked don't seem to be notable; the only remaining person that isn't redlinked is questionable on whether they even have a connection to Abilene or if it's a different individual with the same name. Arts & Sciences are commonly amongst the largest schools at a university but there's nothing to suggest that the 2,000 number is of any importance to the main article. Wozal (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have said merge but what is there to merge like non notable faculty members. Does not merit a standalone article. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others, noting that it is currently not even mentioned at Abilene Christian University and that a redirect to there would thus not be helpful to readers. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with above comments, does not merit standalone article and merging into parent article would add little value. Kazamzam (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Délvidék football team

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

No evidence found of notability. Fram (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Hungary, and Serbia. Fram (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not listed at Confederation of Independent Football Associations#List of members so redirect not feasible. Giant Snowman 18:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Non-notable football team; not enough sources or demonstrated notability. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 22:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abaali

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

Torn about putting this up for AfD. Finding sources for any of the numerous, essay-like claims in this has been difficult given that there is not consensus on which name to use. Given that there is a substantial population who speak Ibaali and can probably be defined as an ethnic group, this topic most likely warrants an article but this article is a mess and almost none of it can be verified. Scrap it and start over. Kazamzam (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TNT -- I am not convinced with the nom's suggestion that there is an article to be written here, but I am in 100% agreement that, even if there is, this is not the basis for such an article. This is an essay at best, and the sources, um, source-singular does not support an encyclopaedic treatment of the subject. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Hamburg Airport. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Hamburg Airport hostage incident

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. This is a recent, isolated event that resolved quickly and doesn't appear to have any lasting impact or braoder ramifications. We don't create articles for every news story. ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title leads the reader to think it's an issue with something aviation related, but this is just a circumstance where the airport property is involved with what would be noted in brief within a newspaper otherwise in a regular home or on the road. The young hostage definitely breaches WP:BLP concerns. Nate • (chatter) 22:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A mention of the incident in Hamburg Airport should be enough. --Kammerer55 (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hamburg Airport, where an short mention exists (and probably should, an airport effectively shutting down for most of a day, unrelated to weather is generally a rare and big event). The possibility of a merge remains but there's no need to do it now, and no need delete history as there's no major BLP concerns. —siro χ o 06:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hamburg Airport -- This is does not meet WP:NEVENT or WP:NCRIME. Either a Redir or Merge is a viable AtD. I lean toward Merge simply because I think this has more meat on it than a simple redirect can support. Note for closer: If AtDs fail, I am more than comfortable with a simple Delete. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Macy's, Inc.. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Macy's Central

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

This division of Macy's does not seem to be independently notable from the rest of the company. Article is further unreferenced and could not find any RS's. Recommending deletion or merging. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Georgia (U.S. state). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Macy's, Inc.: Previously separate articles for the company's other current divisions, Macy's East and Macy's West, were boldly redirected there earlier this year with no apparent objection, so this seems like a logical-enough alternative to deletion here. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Macy's, Inc.: Unsourced article on a subdivision of a larger company. Tagged since 2009. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Macy's, Inc. per all the above; this is just an operating division existing as an SEC report line and trademark holding company for stores gone by. Nate • (chatter) 22:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Jack Washburn. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Washburn

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Couldn't BLP PROD it since it has ELs, though no references. Fails the general and biography-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. UtherSRG (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possible WP:HOAX warning, although form EL, NYT at least confirms that there was an actor Jack Washburn (possibly notable) who had a wife Diane. Can't confirm much else at this point (ping me if better sources are found). If this is not a hoax, we have a a major WP:OR here and likely WP:GNG fail, I fear. Possible copyvios or at least false licencing in pictures (vintage photos tagged with 'own work'). Ping User:Masur re taking care of copyvios on Commons (uploader uploads). Considering the article's style and if we AGF the 'own work', this could be the case of an article written by a family member based mostly on family oral history... the odds of the account (active in 2010 and creating just this entry) returning to explain are low. But, one minor procedural note: the nominator did not notify the creator of this deletion discussion - please fix. PS. User:Nate owen edited the article few years later, possibly same account/lost password or such. The creator account was User:Natenewhope. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article was created by Nathaniel555owen (talk · contribs), whom I notified via Twinkle when this AFD was created. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That said, it looks like all 3 "Nate" accounts are one person who keeps losing their password. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks. I've stubbed Jack Washburn as a possible ATD redirect target for this, but his notability is iffy too. As for Diane, there's a self-published book about her at [8]. Guess who the author is? One Nathaniel Owen. As for New Hope, note that this is Diane's later residence. I think this really look like an attempt to promote someone by either a relative or a local fan. Sadly, they need to get this stuff (Diane's biography) published first in reliable sources, not Wikipedia or self-published books... sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus @UtherSRG The photographs of Diane Bagshaw / Diane Washburn appear to be by photographer Fred Lyon, who may be the copyright holder. Or, Lyon may have assigned the copyright to the California Association of Winegrape Growers. Not sure what common practice was for commercial photography in the early 1950s, but in any case Lyon died last year. Probably best just to take down the photos for now as the license isn't well explained. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think this is a hoax - here is a 1952 article mentioning Diane Bagshaw of San Rafael, with a photo. This is a passing mention, however, and hardly enough to count for encyclopedic notability. There is also a 1953 wedding announcement for Bagshaw and Jack Washburn, but this is WP:ROUTINE. BD2412 T 14:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- On the other hand, this is something (a 1953 article documenting Bagshow being crowned as "California Vintage Queen"). BD2412 T 14:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Piotrus: And thanks for the finds, BD2412. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jack Washburn as Diane Bagshaw/Diane Washburn is a case of WP:1E (Vintage Queen of California 1953). Good news is that there is some information about Diane Washburn in the Jack Washburn article now, citing a couple of the articles mentioned by BD2412. Her husband is definitely notable, though his article is still half-baked. (There are enough articles about him that it's too much to add in one sitting.) There isn't much else worth merging from this article (which lacks citations and overfocuses on her father and husband), but for those who like preserving "clues", the history of the page will still be accessible if it's a redirect. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: This is acceptable. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jack Washburn. Her husband is notable as she is not, and there are no references provided on this page. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 13:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

West Moreton Anglican College

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and organization notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Australia. UtherSRG (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Likely Keep. This college seems to be much better documented than many. Academic article here[9], lots of newspaper articles, unclear to me if it's the same school as St. Paul's Day School under a change in name, but that school dates back to the 19th century. Jahaza (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jahaza. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whirled

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. UtherSRG (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Per WP:NEXIST. The game got SIGCOV from Kotaku, Engadget, IGN and VentureBeat. It got primary interview from GamesRadar and Engadget. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The refs presented above by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ suggest the topic meets WP:NVIDEOGAMES, even if the current article fails to ascertain it. Owen× ☎ 15:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the sources presented by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ are sufficient to establish notability under the WP:GNG. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 14:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Vientiane

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

None of these articles tells us anything about the purported topic, namely the embassy building of the United States in various foreign capitals. Instead, they deal with bilateral relations, and articles covering that phenomenon already exist.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, Laos, Latvia, Bolivia, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all most of the content in these articles is actually about the bilateral relations not the actual embassy itself. LibStar (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 23:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prantle

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

The available sources are press releases of their establishment. Moreso, sources are talking about Ogelle, so, I am surprised why they're being used in an entry called Prantle formally known as Jawonsi. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Websites, and Delaware. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt none of the references even mentioned the company so I removed them. Searches turn up nothing. Check previous deletion logs. SmartSE (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 23:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Education High School No. 2 Mayangone

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

Unsourced, can't find any evidence of notability in BEFORE searches. Seawolf35 (talk - email) 17:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. Seawolf35 (talk - email) 17:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, no evidence of notability- only found in MoE database and facebook. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 20:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Nothing found in searches for reliable sources, including under the St Judes original name, which suggests the school may have been set up during the colonial period. Possible redirect to either Mayangon Township or List of Basic Education High Schools in Myanmar#Yangon Region. Rupples (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. ^Complex/_Rational 02:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archbishop Makarios III Lyceum

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

There’s no way that you could find secondary, independent sources. Equal width (C) 16:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. Equal width (C) 16:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While schools are not automatically notable, in my own WP:BEFORE, I have found and added a number of reliable/independent sources which support the text and would appear to support a claim to notability (of what appears to be a relatively large school). Otherwise there is no indication whatsoever that the nominator undertook any kind of BEFORE themselves and have stated that they are "not good at finding sources".) Guliolopez (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Guliolopez. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing is sufficient to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Amy Walter. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter

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

The Cook report gets, at most, a brief mention in a few sources. I could not find sources about the Report itself that confirm that it is, by itself, notable. What non-primary sources appear in the article are used for original research that compares the Report's predictions with elections outcomes, and are thus not suitable for independent notability. Cortador (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i am also not finding much independent reporting on the report itself, but i find quite a bit of the report disseminated in all kinds of primary and social channels. that alone of course does not mean the content is sufficiently notable.

Iljhgtn (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen some mentioning. As of now, the article has a single independent source mentioning the Cook Report - a throwaway reference in a Politico article. I also noticed that this article has had tags for years, until someone removed them in 2022, stating that there were enough in-line citations, apparently ignoring that they were exclusively primary sources. Cortador (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Websites, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amy Walter, my own (albeit precusory) searches failed to turn up sourcing to satisfy the GNG, article itself is full of original research and self-citations. Not implausible search term. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can support this. Cortador (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: as suggested by Goldsztajn, as people could stills search for the Report.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador (talk • contribs) 12:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amy Walter, per Goldsztajn. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like redirects like this as you could also make a good case for redirecting to Charlie Cook. Agree this doesn't seem to meet our current notability guidelines, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the point as Cook is the founder, though Walter's name is directly incorporated into the name of the Report right now. What would be your suggestion? Cortador (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion here. There's also the Cook Partisan Voting Index, which has gotten more significant attention (and is used pretty widely by forecasters). Elli (talk | contribs) 18:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like that article has the same issue: a few sources using the Index, yet none talking about it. Cortador (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the biggest problem here isn’t that the Cook Political Report isn’t a notable organization — they’re routinely cited in coverage of U.S. elections,^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] with articles sometimes revolving entirely around their analysis and rating changes — and more that this page is just poorly constructed. I agree it relies too heavily on its own site for sources and that the cycle-by-cycle analysis is excessive. I will work on restructuring the page to rely more heavily on outside sources^[5] while this debate continues. But in my view, getting rid of this page would be a mistake given their presence in the world of political analysis.

References

^ Stevens, Matt (October 13, 2020). "Cook Report calls Democrats the 'clear favorite' to take Senate control, as races tilt leftward". The New York Times.
^ Greenwood, Max (December 30, 2021). "Cook Report projects GOP as clear favorite to win House majority". The Hill.
^ Todd, Chuck; Murray, Mark; Dann, Carrie (October 11, 2018). "The GOP has big top-of-ticket problems in key House battlegrounds". NBC News.
^ Kane, Paul (April 8, 2023). "New report outlines the deep political polarization's slow and steady march". The Washington Post.
^ Simon, Scott (August 7, 2021). "Charlie Cook Passes The Baton On 'The Cook Political Report'". Weekend Edition Saturday. NPR.

--Skm989898 (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can't conflate Z quoting X saying something about Y as conferring notability on X. We need SIGCOV about X in and of itself. In this case we need analyis that discusses the impact of the Cook Political Report, or its methods or its reliablility or its influence. But a long list of sources where other people quote its reports only tells us about the subject of the reports, it is synthesis to draw conclusions about its notability from that alone. Of the sources above, only the last one is indirectly about the Report (and at best only constitutes a passing mention), it's really more about Charlie Cook themself. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's where I'm at. Almost no sources are about the Cook Report, they are just using data from it. The articles are always about election X and poll Y. Even if this article was not deleted, once everything that relies on passing mentions or primary sources gets removed, we will be left with half the lead and nothing else. I think redirecting as suggested above is the right move, and possibly including whatever is actually noteworthy about the Report in Charlie Cook's or Amy Walter's articles. Cortador (talk) 12:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can't conflate Z quoting X saying something about Y as conferring notability on X. We need SIGCOV about X in and of itself. While it is true that per the GNG you do need SIGCOV, it's not unreasonable to argue that we should consider how broadly something is cited when determining its notability, especially in what would otherwise be an edge case. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree and that's why I'm in favour of a redirect here, rather than delete. Yes, it would appear the reports are widely cited, but that's *our impression*, not something we're yet to see supported by reliable sourcing. In the absence of that sourcing, we're engaged in SYNTHESIS for the purposes of keep. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Determining that something is widely-cited based on there being a lot of citations to it is not SYNTH. Including it in the article arguably would be, but just for helping with determining notability, it isn't. And again, being widely-cited isn't explicitly part of the notability guidelines, but clearly with everything else being equal, something widely-cited would have more of a claim to notability than something that isn't, if the sources discussing the subject are right on the line. I don't think that's the case here, though, so I also favor a redirect (though as mentioned above, I don't particularly like redirects like this, as there isn't a great target). Elli (talk | contribs) 15:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're disagreeing ... :) ... nevertheless, if you'll pardon the pun, there's a lot of devilish detail to "a lot". Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Columbia Records#The 1990s–present. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will Botwin

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

This page has been marked for notability since September 2010, and seems to fail general and biographical requirements. It may be preferable to Merge this page somewhere within Columbia Records, but I'm of the opinion that it be Deleted. AlexTheAwkward (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting list for Businesspeople. AlexTheAwkward (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage is all about him talking about the musical people he represents, nothing specifically about him. [10] one paragraph blurb where he answers questions, then [11] is typical. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, i like your suggestion of merging the content, not all of it, but just a brief small couple of lines that takes all of the content and retains the most important bits within the actually notable aricle, Columbia Records.Iljhgtn (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's possible to merge a sentence or two to Columbia Records § The 1990s–present —siro χ o 17:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was the subject part of the awards here or am I missing something? Anyway, leaning towards delete as there is nor SiGCOV in RS and fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and ultimately WP:ANYBIO. dxneo (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 megalithic monuments in Ireland. ✗plicit 14:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of megalithic monuments in Cork

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

This is an unreferenced list. There is a separate List of megalithic monuments in Ireland, which probably needs more maintenance, but is a good starting page. This one for Cork then seems redundant. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology and Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, take the content and cross reference with the List of megalithic monuments in Ireland page. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Nine cork county places are in the other list, this list has 10, so one needs to be added. Don't need references for a list article when the information is clearly listed in the article linked to. Dream Focus 21:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (any missing entries) and redirect to List of megalithic monuments in Ireland. As per nom, the topic does not have sufficiently independent notable for a standalone article - nor is the project improved by having two/separate entries covering (effectively) the same thing. Suggest merge/redirect as an WP:ATD. Guliolopez (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (additional items) as above, and redirect - no purpose to a distinct list. SeoR (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Only the nominator advocated to delete the article and participants reached different conclusions on the sourcing. Suggestions to merge the article into Constitution of North Korea can occur on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal leaders of North Korea

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Eternal leaders of North Korea

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

This is the first time I've ever done this, so please forgive me if I mess up. Most of this article is sourced from Wikisource, which is not a source. The only other mention was a very trivial mention of the subject in the middle of a sentence[12]:

The new constitution was adopted by the first session of the tenth Supreme People's Assembly (SPA) on September 5, 1998. Unlike the 1972 socialist constitution, the newer version has a preamble that codifies the signature identity of the DPRK as a theocratic Kim II-sung state: Kim II-sung, "the founder of the DPRK and the socialist Korea:' is "the sun of the nation" and "the eternal President of the Republic:' The DPRK Socialist Constitution is the Kim Il-sung constitution." Although nominally proposed by Kim Yong Nam (president of the Presidium of the SPA), the reelection of Kim Jong-il as chairman of the National Defense Commission (NDC) was legitimized by the father, as the son's "election" was "initiated and recommended by the great Kim II-sung, the eternal leader of the Korean people in his lifetime." The first session of the tenth SPA was said to be "an epochal occasion in firmly defending and exalting the nature of our republic as the state of President Kim II-sung.""

WP:SIGCOV requires significant, secondary coverage, for which this topic has none. If I made a mistake, or I'm in error, I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination. Please forgive the newbie. Thanks.Stix1776 (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and North Korea. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If you have the patience to load .kp sources, you'll find boat loads of propaganda about this. Outside of that, [13] and [14]. Oaktree b (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe documents stored on WikiSource that are copies of sources published elsewhere are fine. Here its citing constitutions which are primary sources and has issues there, but I don't think being on WikiSource makes the constitutions unreliable sources.

TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is with North Korea, there usually isn't anything outside of primary sourcing, it's all government controlled media in the country. Some historic documents or the rare time foreigners are allowed in to report on things, both being the exception (The Voice of America was allowed in to witness a rocket launch probably in the last decade if memory serves, but that's not the norm). I'll see what else I can find, but most North Korean articles are usually permastubs, just given how hard sourcing is. Oaktree b (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b Have you honesty read those sources you're citing? Both of them list the phrase "eternal leaders" exactly once, uncapitalized, as an object in a sentence. How is this not trivial? There's heaps of secondary sources about North Korea. Is there a Wikipolicy that North Korea is an exception for notability and doesn't require secondary coverage?Stix1776 (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the current sourcing could maybe be improved but I think it's still a noteworthy topic. I can try to dig up more sources that prove this upon request toobigtokale (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToobigtokalePlease do. I looked and I'm unable to find it. Thanks.Stix1776 (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Various South Korean sources:

[15][16][17] These articles from major SK news sources discuss the 2016 constitutional revision in the context of legitimizing the NK regime's succession
Hankyung from 2004, about Kim Jong Il
Tongil News from 2001

I think maybe one could argue that the topic could be merged to another page, but I'm fairly confident there's adequate sourcing on the topic to not have it be deleted. toobigtokale (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while there's certainly reliable source coverage of the creation and use of the title,^[1]^[2]^[3] which essentially boils down the adoption of hereditary power in DPRK, there doesn't appear to be anything that cannot be covered in Constitution of North Korea.

References

^ Kristof, Nicholas D. (7 September 1998). "Death Doesn't End Rule of Kim Il Sung, 'Eternal President'". New York Times. North Korea announced today that it had revised its Constitution to make its late Great Leader, Kim Il Sung, the country's eternal President.
^ "Leadership Transition in North Korea". Council on Foreign Relations. 13 January 2012.
^ Goedde, Patricia (2020). "Beyond Sham: The North Korean Constitution". Asian Perspective. 44 (1): 1–29. doi:10.1353/apr.2020.0002.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first two articles don't even mention "eternal leader", and the last one just mentions it twice as predicate to a sentence, in different paragraphs. Not exactly notable.Stix1776 (talk) Stix1776 (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: That's an article created long ago and it's not of an unimportant topic - the notorious, world-known and unique North Korean personality cult and the Juche secular religion. Not to mention that by constitution, as part of this cult, North Korea is currently the only necrocracy in the world, thus the "Eternal President", "Eternal Leaders" thing. Also, there are way more unimportant topics that have their articles, like Generalissimus of the Soviet Union, for example, a pseudo-military rank created specifically for Stalin in 1945. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Zindler

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and biography-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. UtherSRG (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline case. Bit of secondary coverage (along with an interview) here: [18] —siro χ o 17:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is a fair amount of online coverage for this person, but no in depth coverage in reliable independent sources that I could find. Mccapra (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Mccapra, no independent coverage found in notable news so Delete as per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.190.110.20 (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. ✗plicit 14:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Zoeller

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and journalist-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, United States of America, Iowa, and Missouri. UtherSRG (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. ✗plicit 14:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barron Winchester

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

Credits are too meager to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Missouri. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tarmon

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

An electoral division in Ireland is used only for the purposes of census calculation, and thereafter as a component of local electoral areas or Dáil constituencies. Per WP:GEOLAND, "Census tracts ... are not presumed to be notable". I can't see any other distinguishing features for this area. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - definitely not notable. Spleodrach (talk)
Delete per nom, and own review - census and electoral component, neither qualifying under any policy. SeoR (talk) 00:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GEOLAND; this is just a census tract with no good coverage about it to establish notability. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 15:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 and move to Amingaon railway station. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Gaon railway station

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

Fails WP:NTRAINSTATION and WP:GNG. Nagol0929 (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Nagol0929 (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Assam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with the article about the line it's on. Straight deletion of items of notable sets (railway stations in India) without a at least redirect to content in a broader article or list is harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should !vote redirect instead of merge because there is really nothing to merge. Nagol0929 (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's verification concerns. Amingaon is the settlement's name and the name of a former railway station in operation from 1907 to 1963. Amin Gaon is the title of the article, there's no passenger station but a railway line terminates at a container site, which some 'sources' (not necessarily reliable) suggest was a railway station. Perhaps was in 2017 when this article was written, but need confirmation. Rupples (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Amingaon railway station I think Rupples is correct the actual name of this station is without the space, searching for sources without the space gave some sources:

Sharma, Sukanya (2016-06-19). "Re-living an â€œAbandonedâ€ Space". Space and Culture, India. 4 (1): 1–5. doi:10.20896/saci.v4i1.193. ISSN 2052-8396.
Bureau, The Meghalayan (2022-08-17). "NF Railway to preserve Amingaon Railway Station as heritage site". The Meghalayan. Retrieved 2023-11-17.

Jumpytoo Talk 19:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move per Jumpytoo, the above sources make a good case for notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chandrani Das

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

Fails WP:NACTOR Katy Williamson (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. Katy Williamson (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom that this does not meet WP:NACTOR. Kazamzam (talk) 11:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. Somebody that appears in a few non-significant films is not an actor. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Puff piece. scope_creep^Talk 17:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. WP:SNOW keep. Concerns about the article title and content can be dealt with over at the article's talk page. No point in keeping this open any longer. (non-admin closure) ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use of human shields by Hamas

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

This page is a clear WP:POVFORK that has been created from exactly one side of a two-sided and balanced section at the parent page Human shield, which covers the full breadth of human shield usage in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. This page, by selectively duplicating one-side of this – rather than splitting out both sides of the content together into a page titled, say, Use of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – makes the resulting item no longer two-sided and balanced, but POV by design. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, Israel, and Palestine. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I strongly oppose this proposal. This piece is factual, well sourced and balanced. Dovidroth (talk) 09:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the extensive content that is present in Human shield, I'm sympathetic to the argument that the content can be instead presented at Use of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. After all, the same group of people (Palestinians) are being used as human shields in the same conflict. If not, perhaps there should be another article Use of human shields by Israel, wonder if editors will have the same opinion then. starship .paint (RUN) 10:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Use of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is much to talk about and notable enough. Yet, considering the presence of other militant groups apart from Hamas that also participate(d) in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I would propose renaming it to the aforementioned title. 𝕎.𝔾.𝕁. ^{(chat | contribs)} 10:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the following reasons:
- Topic clearly meets WP:GNG due to wide and persistent coverage by WP:RS.
- This is a WP:SPINOFF of Human shield and not a WP:POVFORK . I advise participants to read that policy carefully and see that it is not applicable. This page cannot be a WP:POVFORK since by definition, a POV fork requires the existence of another article on exactly the same topic, however, there is no such article. Article splits are permissible when written from a neutral point of view.
- This is no different than hundreds other pages such as, for example, Palestinian political violence which scope does not cover also Israeli political violence. Marokwitz (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Recently, a new tree-based reorganization of all articles in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict space has been proposed by User:Levivich here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide against Palestinians, this is an idea worth considering. Marokwitz (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - The article meets WP:GNG and is well sourced. The subject has significant in-depth coverage on the use of human shields in this war in particular, though I do think there should be more weight to criticisms of the accusations, the accusations are attributed. As mentioned by Marokwitz, the article can't be a WP:POVFORK due to there only being a section in another article on the topic, not a stand-alone article. I agree that the article should be renamed to Use of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or Accusations of use of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict commemorative (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep Topic appears to meet required need to create its own article, since this topic has been the extensive topic of international contentions regarding Hamas as well as a central tenant in the criticism toward Hamas. Furthermore, it appears that there is a lot of extensive research and media reports on the subject. Therefore there should be an independent article on the subject. meets WP:GNG, use of reliable sources vital and important.

Also per @Marokwitz This page cannot be a WP:POVFORK since by definition Homerethegreat (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Homerethegreat: - I am puzzled, you very recently [19] proposed moving Palestinian genocide accusation → Genocide allegations in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, as in your words, both Israeli and Palestinian sources frequently accuse each other of genocide or genocidal intention ... to gain objectivity ... Neutrality (NPOV) will be better served by such an article. Here, we have accusations of human shield usage from both Israeli and Palestinian sources (see content at Human shield#Israeli–Palestinian conflict), so by your logic, to gain objectivity, shouldn't neutrality be better served by an article like Use of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? starship .paint (RUN) 15:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question to you: In your opinion, should we rename Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany to Comparisons to Nazism in the Israeli Palestinian conflict and Israeli settler violence to Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? This is in line with the suggestion that I mentioned above, by @Levivich . If the consensus here is to consistently apply the same idea across all articles in the I/P conflict space then it would be something I'd support. Marokwitz (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marokwitz: - first it would depend on how much material there is, if there is significant material on comparisons between Palestinians and Nazis, I could consider the proposal, but I also would like to know how the combined article would be structured. Secondly, for the settler violence article, I would say no because I think the scope of Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be far too broad, which would include all war actions. A proposed combined article regarding comparison to Nazis would not be too broad. starship .paint (RUN) 00:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Marokwitz. Impeccably and widely sourced. \\ Loksmythe // (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Use of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ~~The only purpose of this page is to justify the ongoing genocide, by implying that the victims were "human shields" and therefore legitimate targets.~~ —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 17:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Calling "genocide" on a war against a de facto state which has the explicit public goal of genocide and which just actually invaded Israel and murdered over a thousand people with the explicit public motive of genocide, is inflammatory. And it's unwarranted to claim that accusing Gaza of using human shields somehow means human shields become targets. JM (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Trilletrollet I saw you delete your reply under this reply in which you off-topic asked me "Do you agree that Palestinian lives matter?" and then in this diff write in the change summary "apparently not" when I didn't answer in time. This looks like a failure to WP:AGF and be WP:CIVIL. Not appreciated in such a contentious topic or a deletion discussion. This deletion discussion probably falls under ARBPIA. JM (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it was a bit incivil. But unfortunately there's no way to modify edit summaries. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 00:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above !vote in this AFD discussion appears to contravene Wikipedia's core guidelines on assuming good faith. In line with Wikipedia's deletion policies, !votes in deletion discussions should be based on policy and content considerations, not on perceptions of a contributor's motives. Therefore, it is recommended that this particular !vote be set aside in evaluating the consensus. Marokwitz (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~This page was created just as the IDF was starting to invade al-Shifa Hospital. It's a bit sus. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 19:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]
Your WP:ASPERSIONS are noted. \\ Loksmythe // (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I struck it, it didn't contribute much to the conversation anyway. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 19:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

agreed JM (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, per Markowitz and numerous sources. François Robere (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while noting that consideration should be given to the creation of an equivalent Use of human shields by Israel by engaging in the same copy paste routine that was used to create this article. Accusations/allegations is appropriate per WP:NDESC. Selfstudier (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; well-sourced and balanced article about a notable subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; a WP:SPINOFF and not a WP:POVFORK. The community decided to keep the Nakba denial article after it was challenged as a POV fork because it was a Wikivoice criticism of a criticism of a narrative (WP:CRIT and WP:POVFORK), so an article which covers one of various war crimes by one de facto state per WP:SPINOFF is definitely fine, its not like it would be the only example. Also note that the deletion proposer here is the same one who created/significantly expanded the Nakba denial article in question, and defended it constantly in its deletion nomination; not a personal attack, just making the point that the user should be aware that if the same standards apply then this article must be kept. JM (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Use of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this currently comes across as a WP:POVFORK. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [ User ] [ Talk ] [ Contributions ] 18:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)non-ed editor[reply]

Keep Useful article and meets all of the criteria for existence as a separate article. Addressing the reason given for the AFD, this is not a POVfork from the noted very general article. It is a more specific article on a vvery wp:notable topic. North8000 (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per North8000. Balanced, sourced, factual article about a notable subject. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it balanced when it ignores Israel's history of using human shields?VR _talk 21:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  This article is about Hamas' use of human shields. If you think Israel uses human shields, you can find reliable sources and make an article, it will survive if the community thinks it meets standards. But this article is about Hamas. If you want an example, an article on the use of torture by terrorist organizations in the War on Terror would not be a POVFORK for not covering the use of torture by America, because the topic is not the use of torture by America. I also like Marokwitz's examples: we have Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany instead of Comparisons to Nazism in the Israeli Palestinian conflict and Israeli settler violence instead of Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. JM (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @JM2023: - Are you sure about the second point, Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict redirects to Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is much broader than Israeli settler violence? starship .paint (RUN) 00:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I am aware of the redirect but I don't think it's sensical for it to go to the timeline of the entire conflict from 1948 onward, I mean that's not just an article about conflicts involving settlers as main parties (settlers being defined in the article as Israelis who moved to the West Bank or descend from those who did so since 1967). To me the relation between Israeli settler violence and timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is most similar to the relation to use of human shields by Hamas and Israel-Hamas war i.e., the latter articles in both instances are way too broad to be considered a treatment of both sides of a single aspect of a conflict. JM (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @JM2023: - perhaps, to word my point differently, Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which would also cover every military conflict between Israel and Palestinians, would overwhelm the much smaller scope of Israeli settler violence, which focuses on violence by Israeli civilians. An alternative would be Israeli settlers and violence where it can be discussed what violence has also been perpetuated against the settlers, if there is enough content. starship .paint (RUN) 03:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I took Marokwitz's example directly, I should have used the example Violence involving Israeli settlers or something. If I revised my comparison it would be Israeli settler violence versus Violence involving Israeli settlers as it's more accurate. JM (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  That sounds much more reasonable! starship .paint (RUN) 07:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The proposed article Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict could be considered a child-article of the broader Israeli-Palestinian Conflict topic. It has the potential to serve as a parent article for multiple related articles, for example, divided by time periods or other aspects of the conflict. Therefore, it is not necessarily too broad in scope. Marokwitz (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is definitely a POVFORK that ignored the consensus established at Talk:Human_shield#Fork_out_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict, for an article on Use of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It should be rescoped to cover human shields in the whole I-P conflict by all actors.VR _talk 21:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. Not a POVFORK, just a split, which is exactly what WP:SPLIT is for and WP:SUMMARY STYLE is about. Extensive coverage of the current conflict is WP:UNDUE in the main article. WP:NPOV does not preclude this article scope. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close this is a content/naming dispute, not a notability question. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree with that. starship .paint (RUN) 00:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of high-quality sources cited in the article, and enough in-depth coverage to warrant a separate article. Perhaps rename to Use of human shields by Palestinian militant groups. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a notable topic, although based on media coverage. Renaming can be discussed on article's talk page. I hear POV concerns, yes, but does the other side (Isreal) use human shields? (If you think they do, ping me here with a reply or on article's talk page - I'd like to learn more about it). But if the answer is no, or there is no reply to my message, consider my comment also an oppose to a rename. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: See the first link in the opening statement, which goes to the section from which this was copied at human shields - yes, there has been extensive Israeli use of human shields over the years, including in the more explicit, gun-to-the-head manner, not just the close-to-civilians manner. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: - there are over 1,500 words of content at Human_shield#Use_by_Israel. starship .paint (RUN) 03:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks folks. Consider my opposition to rename withdrawn. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. As others mentioned, this is strongly referenced with high quality sources, additionally, as others mentioned this is a WP:SPINOFF and not a WP:POVFORK. Ill also say, given recent news around the event and the delete proposer's actions with the Nakba denial article changes and proposals, this for me follows under an invalid reason to delete specifically WP:DLS Lhendre (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)non-ec editor[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources that talk about Hamas's use of human shields without mentioning Israel's use of them -- they are not always dealt with as a pair. See, e.g.,WaPo; NATO (2008 - 2014); CNN; NYT; Vox; Channel 4. The outcome of this AfD is not determinative of whether an article on Israel's use of human shields is created or kept. --Orgullomoore (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is absurd. A very prominently-covered phenomenon, which has sparked debate and implied conclusions that have themselves received a lot of coverage. Obviously keep. Zanahary (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Factual article about a very important facet if the conflict. Well sourced with high quality sources. GidiD (talk) 07:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can the use of human shields really be compared between Hamas and Israel? Can IDF soldiers who have used in the past what is called the "neighbor procedure" for security operations be compared to Hamas' use of schools, mosques, children's bedrooms and hospitals as hiding places for the organization's leadership? Eladkarmel (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly notable topic. BilledMammal (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:GNG. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Use of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The nom is correct that this is at best an evident POV fork. The WP:SPINOFF argument is not persuasive; if the content was simply spun off from the human shields page, it would encompass allegations against both sides. By selectively emphasizing one side, it is definitionally a POV fork. WillowCity^(talk) 00:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this is evident. I spun American logistics in the Normandy campaign off from Normandy campaign. There was no evident need for it to cover German logistics. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really analogous, though. Operation Overlord was a legitimate (and heroic) military campaign, not a war crime. Keeping with World War II history, a better analogy would be if you had spun off the "Arguments against justification" section of the Bombing of Dresden in World War II article, without preserving any other content or context from the parent article, thereby creating the impression that the carpet-bombing is universally considered unjustifiable and criminal. And even that's not a perfect analogy. WillowCity^(talk) 02:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article passes the WP:GNG with the greatest of ease and the article is a well-developed WP:SPINOFF of its parent, Hamas. The use of human shields represents Hamas warfare. It is exceptional for the IDF to use a human shield, so a big NO also to the rename suggested above. WP:SNOW does apply. gidonb (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Consensus seems that the award is significant enough to justify meeting WP:NBOOK. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 12:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My Friend Rabbit

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

fails general notability guideline. tagged unsourced since july. ltbdl (talk) 08:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. ltbdl (talk) 08:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Caldecott Medal makes it meet WP:NBOOK. One wonders if any WP:BEFORE was attempted.LadyofShalott 13:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the article lead, "The illustrations in the book earned Rohmann the Caldecott Medal in 2003." Therefore it passes WP:NBOOK point 2 (winning a major literary award). CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The award makes it notable (but it's not one I'm familiar with, so I could understand perhaps why the nom was made.). This in Common Sense Media [20] also helps notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Won a major children's literature award and had a TV series inspired by it. A miserable WP:BEFORE failure. Nate • (chatter) 23:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm going to assume that ltbdl is unfamiliar with the Caldecott Medal. Essentially this is the children's literature equivalent of winning the Academy Award for Best Film. It's THE award as far as American children's literature goes. It's granted by the American Library Association, which is one of the biggest authorities on library science in the United States. They also of course cover literature and are influential in that sphere as well. There's really not a bigger or more influential award that a kid's book could really win as far as US specific awards go. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If it won a major award and has a televison show based off of it, it's most likely notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOmniDex (talk • contribs) 02:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by CITV

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

Massive list of unoriginal programming. Clearly violates WP:NOTTVGUIDE, the few original shows are already discussed at CITV#Programming, so there is nothing to merge. No objection to a redirect to parent. // Timothy :: talk 07:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know this is probably going to be kept because of ITSNOTABLE editors will go on and on about why this should be kept and overwhelm policy arguments, but this is a lousy list, badly formatted (with odd detours about other unrelated things), its sourcing is terrible, to a bare-bones listing site that only sources things fourteen days out (thus it does not have the sources now), along with a competitor to ITV. It also contains films, which are never a part of any list of network article because anyone can buy any movie to air at any time. It's also a regular protection target because of IP vandalism; this list is better served by the category system. Nate • (chatter) 23:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT – There's a reasonable chance to build a proper list for this topic. However, in its current state, it's too difficult to sort original or first-run programming (worthy of inclusion) from acquired programming/reruns (not worthy of inclusion). RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 EMD SD45T-2. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EMD SD45T-2R

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

This appears to be have been WP:REFBOMBed to make it appear more notable than it is. Review of the one source that is publicly accessible reveals that EMD SD45T-2R is not mentioned at all. Online searches for EMD SD45T-2R yield insufficient information to demonstrate notability, and mostly brings up results for EMD SD45T-2. I can not see how this passes WP:GNG. TarnishedPath^talk 07:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Transportation. TarnishedPath^talk 07:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's another example of Rebuilt diesel locomotives besides its completely new y'know. 220.235.238.29 (talk) 07:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC) — 220.235.238.29 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There's proof here: EMD SD45T-2R: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Quote-on-quote @Ozzie10aaaa "Comment: Article has had additional source added since last review (copyvio is clean), and topic is notable,thank you Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)"[reply]

220.235.238.29 (talk) 08:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@220.235.238.29, that's not the proof you think it is. Please don't WP:GAME the system. TarnishedPath^talk 09:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am literally doing my best to try and spare this article and the GE U25BE article from deletion. 220.235.238.29 (talk) 09:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need tons of sourcing for locomotive articles, the typical Kalmbach books generally aren't enough. We need extensive coverage from a museum study of the class, or a feature-length article in Trains or Railfan and Railroad... Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to EMD SD45T-2 - clear redirect target as AtD. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Alexandermcnabb. Sources are the same across the two articles. Toadette ^{(let's chat together)} 08:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to EMD SD45T-2. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with EMD SD45T-2: Basically a rebuilt locomotive of that class, nothing notable by itself. Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with EMD SD45T-2. Unless there's been substantial coverage of rebuilt locomotives independent of their original type, rebuilds are best covered within the same article to avoid needless duplication. Consider the EMD GP15-1, where the substantially similar GP15T and GP15AC (the former a GP15-1 with a turbocharger, the latter a GP15-1 with an AR10 alternator) were both merged into the main GP15-1 article to better present all the information in one place. This merits a paragraph at most in EMD SD45T-2, not an entire article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. No evidence of individual notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Merge and redirect. I agree that there's some refbombing going on here. I own Wilson's 2017 book, and to the extent that he mentions the SD45T-2R rebuild it's on a roster note for the Cotton Belt (and not the Southern Pacific). No discussion of what the rebuild entailed. The article doesn't mention that either, which I consider a real red flag. Mackensen (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- David Lustig has as two page article in the December 2001 issue of Trains that discusses the SD40T-2 and SD45T-2, and he doesn't mention this rebuild.^[1] Mackensen (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I've put in an interlibrary loan request for the Diesel Era article, which may well be the only substantive treatment of the subject. IP, do you have that article and the two books by Shine, or did you just add them because they're listed at the bottom of http://espee.railfan.net/spsd45t-2r.html?
- I've consulted the Diesel Era article.^[2] There's about a page devoted to the rebuild program for the SD45T-2/SD45T-2R. The changes appear to have all been external and/or cosmetic; nothing like replacing the electronics or prime mover. Summarized, it's a paragraph at most. Mackensen (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Lustig, David (December 2001). "Phoenix-like tunnel motors just keep on working". Trains. Vol. 61, no. 12. pp. 26–27. ISSN 0041-0934.
^ Rutherford, Brian (May–June 1991). "Southern Pacific's EMD SD45T-2 Tunnel Motors". Diesel Era. Vol. 2, no. 3. pp. 8–23.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 GE U25B. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GE U25BE

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

This appears to have been WP:REFBOMBed to make it appear more notable than it is. By my analysis most of the citations are in regards to Southern Pacific 3100 specifically and not GE U25BE and even then 3100 is only touched on in passing. The citations that do cover GE U25BE specifically do so in passing as far as I can determine. I can not see how this passes WP:GNG. TarnishedPath^talk 07:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Transportation. TarnishedPath^talk 07:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's another example of Rebuilt diesel locomotives besides its completely new y'know. 220.235.238.29 (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC) — 220.235.238.29 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Redirect to GE U25B - clear redirect target as AtD. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to GE U25B.

I'm not against separate articles for rebuilt locos, British Railways class 31 for an example, where we ignore a decade of service by the predecessor class 30, but they'd have to show independent notability. Otherwise a section in the parent article is a better solution, and a clearer read for our readers. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to GE U25B. I fail to see how a rebuild that "updated electrical systems" on two locomotives somehow merits its own article. In general, rebuilds are not generally notable the way regular locomotive classes are. There needs to be clear and substantial coverage independent of the original locomotive class for that, and we completely lack that here in favor of every single hit this IP found on Google, with sources they obviously did not actually access. For instance, the seemingly significant "GE and EMD Locomotives: The Illustrated History" actually only mentions the U25BE in passing, saying nothing of significance. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've also nominated Southern Pacific 3100 at AfD.TarnishedPath^talk 01:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. No evidence of individual notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There were two made, and the rebuild was not very noteworthy. Merging it into the main article is the best option. BigSneeze444 (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. I've ignored the views of those who were clearly canvassed. What's left is a view split between those that think there are just enough sources to demonstrate that a full article can be written, and those that think the information in the sources is trivial and insufficient. I don't see that either argument has the upper hand, which leaves me to have to close the debate without a consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adrija Roy

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural for a new consensus on notability once a new article was allowed per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_October_24#Adrija_Roy. I am neutral in this filing but feel a consensus is needed here given the background. Star Mississippi 14:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Star Mississippi 14:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Courtesy pings to DRV participants @Robert McClenon @Thryduulf @Hut 8.5 @CaecilliusEstInHorto. Can't ping the IPs but will leave a note on the discussion on my Talk. Star Mississippi 14:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oops @Caeciliusinhorto Star Mississippi 03:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Weak delete. I'm kind of iffy here; 29 of the 33 references on this article come from the same newspaper. Darling (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it is majorly because Times Of India has the largest coverage in Indian television industry. I wouldn't say the other newspapers do not cover news on Indian television, they do, but it is comparatively less while compared with Times Of India.
- Comment - This is the reason why most of the sources in the WP:BLP of Indian television actors are from Times Of India. For example, lets take Debattama Saha who is also a Bengali. 7 out of 14 sources in Miss. Debattama Saha's BLP is from Times Of India.
117.202.229.102 (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete at this time, based on the observation of Darling that nearly all of the references come from the Times of India, which is an unreliable source, and on not having been able to verify that multiple roles satisfy acting notability. I may or may not review in more detail. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The actress had already attained WP:N back in 2020 when her WP:BLP was nominated for deletion the second time because at that time she had already played lead roles in Bedini Moluar Kotha (as main antagonist), Sanyashi Raja (as main protagonist), Thakumar Jhulli (as lead in four episodes) and in Mongolchandi (as main protagonist). And since 2020, she has only played main protagonist in Durga Durgeshwari, Mou Er Bari, Bikram Betal, Durga Aur Charu and at present in Imlie. Almost all of her roles in television till now were lead roles. Plus, she also played a prominent role in Parineeta. There are resources to support the same in the article.117.202.229.102 (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:The actress is a well known actress in the Bengali television industry and had played lead roles in notable shows like Sanyashi Raja, Mongolchandi, Durga Durgeshwari, Mou Er Bari, Bikram Betal, in the Bengali Television and also performed notable roles like Charu in the show, Durga aur Charu. She is currently playing the role of Imlie a popular Hindi daily soap. Smsslove (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : If required, we are ready to provide videos of the television series where she played the lead and prominent roles. The videos are from recognized sites such as Hotstar, Voot and Zee5. The videos prove that the Miss Adrija Roy has played protagonist roles in the shows. The only issue is the language because she has worked in Bengali and Hindi, if there are Indian editors they can give testimony by verifying them.117.202.229.102 (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NOTABILITY 202.41.10.106 (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adrija Roy is a well know actress in the Bengali shows and had played a notable role in the Hindi show, Durga aur Charu and is now playing the female lead in the show Imlie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smsslove (talk • contribs) 07:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NOTABILITY, But a lot and lot of improvement is needed in terms of the sources added and content (talk) 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note While I believed the IPs were acting in good faith in the DRV, there is some blatant canvassing and admitted meat puppetry going on here User talk:117.209.199.111. IP 117, it's disruptive, please stop. Star Mississippi 12:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Star Mississippi, I wasn't canvassing. I asked User:Smsslove to be more clear with her vote because I could see from her comment here that she was voting for Keep and did not know how to do it. I was only guiding her.
And if you see my message to the other editors, I have never asked them to vote for Keep, I only asked them to participate in this nomination because I believe that Indian editors have better knowledge about Adrija Roy.
When I saw the two votes here yesterday of RobertMcclenon and Darling, I could very clearly see that they have absolutely null knowledge on Adrija Roy which is why I wanted indian editors to participate.
However I wholeheartedly apologize if my actions seemed like canvassing and are disruptive. My intentions were purely not canvassing or disruptive editing.
I promise, I will not do this again. I'm sorry. If you feel that I should be penalized then please tell me what I should do.

117.249.163.170 (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin and @Star Mississippi: User:Smsslove doesn't know how to edit this page as she's quite new to Wikipedia and add her vote here, which is why she made several mistakes everytime she tried adding her vote. I was only trying to help and guide her and not canvass her. I have removed whatever mistakes I found of User:Smsslove. However, if there are more mistakes then I apologize for that and also apologize if any of my edits seemed disruptive.117.246.80.112 (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable person in Bengali television industry. Xegma(talk) 06:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - With two major television roles, passes acting notability, which is backed up by a plethora of unreliable sources. Two major roles is enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Per above and has had a couple of major roles. Seawolf35 (talk - email) 14:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cited almost entirely to the Times of India, which exchanges coverage for payment. The remaining sources are all passing mentions within routine announcements and contain zero biographical detail. Not convinced by the anonymous, blocked, and very new editors voting keep en-masse above Xegma. Inclusion on Wikipedia is determined by sourcing, not by counting roles, and certainly not by counting votes. —Cryptic 02:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is currently a mess, due to the clear canvassing. Actual analysis of available source material would be quite helpful; discussion of "well known" or roles played is, well, not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have to say quite a lot of me is unhappy with this vote, the whiff of UPE and a host of appalling, gushing Times of India society page pieces (likely paid) really do go against any desire to keep this thing, but the fact of the matter is that there IS other coverage out there (although Bollywood/Indian celebrity media is pretty rough stuff) and the subject does now have multiple significant roles. So a mild case of the shudders, but a keep vote nonetheless... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep plenty of coverage in Hindi sources as well as what's explained above, some is the typical celebrity gossit (celebrated her birthday in xyz country!). The TV roles help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- She is a popular person in Tollywood Industry. Nilpriyo (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 criterion G4. As with all of the other many recreations of this biography, this page is an exact duplicate with only superficial changes. The creator is also blocked as they're clearly abusing multiple accounts. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitrі Torner

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

One of my minor hobbies is trying to keep Dimitrі Torner off Wikipedia. I’ve previously done it here, here, here and here, so I’m glad for a chance at another round.

Anyway, at the risk of repeating myself, the President of the Moldovan Biathlon Federation just isn’t notable, per any biographical criterion, and no amount of routine coverage of his daily activities will change that. One does have to admire the desperate effort to keep creating articles about him, however. — Biruitorul ^Talk 06:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging various users with various levels of previous involvement: @Xx236:, @Dewritech:, @Johnj1995:, @FormalDude:, @Frank Anchor:, @4meter4:, @Sundostund:, @Thebiguglyalien:, @Oxi2514:, @Ivanvector: — Biruitorul ^Talk 09:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Moldova. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that this topic has been repeatedly deleted, as Dmitri Torner, Dmitry Torner, Draft:Dmitry Torner, and probably others. There is a spam blacklist entry, but the creator who is obviously somebody's sockpuppet (they made exactly 10 edits to their userpage before creating this page in one edit) deliberately misspelled the person's name to evade the filter. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this title uses a Cyrillic unicode character for the last "i" in the first name. It was also deleted recently at Dimitri Torner. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Le Manh

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

WP:NOTCV very much applies here. ROTM business executive, tagged for promotion but not so promotional as would warrant G11, nevertheless fails WP:GNG, WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Business, France, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can only find PR items; the Bloomberg link is in fact a republished PRNewsWire item (cleverly disguised in a RS), but not-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete: Several of the added links are secondary links. John Munroe 1950 (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)— John Munroe 1950 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete essentially a string of pr announcements about appointments and promotions strung together into an article. Notability not demonstrated. Mccapra (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out this should have been speedy G5 as it was created by a sock of Abbasshaikh124, who was blocked back in January... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I can find nothing better than what's cited already, just look-at-me interviews and passing mentions in coverage of the company. New secondary sources added by the obvious sockpuppet post above are more of this, along with one reference that doesn't even mention him. Wikishovel (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 00:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cigniti Technologies Limited

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

No notability and reliable sources: only poor, paid sourcing, Forbes contributors, local not independent "news" websites or some routine announcements. BoraVoro (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Telangana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing any depth of coverage out there, lots of company listing stuff. In any case, fails WP:NCORP and we have WP:NOTCRUNCHBASE, of which this article is pretty much an exemplar. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 00:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TB10Cs1H3 snoRNA

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

Does not meet WP:NBIOL and WP:GNG. No source besides one paper. Hongsy (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the point of an encyclopaedia is to summarise what multiple sources have said about something, providing the reader with an overview. If there's only one source, the reader might as well read it. As a general guideline, I'd say that if a biomolecule has never appeared in a review article (rather than a primary research article) it's unlikely to be appropriate for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Elemimele (talk) 11:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks @Elemimele - i have another nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TB8Cs3H1 snoRNA - please review. Hongsy (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD"d so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless secondary sources can be found. Owen× ☎ 14:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TB8Cs3H1 snoRNA

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

Does not meet WP:NBIOL and WP:GNG. No source besides one paper. Hongsy (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment on TB10Cs1H3 snoRNA where I also !voted delete; we are here to summarise multiple sources for the benefit of our readers. Where there is only one (primary) source, there's no point in trying to create an overview. A good indication of notability for a biomolecule is probably when it's appeared in review articles (or other general sources). Elemimele (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless a secondary source can be found. Owen× ☎ 14:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 ARIA Charts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ARIA Country Album Chart

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

Not sure if this article meets WP:GNG; the article contains mostly primary sources with no third-party sources to discuss its significance. I suggest merging this to the article ARIA Charts. Ippantekina (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Popular culture. Ippantekina (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Country music is just as popular in Australia as it is in the US; sources could be used for the longest-runners part, but you clearly can't dismiss this as a 'niche' chart in the discussion of music in Oz and its otherwise a finely-sourced article you'd expect about a domestic chart. Nate • (chatter) 21:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MrSchimpf: We don't even have an article for the all-genre album chart ARIA Albums Chart (which is a redirect to ARIA Charts) let alone a genre-specific chart.. I never argued that country music was not popular in Australia, my argument is that if the only references used are from ARIA itself and not other third-party sources, it is not notable. Ippantekina (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got a point, ARIA sources are considered primary, article needs sources independent from the subject. dxneo (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not just Aria write about this chart whichh is not surprising due to the popularity of the genre i have added a record to the page i want this page kept (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Ippantekina - the sourcing's pretty scanty. Not sure what's in there of significance to merge... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, complete lack of SIGCOV. All mentions are for an individual artists' performance on the chart. Mach61 (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shehzad Poonawala

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

Not an elected politician, nothing there except participating in news debates, some are interviews and rest are of some post he has been chosen for (in the party). -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 05:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Maharashtra. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 05:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While greeting elder brother, I want to tell you that Shahzad Poonawala is the official spokesperson of Bharatiya Janata Party. Information about him is available on the official website of the Bharatiya Janata Party as well as in many major news publications as source links, hence this page. should not be removed WaftCinematic (talk) 06:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete numerous AfD discussions have established that being a national spokesperson for a political party does not indicate an NPOL pass, and since their job is to speak for the party, multiple citations of them doing their job don’t establish notability either. Mccapra (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of signifcance. Certainly not a politician. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 08:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and not passes NPOL. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

S.N Reddy

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

Not Notable Producer or Businessman. -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, India, and Telangana. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 08:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. His career seems to be going well, but I can't see SIGCOV in reliable sources, just passing mentions in film announcements. Declined four times at draft, then copied to main space. Wikishovel (talk) 09:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per ANYBIO --BoraVoro (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 17:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Survivor: Tocantins. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

J. T. Thomas (Survivor contestant)

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

Should be redirected to either (preferably) Survivor: Tocantins or (alternatively) list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. To be known for how his gameplays led to his elimination in two subsequent seasons is potentially borderline violation of WP:BLP, IMO, especially without reliable third-party sources verifying his notability outside his Tocantins win. Even using the primary source CBS to verify his "notability" for making a "dumbest move" on Heroes vs. Villains is discouraged by WP:GNG.

In the article's current state, the whole biography consists of his Survivor gameplays. There might have been sources about his past romantic relationships, but such inclusion would go beyond limits of WP:BLPGOSSIP. George Ho (talk) 04:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and Alabama. George Ho (talk) 04:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list of contestants seems fine, not much coverage outside of Survivor and even with that's there, it's minimal coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Why not redirect to Survivor: Tocantins, the season that he won? --George Ho (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Night Owl: Nationbuilder's Manual

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

Fails GNG and WP:NBOOK. Most sources are puff pieces, the rest are passing mentions with little SIGCOV. Article created by COI user Amylamentillo, same name as the author of this book. SparklyNights (t) 02:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Products, Engineering, and Philippines. SparklyNights (t) 02:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PROMO, agree that most of the sourcing isn't helpful. I can't find critical reviews of the book. Oaktree b (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. HueMan1 (talk) 12:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:PROMO and MOS:FLOWERY. There is a lot of promotional language on the article. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 12:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:PROMO. SBKSPP (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Warlord (DC Comics). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skartaris

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

Fictional setting related to Warlord (DC Comics). Plot summary and few notes about media appearances. Fails WP:GNG and my BEFORE failed to find anything of use. Best WP:ATD I can think of would be to redirect this to the comic series it is the setting of. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the Publication History section to Warlord (DC Comics), which has some useful information. The rest is trivial, and the location itself does not appear to pass GNG. Rhino131 (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Warlord (DC Comics): Almost all of the sources in the article are various comics, and the brief mentions in marginally reliable sources are little better. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 02:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with the extradimensional realms section of List of DC Universe locations in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Warlord (DC Comics). Some light merging from the "Publication History" might be warranted, but that is about it. Rorshacma (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sofía Mendoza Valencia

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

Upon review, it seems that there isn't any RS for the age of Sofia, nor are there any reliable sources that mention her at all, even in context to refuting her suggested age. The only sources I can find are forums, the gerontology wiki, which notes her claim as unverified, and then a bunch of Facebook posts from her family. Although she may very well jave been 114 years old at the time of her death, there is no documentation to suggest such, and even doing sleuthing myself in the 1930 Mexican census of Michoacan fails to find any reference of Sofia in the Michoacan state. EytanMelech (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources found, in regular Gsearch and Gnews, and using .mx sites. Oaktree b (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and Oaktree b, found nothing about her online in RS including Gbooks, though nominator's search of the 1930 Mexican census of Michoacan is impressive. If reliable sources could be found, her name could be added to Oldest people or List of the verified oldest people. Note that not all entries in those lists have separate articles, and some are redirects to a list. Wikishovel (talk) 07:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Togo–United States relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Lomé

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

Most of the article is about Togo–United States relations and not about the embassy. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the sizes of the articles, I think a Merge to Togo–United States relations probably suffices by WP:NOPAGE. —siro χ o 02:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian mourning dolls

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

This article should seriously be considered for deletion.

It is poorly referenced and needs more and diverse original sources not just one. It also needs more actual sources around 19th century mourning customs and more geographic specificality as there are some cultures where actual documented customs have some relationship to these [essentially fictitious and modern] descriptions of these practices

The source does not appear to be a reliable, refereed encyclopedia rather some random internet collection of opinion. When the original source is checked there is no clear indication of who published the source or who wrote or organised the compilation of the published edited material and what their personal or institutional expertse is the link leads to a page called faqs.org which seems to plaigarise material from another publication

the second reference to wax dolls is a blog page that now is a dead link

it also should belong more to a fan-dom wiki or a goth or horror wiki rather than an encyclopedic, neutral POV.

Much of this is more recent cultural fantasy, urban myths or modern fake news than Victorian practice. We need input from historians rather than horror fans Bebe Jumeau (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bebe Jumeau, I'm not sure why you tagged this article for AFD and PROD at the same time even though you PROD'd the article several years ago. What did you find in your WP:BEFORE? What is your assessment of the current sources? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
part of the issue is that I got pages detailing the processes mixed up

I doubt when I tagged it for deletion some years ago that I actually followed up and did the right things to ensure that other eyes saw the tag. So I would be grateful for any experienced wikpedians to ensure that the protocols are followed and there is adequate discussion

The lack of reliable and professional documentation has been consistent since 2014, and it should have been deleted when I first nominated it. It does no credit to wikipedia and does not offer any reliable information that would assist someone investigating attitude to death and children Bebe Jumeau (talk) 06:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: [21] Archived version of the dead link, but good luck reading it due to the background. Curbon7 (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sourced from dollsbydiane.com, which doesn't strike me as a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
agree this blog - now dead - or at least archived is not a RS so anither clear reason for deletion of this very sloppy and substanard article Bebe Jumeau (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Surprisingly little information on this, beyond some mentions of the term [22] and [23]. And why is the article about Victorian times then talks about Puritan times, you're a few hundred years apart there... I wonder if there is a different name for these dolls? They seem to have been a thing, but nothing is written about them... Oaktree b (talk) 02:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is hard for me to believe as they have been mentioned in just about every American history text used in my graduate seminars years ago. They were a big thing. I'll see if I have any of them around. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is that these dolls were not "a thing", except in the minds of 21st century north americans. like post mortem photography there are a lot of modern adhesions to popular culture around funerals. certainly people used effigies in early modern times to commemorate especially notable deceased persons, which were fully dressed lifelike figures, many of the wax child dolls in glass cases were votive figures or catholic religious figures, which have sometimes been repurposed as dolls. The image on the page would appear to be an infant Jesus. Also toys, dolls, clothing and other relics of deceased children were often kept under glass domes or in glass cases, but not in the way that this article claims Bebe Jumeau (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seems to be this 19 century book which has a section on death dolls starting on the page numbered 27 - if the link doesn’t work, try searching for ‘death’ I don’t think it has been mentioned above, if it has I apologise. JMWt (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That book is pioneering psychologist and [racist] eugenicist G Stanley Hall's sociological study from 1897 of how children play with dolls and how their attitude towards dolls and plahy indicates elements of their development and psychological status. he is talking here about how children often play at mock funerals with generic dolls that they own in their imaginative play and how children rpoject human mortality and sentience onto inanimate dolls. This is nothing about the family commissioning a doll to be displayed. at te funeral and later either put on the grave or kept at home for display. He does not propose that there is a specific type of funeral or mourning doll Bebe Jumeau (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don’t see justification for the claims on the page, the majority appear to be unverified WP:V. I think there could be justification for a page about death dolls, but I agree with Bebe Jumeau that the particular focus of the page is hard to justify. JMWt (talk) 11:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Editors can discuss a possible article page move and creating other redirects on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uda Makuruppe

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No reliable source. Hongsy (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Sri Lanka. Hongsy (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Described along with Palle Makuruppe as a village in A gazetteer of the Central Province of Ceylon. Combined population given as over 200 in 1871, 1881 and 1891.[24]. Rupples (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfied this was recognised in the 19th century censuses as a populated place. Can be retained under WP:GEOLAND as notability is not temporary WP:NTEMP. Mapping indicates residences thereabouts per OpenStreetMap and aerial views but boundaries of the settlement appear not to be strictly defined. Acknowledge there's little to say, but this shouldn't mean wiping communities off Wikipedia (if I'm allowed to put it in such terms). It may be preferable to place such settlements in list form within an an article covering the lowest administrative area with a redirect, but that's a separate decision and would probably require a policy change. Rupples (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Added some detail. Article could be retitled Makuruppe and Palle Makuruppe redirected here, given the gazetteer source has a combined entry and Makuruppe is the only name shown on OpenStreetMap.Rupples (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Makuruppe - satisfies WP:NGEO. Dan arndt (talk) 05:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So long as redirects are in place it benefits the encyclopedia by merging nearby settlements, when there seems not much chance of developing the individual articles beyond a short stub. So in this case having Makuruppe as the article title with redirects from both Uda Makuruppe and Palle Makuruppe seems the way to go. Rupples (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 05:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vimankallu

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No reliable source. Hongsy (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Sri Lanka. Hongsy (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Haven't found anything other than its listing in the GNS Ceylon list as a populated place.[25] — and two settlements with that name are listed. Unable to locate an online gazetteer for Northern Province. The co-ordinates I've added from the gazetteer point to the similarly named Veemankallu — the name of a lake but also a settlement and school. Because of uncertainty over the name I'm going to recommend delete. Rupples (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Naranpanawa. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naranpanawa Kandegammedda

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No reliable source. Hongsy (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Sri Lanka. Hongsy (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Naranpanawa. Naranpanawa Kandegammedda is in the 1901 census (population 109) and 1911 census (146).[26] It was one of six villages bracketed together with Naranpanawa in their names. Also listed under Naranpawa in A gazetteer of the Central Province of Ceylon [27]. Unable to locate Naranpanawa Kandegammedda on current maps. The GNS lists it as a separate place, but gives same co-ordinates as Naranpawa. Name may no longer be in use? Rupples (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT, concur with the points raised by Rupples. Dan arndt (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. ✗plicit 03:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jiwanawatta

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No reliable source. Hongsy (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Sri Lanka. Hongsy (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to locate on current maps or in latest census. Mentioned in snippets in one or two documents, but nothing really to write about. Rupples (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 00:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Venetian Village, Naples, Florida

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

not enough info to have a complete article; delete or redirect suggested Matthew is here zero (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Delete This seems like the AfD for Tin City recently. It's been in a purgatory state since its creation in 2007. I would say a redirect to Naples, Florida, but it looks like it was already shoehorned into the POI list. I think a delete is ok, as it's not noteworthy. This is a shopping plaza in the downtown area of Naples. Nothing unique to write home about from what I remember...do they still have a Ben and Jerry's there? lol – The Grid (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
both the tin city and the venetian village pages are in almost the same state none of them have enough info to make a complete article, unless you want to mention every restaurant and shopping there. also yes the ben and jerry's is still there Matthew is here zero (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

💬Comment- If the article is kept it should be moved to The Village Shops on Venetian Bay due to that being the official name. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the offical name of the place is irrelevant per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. However, since there seems to be no sources... I doubt that'll matter anyways.

Industrial Insect (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Village Shops on Venetian Bay is also the Common Name(More results appear when searching it) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is beyond the scope of this AfD. – The Grid (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infamous PR

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

No way near meeting WP:CORP SmartSE (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Advertising, Companies, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources are routine announcements or mentions. Nothing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Leaning delete,~~ but ProQuest is down so not confident. —siro χ o 04:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising this. I had thought there were enough sources to justify a stub being created, but I can appreciate there probably aren't. The article was flagged after I first published it because the tone wasn't correct- but the editor who flagged it then didn't have an issue with the sources, so I assumed they were good enough. Can we move it into draft space in case there are ever better sources in the future or does it need deleting? Editing84 (talk) 09:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per Editing84's request. —siro χ o 10:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks- have moved back to draftspace. Not sure if I should remove the deletion tag or not so have left it for now, apologies if that's messy. Editing84 (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editing84, do not move an article that is being discussed at an AFD, especially since you have commented here. There is no reason to close this AFD early and never by an editor that one could consider to be INVOLVED. Your page move has been reverted by another editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I realised that after it was reverted- apologies, I just read the comment by Siroxo as a directive without realising the discussion was ongoing. Obviously happy to wait it out for as long as needed. Thanks for the clarification. Editing84 (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure draftify is the best option here. It was already draftified once and creator moved it to back to mainspace five days later. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry- that was also due to my misunderstanding of the draftify/discussion process. I didn't hear back again from the editor who draftified it after they explained the amendments that needed to be made. No official discussion with other editors seemed to be taking place and they didn't respond either way after I said I had made the amendments and moved it back into mainspace. I assumed they would have said at that point if it needed to stay as a draft. I just wanted to clarify what happened and why. I would have happily left it in drafts for it to be added to over time had I realised- sorry again. Editing84 (talk) 10:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft is fine. Give the editor a chance to work on it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, this would be the second time sending back to draft. As company was founded in 2008 and isn't notable (imho) I am unsure of what else could be accomplished in draft space. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping it would go through the AfC process again before the draft is accepted, was my understanding of the process. Oaktree b (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify although based on my searching I can't see any potential sources that may be used to establish notability as per GNG/WP:NCORP (especially WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND for "Independent Content") but perhaps the author will have better luck so no harm giving them an opportunity to try. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: What a surprise - a PR company relies on pseudo PRs sources. Nowhere near good enough. MaskedSinger (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vampirates: Blood Captain

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK, and found no reviews by independent, reliable sources online. Previously WP:BLAR twice, but was reverted. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason above:

ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some meet NBOOK readily, eg: Tide of Terror[28][29][30][31], Blood Captain[32][33][34]. These seem likely to as well: Empire of the Night[35], Black Heart[36]. AfD isn't always a great place for deciding how ot handle coverage of closely related articles of varying notability so it might be best to bring this to Talk:Vampirates or Talk:Vampirates: Demons of the Ocean to discuss how to handle the series in full. —siro χ o 03:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, as per sources provided by Siroxo. Didn't think to check ProQuest when doing WP:BEFORE, will do so next time. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Belize–United States relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Belmopan

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

Some of the content (from sources 2-3) is about Belize–United States relations and not this embassy. Fails WP:ORG/. LibStar (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Belize, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Belize–United States relations, both articles are currently pretty short. —siro χ o 03:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Siroxolo. Yilloslime (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Sierra Leone–United States relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Freetown

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

Most of the content (from sources 2-4) is about Sierra Leone–United States relations and not this embassy. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but merge some content to Sierra Leone-United States relations Dazzling4 (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How does it meet a notability guideline for your keep !vote? LibStar (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sierra Leone–United States relations, WP:NOPAGE —siro χ o 03:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 00:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extra Ordinary Man

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

Was going to move this to DRAFT, because it fails WP:NFF, but there is already a DRAFT article. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Upcoming film and the articles does not show how the production itself it notable, failing WP:NFF. As a draft already exists, this article should be deleted and editing continued on the draft until it's accepted by a reviewer or the film is released. Ravensfire (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Poorly developed. So is the draft, and once it improves it can be moved to this space. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 largest exoplanets. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. In my reading of the discussion, it seems most participants would be happy with this result, even if it wasn't proposed explicitly. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of most massive exoplanets

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

It is difucult to distinguish a massive planet and a brown dwarf. However, it is estimated that the most massive exoplanets have a mass of around 13 Jupiter masses (but this is highly uncertain anyway). Despite this, the article has tens of objects with a mass higher than that. Many objects (such as GQ Lupi b/C) are often considered to be BDs but sometimes are considered to be planets as well but yet they are still here.Diamantinasaurus (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sounds like a WP:POVFORK, but it also might have enough notability to last. I don't know enough about the policies surrounding space in the science community. However, the nom makes it just sound like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conyo14 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. This meets NLIST with a google news search. I think we could require every entry to have an reliable source declaring it as an exoplanet. AFAICT, I think the 13 Jupiter cutoff isn't widely agreed upon, so we probably shouldn't strictly require it, though maybe there's a place for distinguishing various cutoffs in the list. —siro χ o 00:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm skeptical of the validity of this list. For example, HD 162020 b is now known to be a red dwarf. HIP 5158 c only has a minimum mass, but is listed as if the mass is well known. CT Cha b could be a brown dwarf or a planet; it's not clear. I think the list should only include objects that are conclusively known to be exoplanets with a well-bounded mass estimate. Praemonitus (talk) 04:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is effectively just a "list of objects between 10 and 30 Jupiter masses that orbit stars", and there isn't really a better way to make a "list of most massive exoplanets". Whether an object is considered a planet or a brown dwarf depends on either how it formed (while we can make some reasonable guesses, this isn't conclusively known) or a mass cutoff (the IAU uses 13 Jupiter masses, the NASA Exoplanet Archive uses 30). Maybe "objects described as planets in the scientific literature"? Leaning delete. SevenSpheres (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of largest exoplanets. Owen× ☎ 00:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as recommended above. Orientls (talk) 06:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as an alternative to closing this discussion as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per inherent problems raised by Praemonitus. It is often not possible to get a precise estimate of a planet's mass. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Droners

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2022.

PROD removed with comment "remove proposed deletion. can be listed on AFD, but the show seems notable enough to me to warrant inclusion, and in fact five other languages have an article for it."

However, none of the other 5 language articles appears to have any citations that can be used to establish notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 10:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and France. DonaldD23 talk to me 10:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: coverage in Variety [37], [38]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG: no significant coverage in reliable sources. The Variety links posted above are not significant coverage, both read like regurgitated press releases, not something that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". --Mika1h (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I think we have to draw a difference between actual PR copy and news reports that are simply positive. There's this belief in some quarters that if the coverage doesn't contain negativity then it automatically is flap-copy, but I don't see it here. The Variety coverage appears sufficient by itself for a basic WP:GNG pass if it weren't for the fact that both pieces are from the same outlet, however I think we can extend the benefit of the doubt in this case as coverage seems likely to exist in French. FOARP (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable per Oaktree b's refs. FOARP makes a good point between PR copy and positive coverage. Relying on two refs from the same outlet is not disqualifying according to our guidelines.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Le Figaro has one-paragraph descriptions of each episode. Collectively, I'd consider them significant coverage.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be helpful if editors could add these new sources to the article being discussed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the Figaro ones, they appeared to be Tv Guide-type listings. But they do have a synopsis for each episode in a RS, I guess it's ok. Oaktree b (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. I don't think another final relist will bring us any closer to a consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Fork, California

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

Another article on a thoroughly non-notable place in California. PROD was declined on the basis of the article having 3 references, but one is just GNIS (which doesn't establish notability), and the others are just the origin of the name and a confirmation that there was once a rural post office by this name (again, does not establish notability). As far as I can tell this is just a creek, not an "unincorporated community". WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anything with fork (river) in the name is almost certainly a tributary, and likely would have had a post office. Welcome to the GNIS mess, where we've had hundreds of thousands of "unincorporated communities" dumped into Wikipedia over more than a decade, simply because of the lackadaisical and slipshod GNIS#Populated places. The USGS map shows that this is indeed a river. Figuring out what the "unincorporated community" rubbish is hiding is half of the battle.
Cottonwood Creek (Sacramento River tributary)#Course already has Cold Fork as a tributary. So the real question is not the use of the administrator deletion tool, but whether there's anything to say about this tributary or whether, like so many "unincorporated communities" before it that turned out to be river forks, it should redirect to the article on the main river. Wood 1912, p. 23 has Cold Fork under Cottonwood Creek on Wood 1912, p. 25. But Smith 1997, pp. 39–40 is actually a fairly good source with farms and houses and people, and pushes this most of the way towards being capable of having an article in my view.
Uncle G (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Smith, Dottie (1997). Ritter, Eric W. (ed.). Historical Overview of the Western Tehama County Foothills. Bureau of Land Management, Redding Resource Area.
- Wood, Beatrice Dawson (1912). Gazetteer of Surface Waters of California. Geological Survey (U.S.). Water-supply paper. Vol. 295–297. U.S. Government Printing Office.
Comment - Without taking a position on whether this page should be kept or not, Hislop and Hughes is a self-published book, it was not published by the Tehama County Department of Education - that is not mentioned anywhere in the book. We shouldn't be using self-published local histories. FOARP (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- At least you're not ridiculously saying that it's written by schoolchildren any more, but this try-everything scattershot attempt to discredit a history written by credentialled historians is addressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Camino, California already. Uncle G (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - FWIW this book is endorsed by thr Tehama Co Historical Society, which hosts a PDF on their website at https://www.tehamacountyhistory.com/uploads/b/f66f4b40-4d01-11ea-b698-d75052f0ea16/7a6b6a20-d35a-11ec-a62b-e137e65301ed.pdf jengod (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - ”endorsed” - simply hosting a PDF is not an endorsement. This is still a self-published book, not one published by an established publisher with a record of fact-checking.
    - I never claimed it was written by school children, only that they did research for it which is obviously true since it says so in the acknowledgments. Making false claims about what another editor has said is a form of personal attack: please stop doing this. FOARP (talk) 05:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - "I don't wish to be unkind to the great kids at Red Bluff Union High School and their teach Mr. Osbourne who I'm sure did a great job at their class-project for US history" — You most certainly did, and this bunkum treatment of acknowledgements as if they were authorship is addressed there in that discussion. Uncle G (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        And where does this say that the kids wrote the book? Nowhere. It says that they contributed to it, which is evidently true.
        Please dial down the personal attacks. FOARP (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        This distraction fallacy about "personal attacks" is addressed elsewhere, and your saying that it's a "class project" by "kids" and "their teach" is right there. Uncle G (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - anyway, if people aren't into Cold Fork, may I suggest a move to Hunters, California, which seemingly appears on more maps for longer and later. All the preceding stuff w Cold Fork and Pettijohn and the wagon routes can be subhedded "history" and then we can all move along. jengod (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment other move option:
- minor archaic placenames of Tehama County, California
jengod (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google Earth satellite image shows Cold Fork, the creek. There's a road, too. And a bridge. And a house.
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- And a bunch of history and geography in several history books, geological reports, and agricultural studies; as well as the odd news item: all in the article. Google Earth is not research. Uncle G (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Google Earth is not research. You are correct. It's a satellite photo. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I spot the foundations of 3 old buildings within 100m of these coordinates. Another foundation 2.6 km away.
  
  --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The United States Geological Survey's 1890 map does not show any sort of community in this location. Ditto the 1902, 1916, 1949 maps. The 1959 shows a place called Cold Fork - it has 3 buildings. The 1967 map shows "Cold Fork" with 3 buildings. The 1977 map shows a place called "Cold Fork". I had bandwidth issues and was unable to fetch later maps.
  
  You can pull up 26 maps published from 1890 to 2022. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reason is WP:GEOLAND and WP:HEY बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd be interested in hearing more about a possible page move or redirect which is mentioned in this discussion as an ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Keep- per WP:GEOLAND, WP:HEY, & WP:NOTTEMPORARY. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's pretty clear at this point that this should not be deleted as WP:HEY (and probably worth mentioning WP:NOTTEMPORARY). The problem with moves and merges right now is that its really not clear what the best title for this article is. I don't think the current title is particularly bad, even if perhaps not ideal. We make a point not to name articles minor archaic placenames of Tehama County, California or The land area surrounding a place once known as Cold Fork, California. So this is fine for now, and naming can be followed up on outside of AfD. —siro χ o 05:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Shikshan Prasarak Mandali. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haribhai Deokaran High School

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

1 hit in gnews and mainly directory listings in gbooks. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Maharashtra. LibStar (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shikshan Prasarak Mandali, the school's governing body, if sources insufficient to support a separate article. Rupples (talk) 07:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Delete or Redirect- I have found 1 hit in Google News, & it has nothing to do with the school. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.reddit.com/user/Wiki_AfD_Watch/

[2] ttps://www.betterplace.org/en/organisations/57332-smiley-children-society?utm_campaign=email-notifications&utm_medium=www-betterplace-org--en--organisations--57332-smiley-children-society&utm_source=organisation_manager_notifier-organisation_registration

[3] ttps://give.do/nonprofits/smiley-children-society

[4] ttps://medium.com/@loyal_purpureus_mouse_350/shaping-tomorrows-citizens-a-call-for-transformation-in-today-s-children-e44bbdf479c7

[5] ttps://web.archive.org/web/20230329102154/http://andhrapradeshtimes.in/rajamudry-ngo-smiley-children-society-women-to-manufacture-disposable-sanitary-pads-says-founder-prudhvi-moses.html

[6] ttps://guidestarindia.org/Summary.aspx?ccreg=12121

[7] ttps://web.archive.org/web/20231118185825/https://andhrapradeshnow.in/Smiley%20Children%20Society%20Receives%20FCRA%20Approval%20for%20Global%20Fundraising.html

[8] ttps://ngodarpan.gov.in/index.php/home/statewise_ngo/6581/28/475?

[9] ttps://mandapeta.andhraonline.in/profile/smiley-children-society

[10] ttps://www.idealist.org/en/nonprofit/a74c63ee2bfa485b85b66bf5c9cb7540-smiley-children-society-pothavaram

[11] ttps://self4society.mygov.in/story/children-in-pothavaram-feeding-gets-gifts-smiley-children-society/

[12] ttps://web.archive.org/web/20231118185612/https://andhrapradeshnow.in/Smiley%20Children%20Society%20Nominated%20for%20YSR%20Lifetime%20Achievement%20Award%202023.html

[13] ttps://www.ngo4you.com/list-ngo-east-godavari-andhra-pardesh/

[14] ttps://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1raYpD682tKVE6MAjg3hUKusnWE4zsCE&ll=17.065082505028865%2C80.25028565000001&z=9

[15] ttps://www.ngofoundation.in/ngo-database/smiley-children-society-contact-number-address-details_i107172

[16] ttps://www.startus.cc/company/smiley-children-society

[17] Stevens, Matt (October 13, 2020). "Cook Report calls Democrats the 'clear favorite' to take Senate control, as races tilt leftward". The New York Times.

[18] Greenwood, Max (December 30, 2021). "Cook Report projects GOP as clear favorite to win House majority". The Hill.

[19] Todd, Chuck; Murray, Mark; Dann, Carrie (October 11, 2018). "The GOP has big top-of-ticket problems in key House battlegrounds". NBC News.

[20] Kane, Paul (April 8, 2023). "New report outlines the deep political polarization's slow and steady march". The Washington Post.

[21] Simon, Scott (August 7, 2021). "Charlie Cook Passes The Baton On 'The Cook Political Report'". Weekend Edition Saturday. NPR.

[22] Kristof, Nicholas D. (7 September 1998). "Death Doesn't End Rule of Kim Il Sung, 'Eternal President'". New York Times. North Korea announced today that it had revised its Constitution to make its late Great Leader, Kim Il Sung, the country's eternal President.

[23] "Leadership Transition in North Korea". Council on Foreign Relations. 13 January 2012.

[24] Goedde, Patricia (2020). "Beyond Sham: The North Korean Constitution". Asian Perspective. 44 (1): 1–29. doi:10.1353/apr.2020.0002.

[25] Lustig, David (December 2001). "Phoenix-like tunnel motors just keep on working". Trains. Vol. 61, no. 12. pp. 26–27. ISSN 0041-0934.

[26] Rutherford, Brian (May–June 1991). "Southern Pacific's EMD SD45T-2 Tunnel Motors". Diesel Era. Vol. 2, no. 3. pp. 8–23.