Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 30	October 02 >

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!} 06:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shrek Street

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

Article does not cite any reliable sources. HaeB (talk) 07:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No references found for this gang, what's in the article is not RS Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only non-notable, but I'm pretty sure this is also completely WP:MADEUP. Everything online about this supposed "gang" all seem to have been created within the last couple of days, including spam posts on Reddit and the "Fan Wiki" for the group being cited in the article. The "sources" in the article include another Wikipedia article in which the creator of this article tried to edit this gang into, the recently created Fan Wiki for this "gang", and a picture of an fake newspaper article. Rorshacma (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Couldn't find any reliable sources. Just a couple postings on reddit in the last few days. Faolin42 (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: This is a hoax. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. along with the request that some of the sources brought up in this discussion find their way into the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yoyodyne

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

Poorly referenced WP:GNG/WP:SYNTH (OR) violation: "Yoyodyne is the name of a number of companies, both fictional and real." No source discusses this concept, the few footnotes are primary sources that confirm that yes, a few fictional or real companies used this name. Trivia that's below even the WP:NOTTVTROPES level. My BEFORE failed to find anything of use. Perhaps this could become a disambig or redirect one day but I've no idea what WP:ATD to suggest now. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Companies. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. We're failing readers with this current article, but we'd fail them more without it. This should be almost entirely focused on the Pynchon element, with perhaps a well-referenced "Legacy and influence" section. There's not a good single merge target. It could go to The Crying of Lot 49, but that's neither the origination nor will it be able to properly capture the scope.
1. A few pages of SIGCOV in Ralph Clare, Fictions Inc.: The Corporation in Postmodern Fiction, Film, and Popular Culture, Rutgers University Press [1]
2. There is SIGCOV in Joseph W. Slade's Thomas Pynchon across multiple sections [2]
3. Sizeable entry of SIGCOV in J. Kerry Grant, A Companion to The Crying of Lot 49, University of Georgia Press [3]
4. A few paragraphs in Cyrus R. K. Patell ,Negative Liberties: Morrison, Pynchon, and the Problem of Liberal Ideology, Duke University Press [4]
5. Many other good sources for some verifiable claims, eg. [5][6]

—siro χ o 11:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I am hearing is that this needs WP:TNT. Although you are welcome to try to rewrite this now? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect? to The Crying of Lot 49#In popular culture (needs a cleanup itself), maybe smerge. There's a few incoming links suggesting Yoyodyne transcends its sourcematerial a bit, but not enough for a stand-alone article. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and tidy-up as needed). Important Pynchon plot element that has broad (albeit esoteric) cultural significance. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Siroxo, but let's not let the identified sources linger in this discussion without being added to the article. I have added some choice snippets from the first source. BD2412 T 02:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I put two interesting links on Talk page (probably some digging needed, but seems to have a lot of depth). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some sources discussing re-use in popular culture (not just as a name-drop, but signifying a cultural reference). BD2412 T 16:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wytze Russchen

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bengal Xpress

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

BEFORE brings up no sources. The sources provided are eithier listings of the company or inaccessible articles (ref 1 does not resolve via DNS) Sohom (talk) 06:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and West Bengal. Sohom (talk) 06:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Sohom (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless there are non-English references that can be found as my search did not find anything that could be used to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No useful sources were found on a google search. 111.92.123.60 (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 05:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reier Broadcasting Company

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

A company that only owned radio stations in one market — Bozeman, Montana — seems unlikely to have much chance of getting the significant coverage to meet the GNG. Some details about the end of the company that are here but not in the stations' articles probably should be integrated into them, which may require a nominal merge and/or redirect with, say, flagship property KBOZ (AM) as an alternative to deletion. A 2021 PROD was contested because of finding some more coverage onlien [sic], but a trade report on the sale and revival of the company's stations probably isn't enough. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and Montana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasoning above. I was the person who added the PROD tag in 2021. KBOZ would be the logical place to put most of this material first. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject fails WP:GNG along with WP:NCORP. User:Let'srun 02:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Fargo-Moorhead, Inc.

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

It seems unlikely that a company that owns radio stations in only one market — Fargo–Moorhead, of course — could possibly attain the significant coverage needed to meet the GNG. (Not helping matters is that the second incarnation has to compete with a cluster that actually calls itself "Midwest Radio Fargo-Moorhead", which might be why it instead does business as "Radio FM Media" — and that other cluster owns all but one of the stations that were part of the first incarnation of the company [the one exception was promptly swapped back to the second version, long story short].) This has been tagged for needing additional sources since November 2012; alas, they seem unlikely to emerge. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, Minnesota, and North Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any sourcing that meets WP:GNG. User:Let'srun 02:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Border Model

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

Non-notable manufacturer, doesn't meet WP:NCORP. A WP:BEFORE search in English and (machine translated) Chinese turned up only this product review from what looks like a RS. The rest are all adverts from model sellers, and a few blogs. Article currently has only one primary source from the company, plus two from sellers.

I'm also nominating the following related page because it's simply a list of some of their products, with no indication of how they're notable by WP:GNG. This article was actually created first, and proposed for deletion on the grounds of notability and about products for which there was no company article. Border Model was then created by same editor, and proposed deletion contested without comment. It's sourced by a company link, a blog, and a seller link.

Wikishovel (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. Wikishovel (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - No evidence of importance shown, let alone notability. Bensci54 (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. List of Border Model product lines was PROD'd so it is not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We need more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's absolutely no indication of notability. DCsansei (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP. Mooonswimmer 17:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 05:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dolores National High School

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

Challenged for references since 2010. No hits in Google and GNews. Two passing mentions in GNews Archives. Strongest claim for notability is that it was established by Batas Pambansa 288 . While that is a good source, it's not enough to establish notability. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 05:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL per nom. There are other schools in various towns with the same name. SBKSPP (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kulendra Bishwakarma

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

Another spam page about another folk singer from Nepal that fails WP:NARTIST and WP:NBLP because they've released all their music on their own label and paid for their press Expressive101 (talk) 06:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Revenge AFD. I have my misgivings about the author but not all their articles are on obviously non-notable topics, and we simply can not condone harassment and bullying. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The AFD Nomination of this article lies in the intention to pursue targeted editing rather than Wikipedia's deletion policy https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Endrabcwizart&diff=prev&oldid=1175757021. Therefore, I kindly request to restore this article. Thank you.
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. UtherSRG (talk) 11:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator has been AFDing against the particular creator and seems to be case of trolling. The communication between them dosen't seem healthy. Suggest both of them to take a break and cool down. nirmal (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Kulendra Bishwokarma received recognition from the Nepal government with the prestigious Prabal Janasewa Shree 2022.^[1] In addition to his singing career, he has been contributed a lots of thing in musical sector.^[2]^[3] Therefore the subject clearly meet WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. All the source are reliable and indipendent.Endrabcwizart (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "गायक कुलेन्द्र विश्वकर्मा प्रबल जनश्री पदकबाट सम्मानित". Breaknlinks. Retrieved 2023-09-28.
^ "Kulendra Bishwakarma". Lens Nepal. Retrieved 2023-09-28.
^ "कतार हिँडेको केटो काठमाडौंमा हिट गायक". Online Khabar. Retrieved 2023-09-28.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. While keep has a clear majority of !votes after two relists, all but one of the editors arguing for keep provided reasoning largely unrelated to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Astalavista.box.sk

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

Aside from the three-paragraph coverage in Le Monde, linked in the article, my BEFORE is not seeing much, Google Books shows the site is mentioned here and there in lists (with short descriptions) of hacking sites, but I am not seeing anythign that meets WP:SIGCOV. Seems to fall short of WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. Can anyone find sources to rescue it, or suggest a redirect (merge?) target if not? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Websites, and Slovakia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Security hacker might be a decent merge target, not perfect but it's probably the biggest overlapping topic area. Incidentally, I wouldn't be surprised if this meets GNG based on archived sources, but I'm still not great at finding archived web pages. —siro χ o 06:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for sources and cleaning up the article. Personally, I think it would be unfortunate if it were deleted. After some digging, it does seem like it is an important part of internet history. The issue is that it is part of a culture that tries to cover its track and does not seek publicity. It has mentions in books about cyber security from the early 2000s; it is likely mentioned in more books that are not indexed online. Ideasmete (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of English books are indexed through Google Books, I think? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They have indexed a lot of books, but definitely not most, according to Google themselves. Besides, it might be mentioned in periodicals that aren't indexed/archived, and very likely on web pages that have not been archived and therefore lost. The fact that it is frequently mentioned as a well-known website in the security community in the early 2000s, makes me believe there must be noteworthy mentions of it.

I can understand if other people want to see astalavista.box.sk deleted, but in that case I think it would be most appropriate to relocate the content elsewhere, together with pages like SecurityFocus (one of the sites sometimes listed along astalavista). Ideasmete (talk) 09:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think we can be pretty confident this meets WP:GNG. Also taking into account Ideasmete's note about the importance. I'd consider GNG from this perspective of the table I've included below my comment. A solid platform of Le Monde to build on, and a lot of coverage across many other sources. There seem to be many more of these sources in non-English language as well, I've included one as an example. It seems reasonable, given the era, that we can expect other coverage like Le Monde to surface at some point in some language. If there is a really solid idea about how to include this coverage in a list or broader article I'm willing to entertain as well, but without a solid idea, keep seems like a good choice. —siro χ o 06:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. In my opinion it makes more sense to improve articles where possible, instead of deleting them. In this case I think the article can definitely grow. Keep 31.55.146.75 (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo
[7] Lasar, Le Monde		400+ words	✔ Yes
Managing A Network Vulnerability Assessment		~ Solid paragraph+ of coverage	~ Partial
Hack Proofing Your Network		~ Solid paragraph of coverage	~ Partial
Steal This Computer Book 4.0		~ Solid paragraph of coverage	~ Partial
Electronic Safety and Soundness: Securing Finance in a New Age (not yet in article)		~ Nontrivial coverage in 3 spots, roughly equivalent to above books in depth	~ Partial
Motori di ricerca: come cercare e farsi trovare sul web		~ Some background and explanation	~ Partial
Поиск в Интернете non-English source not yet in article (one example)	?	~ seems to be roughly comparable to above	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Keep from me. I remember using Astalavista.box.sk in the nineties, but I forgot what for (then I peeked in the article). I think this may be considered an important component of Internet lore. --Ouro (blah blah) 16:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Right now, I see no support for Deletion aside from the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP KEEP KEEP - I agree that this is an extremely important article as it relates to the history of the early consumer internet. While the purpose of Astalavista.box.sk may have been for less than moral purposes, e.g., there is no doubt that it was a cracked and exploited software site, in violation of a number of Copyright and other IP protections, it is still valid as many a "whitehat" made their name using the site. It is also a historical site, I would say to the level of /. in respect to the nature and community of the internet in the early 90s to early 2000s. It is important to remember the seemingly long-gone days of true geekdom, when surfing the internet was actually a term of endearment, and most people in the community understood that most things on the internet were not to be believed, a far cry for the global social anxiety that exists today because that one simple truism was lost when the internet connecting device form factor went from PC to mobile phone.
The reason that I bring up this seemingly unrelated aspect of the internet community's history is because it does relate to astalavista.box.sk, in that the purpose of that site was "sticking it to "the Man"" and independent thinking that prevailed on the web until mass markets, mass media, and global billionaires took the core of the web, making it the commercial sewer that it was. Astalavista.box.sk was the Bonnie and Clyde, the Dillinger, the true Willie Sutton (of "I rob banks because that is where the money is" fame.) of the web, long before WWW2 and the commercialization of everything, and the bastardization of the web through mindless social media platforms. Elgato99wiki (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- What you really need to present is reliable sources that prove your point: without that, it's just "yeah it's important, let's keep it". Drmies (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Somalia national football team. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Somalia national under-20 football team

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

Unable to find any coverage on this team outside of score-keeping websites such as this one. Notability tagged since June of this year. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 04:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Somalia. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 04:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Somalia national football team if sources cannot be found. Giant Snowman 19:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 11:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steveston-London Secondary School

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

fails the general notability guideline by miles. sources found in a quick search are trivial mentions ([8] [9] [10]). ltbdl (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Canada. ltbdl (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG, as do pretty much all secondary schools in western countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@necrothesp: prove it. with sources. ltbdl (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~Keep. Grand'mere Eugene has found 10 sources from newspapers.com that, in my assessment, show the subject to meets WP:GNG. As with many other secondary schools in the Richmond School District, they are under-sourced and written poorly. As opposed to deletion, these articles should all be drafted until additional sources are gathered to meet WP:GNG. Sink Cat (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~Keep. I clipped 10 sources from newspapers.com and listed them on the article's talk page, demonstrating the subject's notability for User:ltbdl. However, the state of the current article is pretty bad, and other editors are welcome to use these sources in a WP:HEY effort. ~~For now, I agree with Sink Cat that the appropriate action is to draftify~~ It does needs a complete overhaul, but the available sources demonstrate it is a notable subject.. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with this assessment. I've looked at the other articles in the school district as well (some are full on stubs), and put banners on the ones that needed additional citations or work done. Sink Cat (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Because in my admin judgement, draftify doesn't make sense when sourcing (thanks Grand'mere Eugene) has been identified. Please assess those sources to determine whether they're sufficient for the school to remain.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Moot‎. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jijo Antony (2nd nomination) is open. Star Mississippi 15:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jijo Antony

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

Fails BLP, GNG and BIO.

Draft was twice rejected at AfC, this is a copy paste move, draft still exists with AfC rejection comments at Draft:Jijo Antony.

Editor was blocked "for abuse of editing privileges", regarding the creation of multiple rejected drafts editor then copy pasted into mainspace User talk:Godjo J#September 2023 2 ANI Link.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
"Book my show" promo	1. "Jijo Antony". Book My Show. Retrieved 2014-03-14.
Subject one sentence mentioned. About a film	2. ^ "'Adithattu' Box Office Collection: See how much Shine Tom Chacko's deep-sea thriller earned in three days". Times of India. Retrieved 2022-07-01.
Promo interview	3. ^ "The evolution of Jijo Antony". Gulf News. Retrieved 2016-04-05.
Promo interview	4. ^ "Prithvi's Darwin is no 'Pokkiri'". On Manorama. Retrieved 2016-03-16.
Promo interview	5. ^ "Jijo Antony talks about the risks of shooting the film entirely at sea". OTTplay. Retrieved 2021-08-02.
Subject not mentioned. About a film	6. ^ "53rd Kerala State Film Awards: Complete list of winners". The Indian Express. 2023-07-21. Retrieved 2023-07-24.
404 page	7. ^ "ഓരോ സിനിമയും ഓരോ പോരാട്ടങ്ങളാണ്". Reporter Live. Retrieved 2022-07-05.
Database entry	8. ^ "Jijo Antony". FiLMiBEAT. Retrieved 2022-07-02.

BEFORE showed name listings, promo interview, nothing that meets WP:IS, WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth.

Given the history, request salt. // Timothy :: talk 03:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on nom's investigation. The article as it stands is a CV with one minor note of color added, so very little is lost. I do not recommend salting for two reasons (1) this seems to be the first time this article may be deleted, (2) the subject may already be or may soon be notable, and a good faith editor should be able to create this article without requiring an admin. If this becomes a repeated problem, we can salt at that point.

Note that it's pretty likely an article could be drafted as Adithattu does indeed seem to be a significant film with a fair bit of coverage and recognition. I highly recommend going through AfC. —siro χ o 06:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards (..)The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);" Is very very clearly the case here. Director of 4 notable films, all having received substantial coverage, as required, and the last to date won an important award. According to the guideline, he is notable.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment: Author blocked as sock. // Timothy :: talk 14:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Procedural Keep, nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colleges and Universities Sports Association

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

Challenged for references since 2009. No hits on Google News or Google Books. GNews archives show several mentions of CUSA basketball games but that's it. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 03:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AFAIK CUSA closed shop already. CUSA opening ceremonies were standard fare in newspaper sports page back in the day. NCAA Season 99 opens today and UAAP Season 86 next week; unless we're not neutral and Wikipedia is only for rich kids' leagues (larong mayaman), then this should be kept. Philippine Daily Inquirer in 2000, 2002, Manila Standard in 1999 and 1996. All of these in Google Books and Newspaper archive. Howard the Duck (talk) 03:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a legitimately encyclopedic topic, it should be easy to find in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources, which includes sources published in the Philippines in languages other than English. So, where is the sourcing? Not saying there's not any, but a "keep" rationale that just alleges that newspaper sources exist isn't going to convince anyone. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
90% of the WP:RS in the Philippines are in English, at least those found on the internet. Google Books search hits are plentiful. This one of the league opening in 2002 is pretty in depth. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Withdraw nomination the article has been expanded with sources from national broadsheets. Consider this as a withdrawal of the nomination. Thank you for expanding the article. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Cardoza-Moore

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL. People do not become notable for running in elections they have not won. The notability standard for politicians is holding a notable office, not just unsuccessfully running for one. As far as I can tell, she has not produced any notable films either. FatCat96 (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. FatCat96 (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Her notability is not predicated on her unsuccessful bid for election. Its mainly about her political activism prior to that, and resulting controversies surrounding her political appointments (combined with her other activities such as politics and film). There are numerous articles about her in newspapers, much more than the few I included in the article. I'll be adding more as a result. Thismess (talk) 03:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just because she got a bill passed in the Tennessee state legislature, produced several non-notable films, founded a counter-jihad group, and unsuccessfully ran for office does not make her notable. She is also not notable just because her appointment to a certain commission was controversial. I do believe she fails WP:GNG. FatCat96 (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what matters is that the media thinks she is notable, which they clearly do. Thismess (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree that this subject does not pass WP:NPOL. That being said, this subject has received WP:GNG level coverage beyond simply being a failed political candidate, such as [[11]]. Thus, this article should be expanded, not deleted. User:Let'srun 03:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: even then, I wouldn't consider her to be a notable producer at all. I can't find her works being awarded Emmy/Telly awards almost anywhere, unless you look at some obscure biography site. I'm not even sure if her works have received an Emmy award; this says it's just "Emmy nominated" and not "Emmy awarded".
B3251 (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, nobody said she is primarily notable for her film productions (although it is part of her activism). Thismess (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Florida, and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep looking at the references, I think this article passes WP:GNG. I looked through the references which seem to establish notability. I have looked for further referencing from RS but the article does seem to be limited (for now) to the references already used. Knitsey (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear more opinions on this article. Right now, there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article satisfies WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Some of the content could be reconsidered under WP:FART, but that’s separate from the deletion nomination citing notability. Zsinj^Talk 01:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Newport Television. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Variety Television Network

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or any other notability guidelines as a defunct television network. Let'srun (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any sourceable content to Newport Television — and that's if any sourceable material exists; all I'm finding so far is passing mentions in the sale of Clear Channel's television stations to the private equity firm that went on to form Newport (this digital subchannel "network" — if even that, it may have just been a common branding for a set of similarly-programmed subchannels — was originally created by Clear Channel); if not, I am not opposed to outright deletion. In any event, I cannot see any possible independent notability from its parent station group (it never aired on any non-Clear Channel/Newport station), and the lack of significant coverage makes that clear. (Even the types of junk PR sourcing that can inflate the importance of non-notable entities isn't turning up anywhere.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Newport Television. ProQuest has enough hits that I'm confident merge is DUE, but I agree N may be hard to establish here. NOPAGE also informs, as this subject does seem to be largely a branding effort. —siro χ o 06:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Google Chrome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google Tone

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

This is mostly a procedural nomination; see WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 15#Google Tone and the page's own history for more info. (Basically, this article used to be a draft, one AFC reviewer thought the topic was notable while another one did not, the article got into mainspace, got BLARed to Google Chrome, and now I'm restoring it and sending it here.) That said, even though the reflist isn't impressive, the Google News search results on this topic have a somewhat better showing, so I don't really know whether this article should be kept or deleted/merged/redirected actually. Duckmather (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Computing. Duckmather (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a reference. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 06:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Google Chrome, ideally to a section on accessibility, but somewhere like the extensions sections might work since the accessibility section does not currently exist. This subject does not have enough independent notability for its own article in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 06:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge support the merging idea. Google Chrome is a right place for this information. Old-AgedKid (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @TartarTorte, Ahunt, InfiniteNexus, Scyrme, Skarmory, and Lenticel: this is a courtesy ping for y'all since all of you participated in the original RfD. Duckmather (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barely any coverage past its launch in 2015, fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAIINED. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – doesn't seem to be much sustained coverage, don't think this is currently a good fit for a standalone article, but there's enough the info should go somewhere. Not sure the best target as of now (Google Chrome#Extensions isn't structured well for it to go there, though it can always be adjusted). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 19:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per InfiniteNexus. lizthegrey (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Canada Cup (floorball). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Cup (floorball)

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

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

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

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

Completely unsourced (and tagged as such for a full decade or more) articles about a defunct minor-league sports competition, two years' individual runnings of it and a redundant "list of winners" that's really just a retransclusion of the same template that's already at the bottom of the main article as it is (and consists almost entirely of redlinks anyway).
These are basically a gigantic nest of permanent redlinks, because almost nothing wikilinked in any of the articles actually has its own article: virtually none of the teams, virtually none of the people, no other year besides the two listed here, and on and so forth.
As always, every sports competition is not "inherently" entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it existed -- this would have to be shown as the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to clear our notability criteria for sports events, but these clearly don't if nobody's been arsed to add even one citation to any of them in 10 to 13 years. And even if the head article could be salvaged with better sourcing, it would still be questionable whether any of the other three would be needed as separate standalone topics: the list, in particular, is profoundly redundant to the main article since it lists nothing that the main article isn't already listing. Bearcat (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC) Codc (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "List of Canada Cup winners" as a completely useless article, which duplicates information on the main article. Further, this isn't even close to the most prominent Canada Cup, for which many have lists integral in their articles -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to have opinions and evatulations of all articles in a bundled nomination, not just one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all together into Canada Cup (floorball). Single annual iterations of this don't seem to have SIGCOV for WP:NSEASONS on their own, but I could be proven wrong. Overall, there's a decent amount of coverage of the tournament overall, should be sufficient for GNG. Here's just a small handful of the links I found on ProQuest: [12][13][14][15][16][17]. —siro χ o 04:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Deleting, merging into the first? Needs more discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to First PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) Maliner (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Omni Broadcasting Network

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG as a defunct television network. Let'srun (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage of the company here [18]. I think it'd be a miss for the encyclopedia to having nothing on this topic, so I'll recommend a partial merge of a paragraph or two to KSSY-LP as it was verifiably the sole station owned by this company, and the company is therefore part of that station's history. —siro χ o 05:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm the original author of this article, and found significant coverage of the subject in Variety, Bloomberg, and David Blevins' 2006 book on US and Canadian television networks, three sources which are independent of the subject. Additional sources come from the company's own FCC filings and significant newspaper coverage (multiple states). That the company is defunct is of no import: subjects are presumed notable due to media coverage, not whether they are still in operation. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I do have their points with the fact there was sufficient information that can be considered reasonable for the article existence. And given that there was some decent information found, despite the fact this network no longer exist, it should be kept. 20chances (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable enough to be relevant.

TheBritinator (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Phillips (CSI: Crime Scene Investigation)

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

Sources in the article are primary, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters. Spinixster (chat!) 02:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 02:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Conyo14 (talk) 04:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect per nom. WP:BEFORE doesn't show enough WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 CSI: Cyber#Cast and characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Mundo

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

Sources in the article does not prove the character's notability, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to CSI: Cyber#Cast and characters. Spinixster (chat!) 02:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 02:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per nom. Doesn't pass GNG, nor any SNG. NotAGenious (talk) 05:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:ATD. Does not pass WP:SIGCOV, and expansion can take place at the target. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 CSI: Cyber#Cast and characters. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raven Ramirez

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

Sources in the article does not prove the character's notability, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to CSI: Cyber#Cast and characters. Spinixster (chat!) 02:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 02:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Just casting and plot summary, pretty short at that. Not seeing anything redeemable here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BEFORE doesn't show any significant coverage in reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as written. Not significant enough as a character to have an encyclopedic impact in the field. BD2412 T 04:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 CSI: Cyber#Cast and characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brody Nelson

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

Sources in the article does not prove the character's notability, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to CSI: Cyber#Cast and characters. Spinixster (chat!) 01:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 01:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect Let's have a look. The American Library Association is playing around with the character.[19] The Independent [20]. Newsweek [21] Except for the library one, which I wouldn't use in the article, these are more about the show than the character. Google Scholar is giving me trouble because there's a real-life Brody Nelson who wrote a bunch of papers. Google Scholar search for "Brody Nelson" and CSI produced nothing. Let me think about this one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Independent source is a summary of the show and only briefly mentions the character. Same with Newsweek (note that the article was written after 2013, and per WP:NEWSWEEK, it's a case to case basis on whether it can be used). Of course, as you said, the library one shouldn't be used. Spinixster (chat!) 03:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:ATD. There isn't enough WP:SIGCOV for this. Deletion is valid, but there are mentions in sources that might fit as part of the main topic. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 CSI: Cyber#Cast and characters. It was recommended but I see no issues with Merging some of the content as long as there is proper attribution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avery Ryan

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

Sources in the article does not prove the character's notability, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to CSI: Cyber#Cast and characters. Spinixster (chat!) 01:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 01:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, yes, I don't see what is there to merge? Single ref is for the info on which actor plays that character. 100% GNG fail. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This article doesn't seem to have the bloat of other recently nominated fictional character articles, but does it ever need sources. Let's see what we can find: There is a real-life professional of the same name who's sending up false positives. The search goes better when "CSI" is added: Christian Today Channel Guide Magazine Vulture. Google Scholar: [22] Weirdly. Wired. Women: The Language of Female Experts in Recent Television Crime SeriesFrom crime lab to mind palace: post-CSI forensics in Sherlock Google Books: [23] The Internet of Women Cyberbullies, Cyberactivists, Cyberpredators Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check the sources.
- Christian Today source is a plot summary.
- Channel Guide magazine source is a plot summary for the season 1 finale.
- Vulture source only briefly mentions Avery in a plot summary.
- I cannot find the full text of the first Google Scholar source anywhere.
- Second Google Scholar source is only a sole mention of the character.
- First Google Books source is just a brief mention.
- Second Google Books source mentions Avery in an interview and a summary of the show, and it's a brief mention.
Spinixster (chat!) 02:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No reception/analysis section, and I am AGFing the critique of sources above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the sources are mostly passing mentions or plot summary. We can't write an encyclopedic article without reliable independent information about its real-world impact. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as written. Lead character, but of a short-lived spinoff series. I would not expect to find encyclopedic levels of influence or coverage. BD2412 T 04:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 to delete. BD2412 T 04:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linux on IBM Z

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

this article is a patent ad. i came across this article expecting wikipedia quality, but i was slapped with nonsense like:

"Instead of paravirtualization, IBM mainframes use full virtualization, which permits workload density far greater than paravirtualization does."

"Combining full virtualization of the hardware plus lightweight Virtual Machine containers that run Linux in isolation (somewhat similar in concept to Docker) result in a platform that supports more virtual servers than any other in a single footprint,[12]"

of course that [12] reference points to nothing that backs that crazy statement, but it gets funnier...

"which also can lower operating costs. Additional savings can be seen from reduced need for floor space, power, cooling, networking hardware, and the other infrastructure needed to support a data center."

so i added the 'advert' tag and head on to talk to discuss the issue, but what i found in talk is shocking: this page has been a ridiculous ad for nearly 20 years, and wikipedia could not fix it. excerpts from talk:

- This article reads very much like an IBM ad. [2005]

- Simply one of the worst Wiki articles I have read. [2007]

- I tripped over this article in a Google search of "mainframe security linux" and this really does constitute an ad. [2016]

the nonsense statements that i quoted before regarding performance ("a platform that supports more virtual servers than any other in a single footprint" etc) contrast with real performance comparisons published by 3rd parties (note: IBM disallows or disallowed publishing benchmark results). please read the "performance" talk section, where someone tried to add real performance info but it was deleted even when the writer produced sources for said info.

in summary:

- this article contains too much ad content, and thus nothing in it can be trusted.

- real info depicting weaknesses of the platform gets deleted.

- this could not be fixed in nearly 20 years.

- nobody cares enough about this page except parties with vested interests, and thus it will never be fixed.

the existence of articles like this weakens wikipedia and the trust we have in it. i much prefer the absence of an article to a compromised article. thus, i second what ThomThom said in talk:

I tripped over this article in a Google search of "mainframe security linux" and this really does constitute an ad. I did wikipedia searches of "ibm linux" and "unisys linux". There is no similar "Linux on ClearPath" article about using Linux on the Unisys mainframes. This article mentions advantages and pricing for zLinux that read like a marketing white paper while NOT even mentioning that it has direct competition in performance and pricing from Unisys. The solution to the NPOV problem is not to have the article mention Unisys. Nor is the solution for Unisys to have it's own article. This article should be dropped as not being encyclopedic. My background: I'm a federal employee (IT specialist - DBA, series 2210) who programs on Unisys mainframes using CODASYL/COBOL. ThomThom (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Lanchon (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTADVERT. This article is a content split of IBM Z. For a standard article merge would be a possibility. Merging is out for this brochure-like article. I also don't thik WP:ATD-E to stubify works for such a content split. I'm fine with redirect as well, especially if any other editors think this can be in the future. —siro χ o 06:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Neutral, leaning towards keep. Must be cut down. WP:N isn't proven in the article, but seems plausible with the Register, Motley Fool (passing mention which doesn't count much) and I found 1 other in a quick search. Fine as a WP:SPINOUT due to the size of IBM Z and the separate scope to the main article. My understanding is the big endian ports of OSS has hindered this, so it's a niche topic. Widefox; talk 23:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"My understanding is the big endian ports of OSS has hindered this" As in "a lot of OSS is not byte-order neutral, and runs only on little-endian machines, and is thus not available on Z/Architecture", i.e. the lack of big-endian ports has hindered this? Guy Harris (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep a substantial portion of the content needs to be deleted as WP:NOTADVERT, but I think enough will remain to keep the article. Walt Yoder (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Walt Andre🚐 00:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep What Walt Yoder said. Linux on IBM Z § Advantages, Linux on IBM Z § Pricing and costs, and Linux on IBM Z § Appropriate workloads either need more references or beter references (the first needs more and better references; the latter two need references, period, as they currently have none), plus whatever changes are necessary to match what the references say, and then some cleanup to make them sound less promotional, or they need to be removed. What remains might be good enough to keep, as a companion to other Linux-on-XXX articles such as PowerLinux. (And if what remains isn't enough to deserve an article, perhaps that applies to some other Linux-on-XXX articles as well.) Guy Harris (talk) 08:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin closure) PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ocimar Versolato

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

Cited for Notability Issues Since 2010 PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fashion, and Brazil. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on improvements to the article since the 2010 tagging. An editor added obits in several large Brazilian media outlets about the subject in 2017, which would establish notability. We should remove the notability tag in the article given this.

Longhornsg (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. The main argument for deletion is the paucity, and lack of reliability of sourcing. The main argument presented for keeping is based on the WP:GEONATURAL section of the WP:NGEO notability guideline, which I will cite below:

"Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river."

The text of the GEONATURAL section uses the phrase "often notable", not "always notable" or even "usually notable". Furthermore, it requires that there be "enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article". If the sourcing for a separate article is insufficient, coverage in a larger article, such as the forest the lake is located in, may have merit.

Having looked at the article, and the discussion of the sources I find that the "delete" side have convincingly argued that the sourcing is insufficient. Even with the sourcing provided, the article ends up being very short, with few prospects of growing beyond stub size. I have considered merging, but I find the article content dubious, even if sourced. For example the claim that the lake is an "extension Second Lake separated by a peninsula and a short section of narrows" doesn't align well with the maps of the area (where "Fourth Lake" but not "Second Lake" is mapped, and the location of the purported peninsula is unclear). There is also a sentence about the fish in the lake, but these seem to be widespread species in the area in general, nothing particular to this lake at all. As such, I cannot see much worth merging.

In sum, the text of GEONATURAL does not support inclusion of this article, making the paucity of the sourcing a decisive argument for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Third Lake (Fulton County, New York)

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

Only Two Sentences, Only 3 Sources(GNIS is unreliable, Source 2 Does Not Exist, Source 3 I can't access. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, United States of America, and New York. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor geographic feature with no coverage by any RS. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. WP:GEOLAND states that "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This has a couple paragraphs on Third Lake on pages 185-186. This, although not very much, gives some information about Third lake beyond statistics. This is a study conducted partially in the Third Lake, which could be discussed in the article. It's thin, but I think these three sources are enough to pass WP:GEOLAND. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of the three sources when the article was nominated, GNIS sometimes is unreliable for feature types but this is confirmed as a lake by other sources, an archived version of the second source has been found, there is no requirement for sources to be available online, and more sources have been found. Peter James (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNGEO requires this meet GNG, I am not seeing any sources in the article, above or in BEFORE that meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if sources are found. // Timothy :: talk 00:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of these sources pass WP:GNG and a quick search does seem to find anything SIGCOV about this lake. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 17:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the coverage is significant, particularly source 2 currently in the article and the Google Books reference; it's just spread throughout several sections. An article combining this with other lakes in the area could be more useful, but this is better than nothing and there's no reason to delete. WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Peter James (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  GNIS does not pass WP:GNG as it is a database entry from an unreliable system to catalogue the name and location of places, which is not significant coverage, source 2 does pass WP:SIGCOV but I am unsure whether it would be independent, and source 3 is inaccessible to almost any reader/viewer of the article, which means I can't figure it out, but just based of the title of the book and where it's sourced, I'm going to presume that it is a passing mention of what fish are in said lake and how to access it. With that being said, one source debateably passes GNG and therefore, should be deleted. And yes, I did WP:BEFORE. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 23:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - GNIS is clearly not significant coverage but the second source already in the article and some of the others identified in the AFD are; articles survive AFD with a similar amount of coverage or less. Also there's an obvious merge target and another that could potentially be an article. The content meets policy requirements and the article arguably meets guideline requirements and there's so much in Wikipedia that could be deleted according to policy; deletion (of content or articles) would be an improvement in some cases but not here. Peter James (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you like to show me the book in the article and upload it, I'd be happy to look at it. Still, from my standpoint, I can only evaluate one source, which isn't even independent coverage since it is probably required to survey said lake by the state government. Not sure what else there is to do. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 18:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure about the book, there are the other sources mentioned here but not already in the article. And for a feature such as a lake it would make no sense to exclude government published sources from notability of a government owned lake but say the same sources contribute to the notability of one that is privately owned. They have been accepted for a long time as a main source for writing about geographical features, populated places and districts in Wikipedia and other encyclopedias before Wikipedia existed. Independent sources is more about ensuring NPOV and using coverage that is "from a disinterested perspective" - and dec.ny.gov is probably more neutral here than most travel guides. Peter James (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Comment-Source 1 - GNIS - Unreliable & Source 2 - is about Ferris Lake Wild Forest PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I romoved source 2 PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEONATURAL. Lightburst (talk) 01:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If all you can write about is "it exists" then it's about as notable as a local bus stop, and we shouldn't have an article about it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Certainly no consensus to delete. Valid concerns about the depth of the coverage remain. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Getter Saar (footballer)

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

Redirect to List of Estonia women's international footballers. The subject has earned 16 caps for the Estonia women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This is what came up in searches. JTtheOG (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Estonia. JTtheOG (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep [24] - Soccernet.ee has the biggest football coverage in Estonia. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. One source on its own is not enough. If further sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2 3 player of the month nominated for best national team goal etc. In google search (10,000 hits) the badminton player with the same name makes it harder to find these but there are still couple thousand for this person. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And further complicated by another footballer, Estonian U17 NTer Liis Getter Saar (born 2007), also showing up in football-/jalgpall-specific results. Some additional recent English-language coverage likely to be dismissed as insufficient toward GNG: Estonian Public Radio 1, 2, 3. -75.164.167.40 (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pelmeen10. ExRat (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @GiantSnowman:, Per above. Clearly significant figure in Estonian womens football with ongong career. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 17:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Namedrops in match reports is not sigcov of anyone. Dougal18 (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dougal18: Would you consider switching your vote to redirect? JTtheOG (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Estonia women's international footballers per above. BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in the article and BEFORE showed stats, mentions in game recaps, nothing that meets WP:IS, WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 14:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Between Delete, Keep and Redirect, there isn't a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was pinged here for my analysis so I won't formally !vote. The soccernet.ee pieces constitute one single source. Of those, we have passing mentions in a list (not SIGCOV); a republished press release announcing Saar was chosen as best women's player of the month (not independent, not SIGCOV); and two interviews with no independent coverage. From Err.ee we have a sentence of info accompanied by a quote from her (not SIGCOV) and two routine match reports mentioning her (primary, not SIGCOV). I would recommend redirecting.

JoelleJay (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is a "recommendation" different from a "!vote"? -The Gnome (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not understanding how can different sources about different things be counted as 1 source. 1 + 1 +... ≠ 1. It would be the same as when the deletion starter JTtheOG asked for your help deleting this article, you both count as 1. Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they are pulling from WP:GNG, which says: "Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source." GNG requires multiple pieces of in-depth coverage from more than one reliable source. JTtheOG (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Pelmeen10.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delvis Lumpuy

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

The subject made one appearance for the Cuba national football team and no longer plays for Villa Clara. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JTtheOG, I believe he is notable enough since he played at a U-20 World Cup, he is notable enough because he played in one of the worlds biggest competitions, since wp:NTEMP saids that Notability is permanent, if he was notable during the U-20 World Cup (which I say he was since how major the competition is), he is also notable right now. CubanoBoi (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is demonstrated through WP:SIGCOV. Playing at a U20 World Cup is not sufficient. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a unbolded, unstated Keep here so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, there was no significant coverage I could find in online sources. Pilaz (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG, I too am unable to find anything online that might prove otherwise Josey Wales^Parley 20:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 02:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cezar Crețu

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

No in-depth coverage, only passing mentions and stats. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV FatCat96 (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. FatCat96 (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - found this in Romanian sources. Still looking for more SIGCOV. Adamtt9 (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennis and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:44, 1 October 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!} 00:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Found promo, stats, mentions, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 01:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Star Mississippi 17:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada

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

Clear case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Nominating this for AfD alongside List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. Any individual events can be added to the respective Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict year-by-year event list. Longhornsg (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism, Israel, and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (all three): These pages are indeed all examples of what is discourage by WP:NOTMEMORIAL writ large, stringing together events without sufficient notability to have had pages created about them. The appropriate place for notable or significantly covered events is indeed at one of the appropriate year-by-year timelines at Template:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this discussion as a Soft Deletion but I was asked to revert my closure and relist this AFD so that's what I am doing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful, detailed data on a well studied and scrutinized international conflict. All three pages need cleanup and removal of certain data to address WP:NOTAMEMORIAL concerns, but the pages should stay imo.Mistamystery (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but only the text. The tables listing each individual incident falls afoul of NOTMEMORIAL. On the fence about the gallery at the end. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gallery should definitely go, imo.

And honestly, I think a combined single timeline of incidents (also limited only to the conventional timeline of the intifada, which these days go past) would, i think, be a useful and insightful window into the civilian oriented violence timeline of the conflict.

Regarding the sources, while they are some of the most prominently present compilations of incidents, they are by no means primary or solitary sources for these events. Helpful, if not crucial guides to the total documented events, but pretty much every incident can be backed by secondary sources (and should be).

This wiki page has been referred to constantly across the internet for many years now, and its information (and not from the B’tselem or Foreign Ministry pages) has been linked to from many domains.. I think it’s dangerous territory to batch delete necessary collection work like this just because of pat redundancy concerns. There isn’t enough good faith effort to attempt to justify people’s actions, and I’m seeing far too many quick-trigger page deletion requests for my own comfort. Would really appreciate endless notes and attempts before we just clear pages like this out.

Mistamystery (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Second Intifada#Casualties. Most of the info is already duplicated there, but there are some stats that aren't. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:PRESERVE. Information is too useful and reported by reliable sources. Also it's better to have both Israeli and Palestinian civilian casualties in a single article. I don't think this falls into WP:NOTMEMORIAL since names are not even mentioned, but only the attacks. Dovidroth (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

90% of the tables are just copy pastes of exactly two B'Tselem web pages ([25], [26]) and one Israeli ministry of foreign affairs page ([27] - also not a reliable source) that are all very much memorials. The resulting list here, which is predominantly composed of events that are not individually notable falls foul WP:NOTDIRECTORY even if not WP:NOTMEMORIAL, though taken as a whole, even without names these lists are still effectively a memorial. That the information is "useful" is not a policy-based argument for it to be kept. It is only here because it already exists out there on the internet at archive.org whose job it is to retain information. The suggestion above by Clarityfiend to simply delete the tables/lists and leave a stub of vaguely encyclopedic prose would ~~be ok too~~ not be of much worth either, see below. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete covered at the main article well enough currently; the topic might be notable enough for a split, but the coverage at the main article seems better to me so a TNT seems appropriate here. AryKun (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True on that last point: the main page for the conflict already has better prose, so the prose here is also not particularly worth salvaging. So WP:TNT does indeed likely apply to that portion also. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. After delete vote and nomination statement have been withdrawn or struck, I see a consensus to Keep this article. This closure was complicated by the fact that an editor moved this article during the AFD discussion which messes up an AFD closure so I have moved it back. Please do not do this again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second Parthian–Kushan War

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

Yet another battle/war article that looks more like an attempt at glorification than anything else. None of the refs have a page cited. One of the cited refs (by Peter Fibiger Bang, page 339), which I just removed for being misused, literally says the following about this so called "second" "war", which was for some reason ignored: "There is also this exaggerated reference to a bloody but otherwise unsubstantiated campaign against the Parthians".

To add to Bangs statement, it goes without saying that "900,000 killed" is an incredibly absurd (WP:REDFLAG) number for a "ten year war" during the Late antiquity. Iranica: "The largest army the Parthians organized was that brought against Mark Antony (50,000: Justin 41.2)." HistoryofIran (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Central Asia, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. The refs do actually have pages cited (in the URL, just not in the metadata), but they don't fully support the text. I'm not finding anything for "Second Parthian-Kushan War", either. -- asilvering (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Technically in fact the first Parthian-Kushan War took place when Kujula Kadphises conquered some regions from the Parthian Empire Jonharojjashi (talk) 05:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So Jonharojjashi completely disregarded both my comment here and my edit summary, reverting me and restoring the misused Bang citation, accusing me of removing it to "easily nominate the article for deletion" and referring to me as "an Iranian" twice instead of my username [28] [29]. I think that says it all. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford source says "there is also this exaggerated to a bloody but otherwise unsubstantiated campaign against the Parthians" So why remove the source when the uncertain claim is unsure whether it is exaggerated or unsubtantiated It is needless to say that does not disapprove the Chinese sources which refers to that conflict Jonharojjashi (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...What? "Unsubstantiated" means "not supported or proven by evidence" and "exaggerated" means "excessively or inappropriately heightened, inflated, or overstated". --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also Zurcher a German historian who translated the inscription about Kanishka's conquests mentions the 900,000 casualties on the Parthian's side Jonharojjashi (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have addressed your both concerns-

1. "None of the refs have a page cited" which asilvering has denied such concern and actually it is cited or redirected to the archive.

2. "900000 killed" yeah I have addressed it too and edited it properly according to your concern. But you should not confuse 900k Parthians with 900k Parthian army, as the sources never stated any 900k Parthian army. That is why I didn't put this number to the strengths of belligerents.

Now consider removing the deletion tag from this article If I had addressed all of your concerns and talk further if it was not. Jonharojjashi (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Bangs statement, WP:PST and WP:REDFLAG. You have not addressed anything. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable (but re-title). AFD is not cleanup. Nor is it for dealing with problem users. See, e.g., Ghirshman, Iran, p. 262. Or Thorley, "The Roman Empire and the Kushans" JSTOR 642511. These (and there are a few others) are enough for me. The Buddhist source in question is not terribly late, which is presumably why it is treated seriously. Ghirshman thinks an obscure reference (he does not provide a full citation) in a Syrian (Syriac?) source may be corroborative. Srnec (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, Srnec. Do you have a proposal on what we would rename it to if it ended up getting kept? I looked at the sources you listed, but it seems that this event is incredibly obscure. I agree that AFD is not a place for cleanup nor dealing with problem users, but I made this AFD because I genuinely think (still do) that this event is not notable enough to warrant its own article, let alone under a made up name. It could perhaps be added to Vologases III of Parthia and Kanishka? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably "Kushan–Parthian war" (alphabetical order, lower-case for a descriptive title) or, if that is judged ambiguous, "Kanishka's war with Parthia" or perhaps even "Parthian invasion of the Kushan Empire". My reason for preferring a standalone article is precisely that it is not obvious why the information should belong exclusively at, say, Kanishka's article. It would then need to be duplicated at Vologases III and perhaps elsewhere in the absence of an article to link to. (This is a general problem with trying not to treat conflicts as standalone topics—they don't "belong" to one side.) Just put up a short, well-sourced article that can deal independently with the question of dating and the reliability of the source material. In this case, I'm happy to help if the article is kept. Srnec (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm renaming the article from Second Parthian-Kushan War to Parthian-Kushan war for better context in order to not confuse readers/viewers, I hope this will fix all of the common concerns, Thanks for your proposal. Also, if you don't mind Please help me improve the article or suggest any new changes, as I'm new here. Jonharojjashi (talk) 06:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonharojjashi Please don't make any hasty decisions on your own. This also requires your collaboration and you reading our guidelines (you're not helping by reverting Srnec either [30]. If this article is to be WP:NPOV, that number will not be treated seriously). HistoryofIran (talk) 11:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone. If the discussion is not closed yet then I would like to suggest that we should keep the previous Parthian casualties as the sources have mentioned it boldly and I don't think we should shadow or neglect it, as this Chinese source [31] is well translated by a renounced Sinologist and historian Erik Zürcher. Like even if it's exaggerated or wrongly, partially interpreted, still we should add it by just adding further- 900,000 killed (highly exaggerated) or According to some Chinese sources 900,000 killed. So in short I think we all should stick to the sources. I hope y'all will look to this suggestion. And I'm very much interested in Ancient warfare history so I can give my minuscule contribution to this project/article. Msangharak (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. Please do not move articles that in the middle of an AFD discussion as it complicates the closure procedure. Also, an AFD is not the proper place to debate details about content, this is just a forum to determine whether or not this should be a standalone article and Kept or Merged, Redirected or Deleted. Content changes can be discussed if it is decided to Keep this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; ambivalent about title (the present title or any of Srnec's options seem fine). Meets WP:N; no suitable merge target. I'm not sure an infobox is appropriate for this article, since the date, venue, and forces involved are all between very approximate and wholly unknown.
Anyone expecting accurate casualty figures from early Chinese sources is not familiar with their universal trope of inflating the enemy's numbers, commonly by an order of magnitude (I OR-suspect this figure is inflated by two orders of magnitude). I'd love to track down the name of the Chinese source this evidently traces back to; it's presented as transliteration only in Zürcher 1960 (which I fixed the citation for) and is apparently some little known Buddhist text from the Southern and Northern dynasties. Brill have yet to publish the ebook of the conference proceedings.
Might it be entirely fictional? Sure: anything tracing to exactly one old enough document could be, but that's not our determination to make. Benjamin 2020 (another incorrectly attributed cite, probably Citoid's fault, referred to above as "Bang" after |editor1-last=) wouldn't be enough to establish notability, but several different authors have touched on this, whether or not they believe it happened as described (although no one believes the casualty figures; why would anyone?). Anyway a massively inflated casualty figure is not a reason in itself to call this a hoax or a legend, and I don't see another reason to delete. Needs cleanup, but most articles do. Folly Mox (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guess who didn't read the relisting instructions! Folly Mox (talk) 06:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Benjamin again a few years earlier:

Craig Benjamin (2018). Empires of Ancient Eurasia: The First Silk Roads Era, 100 BCE – 250 CE. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316335567. ISBN 9781316335567. pp. 191–192: Despite this account, there is no other evidence of any conflict between the Parthians and Kushans, the two great powers of Central Asia, and two of the major beneficiaries of Silk Roads trade, who seem to have maintained genuinely cordial relations with each other for two centuries. Folly Mox (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To update yall, I've done some edits at the article, clarifying that the entire account relies solely on a single source, which survives only in a translation postdating the event by centuries (typical), and is not known to be the work of historians. I've called out the 900,000 figure as obviously exaggerated, and incorporated the Benjamin 2018 source just above, bundled with his other source.
The sourcing is ok. Mukherjee and Zürcher are probably the most reputable, although Mukherjee in 1988 still subscribed to an earlier Kanishka, and placed this event around 80 CE. Benjamin seems pretty good too. We cite a book published by Pen and Sword (not a peer reviewed source) four times, plus there's the popular general readership book from Simon Schuster, and some kid's Masters thesis. There can't be much more than this given the transmission history of this event, but I don't think Pen and Sword is used for anything specific to this article – more general Kushan history – so it can probably be improved. Pen and Sword and Simon Schuster are digitised at gbooks in the annoying online only pagination which prevents adding a |page= parameter, but the URLs are consequently direct. Also in the Zürcher source, on the page following the one we cite, Kanishka talks to his horse about morality. Glad that conversation got written down. Folly Mox (talk) 06:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:HEY at this point, thanks to multiple editors, especially Folly Mox's excellent work. —siro χ o 07:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, I guess that settles it. Great and sensible points (and edits) made by both Srnec and Folly Mox - I'm taking back my support for its deletion. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: striking my delete so nom can withdraw. Thanks for all your work on this, Folly Mox! -- asilvering (talk) 05:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And User:Srnec! And User:पाटलिपुत्र. Folly Mox (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. ✗plicit 01:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Velleppam

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

Should be deleted or moved back to draft until release. Fails WP:NFF DonaldD23 talk to me 00:08, 1 October 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 00:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - probably WP:TOOSOON per nom. - Indefensible (talk) 06:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - per above and nom. // Timothy :: talk 00:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 00:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Süt Kardeşler

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

Fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 00:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Turkey. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note that multiple English language obituaries for Kemal Sunal note this film as "popular", eg [32], listing it first among comedies "cementing Sunal's place in the film history". To have such a mention in such a famous actor's obituary a strong pointer that sources NEXIST. For the moment, we have:
- [33] via tr:Süt Kardeşler, 110+ words of SIGCOV.
- This book seems to have a large amount of SIGCOV: Kemal Sunal filmlerinde folklor ve mizah
- Here's an academic book published 38 years after contextualizing the film with some short bug significant coverage Sensational Religion: Sensory Cultures in Material Practice
- This seems promising Çeviribilimde Güncel Tartışmalardan Kavramsal Sorgulamalara

Given the era and language, based on what I've found so far, I'm confident this meets WP:GNG. —siro χ o 08:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources provided by Siroxo show notability. Thank you!-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Pretty much impossible for a movie with this cast to be non-notable. In addition to above, there are a couple of journal articles with a section about the movie: [34], [35]. It was reportedly the third-highest rated Turkish movie ever on IMDb. Keep in mind that most of the sourcing discovered in this discussion is from decades after release. Styyx (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The mere fact that I recognize the title suggests to me that the film is likely notable, and a quick search for sources appears to bear this out. I expect that Turkish-language sources (possibly only available offline) could be used to write a fairly extensive article. TompaDompa (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The two refs Styyx appear to be from reliable and independent journals that pass SIGCOV with three fairly long paragraphs on this film. Ref 2 Siroxo linked appear to cover this film across multiple pages and probably (though I am not completely sure due to the paywall and language barrier) count towards GNG. I would say that this, which only mentions the film twice, would not meet significant coverage, though the page is paywalled so I am not entirely confident on whether or not it meets SIGCOV. Still, the three sources already are enough for a GNG pass. VickKiang (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. If any non-sockpuppet would like this article userfied, please let me know or ask at WP:REFUND. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heydar Latifiyan

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Heydar Latifiyan

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

There is no evidence that the article meets WP:GNG. The sources are not verifiable. Furthermore, the article is created in several languages over a short period of time possibly using machine translation. Pirehelo (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iran. BangJan1999 20:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Curbon7 (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While there may be concerns about the creation of this article, a source being offline is not a reason to reject it: WP:Verifiability § Access to sources. —siro χ o 08:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete ~~or userfy to one of the three blocked sockpuppets that created it.~~ Struck following comment below from User:Liz 05:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC). I was able to check source #6, The Cambridge History of Iran, which is available in English original as well as Farsi translation. The two sentences cited to it, in the "Childhood" section, refer to page 186 in chapter 5 by Keddie and Amanat. This page does indeed verify that Iran suffered a famine in 1870–71, and that Mizra Hussein Khan was a person who existed (there's rather a lot about his prime ministry, actually). Nowhere is Latifayan mentioned, nor his family, nor Vahan Abad.[reply]
Not being able to read Farsi, I can't verify that all of the rest of the sources are like this, but the wording and placement of the citations imply it. "Heydar tried to support [actually notable person who did something that can be cited]", "Heydar, along with the rest of the democrats [did a thing, not even cited]", "Heydar Latifian, together with a group of people...", "Heydar Latifiyan was also killed like the rest of his comrades", According to local tradition Heydar's was the only identifiable corpse.
The whole thing reads like an article tailored around the life and death of a subject it hardly discusses. General statements are carefully sourced in a way that can be verified (including the distance to the airport!), but none of the sources may mention the subject, who appears to have played an extremely minor role, and meets no notability threshold. However, I can't prove any of this. Given that the subject's great-grandson's article was created by the same set of blocked socks, theories suggest themselves. Folly Mox (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Taking another look at the article, I am convinced by Folly Mox's assessment, weak delete or userfy. —siro χ o 09:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't userfying an article to the User space of a blocked sockpuppet just a way of putting it into cold storage, never to be seen again? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, basically. I think I made a few mistakes with that. I was a little concerned that the Farsi sources might be genuine, but by the time I finished typing I had talked myself out of it and neglected to edit the bolded verbs accordingly. I'll strike for easier processing. Folly Mox (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "गायक कुलेन्द्र विश्वकर्मा प्रबल जनश्री पदकबाट सम्मानित". Breaknlinks. Retrieved 2023-09-28.

[2] "Kulendra Bishwakarma". Lens Nepal. Retrieved 2023-09-28.

[3] "कतार हिँडेको केटो काठमाडौंमा हिट गायक". Online Khabar. Retrieved 2023-09-28.

[1]

[2]

[3]