From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 15 October 17 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was 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! 05:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply

SOS United

SOS United (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and album-specific notability policies. Possible redirect (preferable) or merger (less preferable) to SOS Children's Villages. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:46, 16 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! 22:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Rankings of business schools in South Africa

Rankings of business schools in South Africa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a compilation of a few business-related academic rankings in a specialized academic domain only in a specific country. Per WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTSTATS, all the rankings data could be redirected into the relevant university page and there is no need of a separate page to compare the rankings of business schools in South Africa.

The only other related page that I found for business school rankings is this one for US business schools which is very detailed in methodology and it is not just a few Financial Times business rankings or other data that are not explained properly, as in the case of this South African article. Since there is seems to be a quite small coverage on South African business rankings overall, there is no need for a compilation of such academic, very specialized rankings. Chiserc ( talk) 21:43, 16 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 speedy keep‎. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Yuantang (language game)

Yuantang (language game) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be an ephemeral one-off creation, no sources whatsoever Remsense 聊 20:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator In that case, I'll flesh out the article with them real quick. I should've checked, thank you! Remsense 聊 01:26, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Allstate Crossbar Classic

Allstate Crossbar Classic (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject doesn't meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of independent, secondary coverage. What coverage does exist simply quotes the press release announcing the inaugural game. Let'srun ( talk) 20:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Pointing out other articles is not a valid argument. The article on this particular game must stand or fall on its own merits. Frank Anchor 21:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. The only coverage in the article or on a Google search were WP:ROUTINE announcements that this particular, already scheduled game was going to become the first in a series of games under this nickname. Frank Anchor 22:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Outside ESPN and Learfield arranging a branding for it, this is a bog standard Tide home game and it'll be the same next year for whichever two teams they find to paste a logo on the field for. Nate • ( chatter) 00:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Unlike most kickoff games, it appears this isn't even a neutral site event — just a sponsorship deal applying this name to what otherwise would simply be a run-of-the-mill home game. Neutral site games, while not necessarily notable in and of themselves, at least have the potential of garnering the requisite significant coverage — there's almost no way that will ever happen with this one. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:52, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Digital Group Audio

AfDs for this article:
Digital Group Audio (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Digital Group Audio was founded in 2007, and may have made some small splashes (some of the citations do not verify the claims) as "promising start-ups" and "Small Biz Contest nominee", but no significant web or news coverage can be found. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 20:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 16 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! 05:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Transmission risks and rates

Transmission risks and rates (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It might have been OK to have an uncited article about "Transmission of an infection" in 2009 but we ought to know better these days Chidgk1 ( talk) 19:42, 9 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! 19:49, 16 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 Bielino, Płock County. Daniel ( talk) 19:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Wirgnia

Wirgnia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In re-reviewing articles for NPP I was unable to find any RS to confirm that this place passes our WP:GEOLAND guideline. Lightburst ( talk) 19:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi, I invite yiu to read the first line of WP:GEOLAND that you linked. "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." Artemis Andromeda ( talk) 21:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Sources seem cited... @ Stok Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Redirect to Bielino, Płock County, which Wirginia/Wirgnia is part of. The sources cited in the article describe it only as "part of Bielino" (część wsi Bielino) providing no other detail - this is not evidence of being a legally-recognised populated place since this does not list it as a legally-recognised class of populated place, but as part of another. Even if it was WP:NOPAGE has something to say about articles that cannot be developed. On balance I favour deletion over merging because I simply don't believe anyone will credibly be searching for this term and expecting to land on the page for Bielino. "Wirgnia" anyway appears to be a mis-spelling of the original name of Wirginia (the Polish version of "Virginia") which is a first name (see, e.g., Wirginia Maixner). Merging is unnecessary as all the relevant content is already at the article for Bielino (i.e., that Wirginia/Wirgnia is part of Bielino). FOARP ( talk) 10:21, 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! 19:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply

-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 00:10, 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 Janice Vidal. Liz Read! Talk! 04:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Wish (2010 Janice Vidal album)

Wish (2010 Janice Vidal album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's just reversion of Wish (2009 Janice Vidal album) John123521 ( Talk- Contib.) 13:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Janice Vidal: Found zero evidence of notability. Also put Wish (2009 Janice Vidal album) up for PROD as I didn't find anything for it either. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 18:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Scratch that, redirected Wish '09 which makes way more sense and I'm silly for not just doing that first. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 18:57, 9 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! 19:47, 16 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 Baron Fermoy. Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Maurice Roche, 6th Baron Fermoy

Maurice Roche, 6th Baron Fermoy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This nobleman from the peerage of Ireland, who is also a businessman, has no particular claim to notability other than the title. Fails WP:BASIC. BEFORE did not turn up anything other than passing mentions due to being related to Diana Spencer, and a Tatler interview, which is not independent from the subject. Pilaz ( talk) 13:34, 9 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! 19:46, 16 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! 04:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

MetaZoo

MetaZoo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the references, are primary, a few that seem to be independent are press releases, stakeholder interviews, and a article from VOX that mentions that VOX Media will get a commission if you click on any of the MetaZoo links. There is a article from Professional Sports Authenticator but I don't think that one article pushes this over the notability guidelines.

BEFORE did not bring up anything that is not already amongst the references. Sohom ( talk) 09:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:20, 9 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! 19:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Notable enough with coverage from Polygon and Den of Geek.
RowanJ LP2 ( talk) 00:08, 18 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. I discounted a number of 'keep' !votes which were totally deficient in their argument relative to policy (including some early in the debate, as well as two notable examples since the last relist, where Rosgull noted it was heading towards 'no consensus'), and what I was left with was no solid consensus either way. Daniel ( talk) 19:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

List of roles in the British Army

List of roles in the British Army (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NLIST. The subject itself fails WP:GNG as there is literature about some roles, but there are not sufficient sources about the "the roles in the British Army". Redirects are costly. Chris Troutman ( talk) 15:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • I find a really specialized job for one specific weapon, not a type of weapon like self-propelled guns in general, but one and only one, to be odd. It is not intended to be insulting, nor do I consider it reasonable for someone to take offense at a jibe at a job title. I'm not spitting on someone's flag; it's a freaking job title. Clarityfiend ( talk) 06:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep, all information is sourced and of benefit to wikipedia Dolphinwaxer ( talk) 13:40, 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! 22:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep has a sizable majority, but delete arguments have a firmer grounding in policy. I considered closing as no consensus at this time but I think this can benefit from another relist despite the amount of discussion thus far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:00, 16 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. Daniel ( talk) 19:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Sanilac/GB Broadcasting

Sanilac/GB Broadcasting (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These radio broadcasters simply don't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Let'srun ( talk) 18:51, 16 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. A reminder, if you have criticisms of either the nominator or any other editor participating in an AFD, it's preferable to bring the issue to their User talk page rather than introducing it into a discussion of the article and its merits. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Francis Dolarhyde

Francis Dolarhyde (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources in the article do 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 Hannibal Lecter (franchise)#Cast and characters (perhaps not the best redirect target, but I can only think of that). Spinixster (chat!) 02:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply

It seems pretty strong to me. There is definite analysis relative to the werewolf trope, speculation on links with Jekyll & Hyde, stuff on gender/sexual identity, and on deformity, &c&c. Certainly not just plot summary. Espresso Addict ( talk) 07:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply
To summarize what I saw, the character is based on the BTK killer, he has problems with his gender and sexual identity, and is considered by the writer to be the most sympathetic villain of the series. Those parts can be used. The others are just brief plot summary. I never said it's not usable. Spinixster (chat!) 07:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't have time to look through them now but Project Muse has 12 book/journal results for "Francis Dolarhyde" (including the above) so some of the others might well be useful. Espresso Addict ( talk)
At least based on the brief search on MUSE, the sources that can be used are:
  • "Becoming: Genre, Queerness, and Transformation in NBC’s Hannibal" has a chapter dedicated to Francis.
  • "Real Phonies: Cultures of Authenticity in Post-World War II America", chapter 3 ("They Didn’t Do It for Thrills": Serial Killing and the Problem of Motive) mentions Francis.
  • To be added as I continue searching through the sources.
I just quickly skimmed through the books and articles, and it's pretty hard to search the entire book on MUSE so I have to guess what chapter the character is mentioned, so maybe not all of them would be usable. Spinixster (chat!) 08:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply
"it's pretty hard to search the entire book on MUSE" -- the search engine tells you which chapters the search string is found in. Espresso Addict ( talk) 22:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply
KEEP JosephWC ( talk) 16:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply
@ JosephWC See WP:JV. Spinixster (chat!) 07:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Since this discussion has less traction so far, here's a couple more sources to chew on.
    1. A few pages of SIGCOV in The Silence of the Lambs: Devil's Advocates by Barry Forshaw [4]
    2. A couple pages of SIGCOV in Psycho Paths:Tracking the Serial Killer Through Contemporary American Film and Fiction by Philip L. Simpson [5]
— siro χ o 23:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:51, 16 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. Daniel ( talk) 19:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Alicia and Annie Sorell

Alicia and Annie Sorell (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actresses. Natg 19 ( talk) 18:48, 16 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. Daniel ( talk) 19:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Phalloides

Phalloides (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per the well-argued consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristis (2nd nomination) (2020).

If this page is deleted, Phalloides (disambiguation) should be deleted per WP:G14.

Consider adding phalloides to List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names. Narky Blert ( talk) 18:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Done! Elemimele ( talk) 19:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete as none of these dab entries is ever referred to by just the species epithet alone. Loopy30 ( talk) 16:23, 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. Daniel ( talk) 19:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Programmer's Broadcasting

Programmer's Broadcasting (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP as a radio broadcasting company. Let'srun ( talk) 18:32, 16 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 Combustion instability. Daniel ( talk) 19:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Intrinsic flame instabilities

Intrinsic flame instabilities (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

page does not have any indication of notability. at the very least, draftify DrowssapSMM ( say hello) 18:11, 16 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 Characters of the Metal Gear series. Daniel ( talk) 19:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Meryl Silverburgh

Meryl Silverburgh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Character shows no evidence of standalone notability and all reception is from bundled together listicles that do nothing but say she's hot, sexy, and (until a few months ago) a Jew. This article used to have statements in its reception such as "the sexiest fictional Jew since Rhoda Morgenstern" (which also came from a listicle). No sources with in-depth character discussion exist, all of her mentions come from sex appeal listicles. Character fails WP:SIGCOV. Negative MP1 17:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Negative MP1 17:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I think it's important not to judge an article by its current sources. Yes they are all rather poor, but that doesn't necessarily mean that sources don't exist out there that are better. Whether the character "shows no evidence" is less relevant than whether a WP:BEFORE comes up with sources. In this case there is a chapter on Meryl from Metal Gear Solid by Boss Fight Books, and Toward a Gameic World discusses the novelty of having to look up Meryl's codec number on the actual game box. The part about Meryl's codec is also mentioned here. I haven't checked enough to be sure there's significant coverage out there, but we're talking a major character from one of the most seminal games ever made. There's no clear evidence an exhaustive source search was performed rather than just looking at the sources right now and saying they're all bad. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 18:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    I ran a WP:BEFORE two months ago when cleaning the reception up and when nominating this article and wasn't able to find much beyond voice acting work both times, hence what I meant by "No sources of in-depth character discussion exist". While those sources you brought up would be helpful, there needs to be actual character reception, of which there's very little that I could find. It'd be great if I was proven wrong and actual sources were found beyond both of my searches, but there's a reason why I nominated the article. Negative MP1 19:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Characters of the Metal Gear series, or Merge if there's any relevant reception worth merging to that article. The article's reception is very flimsy and there doesn't seem to be anything per the nominator's BEFORE. If any relevant reception is scrounged up, ping me, and I'll be willing to change my vote. Pokelego999 ( talk) 23:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge/Redirect I agree that mentions at listicles don't mean much unless they are truly a major accolade, like "best video game character of all time". This is supported by only the thinnest of journalism, and could easily be merged somewhere with a brief summary. Shooterwalker ( talk) 03:36, 18 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. Daniel ( talk) 19:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Nashville Kickoff Game

Nashville Kickoff Game (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find any sources referencing this game. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Let'srun ( talk) 17:16, 16 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. Daniel ( talk) 19:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Andrey Voronin (psychologist)

Andrey Voronin (psychologist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think the subject meets notability, and this looks more than slightly promotional to me. microbiologyMarcus ( petri dish) 16:59, 16 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. Daniel ( talk) 19:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Savarapu Vijaya Kumar

AfDs for this article:
Savarapu Vijaya Kumar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Spokespeople for a police or enforcement organisation are not inherently notable on their own for the agency's broader work even when credited in mainstream media sourcing (fails the depth test); authorship of a book is not notable unless reported by secondary sources. The sourcing for rest of article is mostly trade publications (pharmabiz). The rest of the achievements are not encyclopedic and just the work of any other medical professional. Orphaned page that nothing else in mainspace links to, page originally created by COI/UPE sockfarm. Previously was deleted at AfD for similar reasons 2 years prior then recreated in 2018 without additional sourcing. lizthegrey ( talk) 16:18, 16 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. Daniel ( talk) 19:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Blaine Hogan

Blaine Hogan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR. Three episodes of Prison Break does not a notable actor make. Novemberjazz 16:14, 16 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. Daniel ( talk) 19:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Andrey Korolev (traveler)

Andrey Korolev (traveler) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Having searched extensively for both the English and Russian (Андрей Королев) versions of this individual's name, it does not seem that he has acquired any significant notability from reliable, secondary sources. The two links provided at the very end might be sufficient, but I am rather sceptical. They are also the only secondary sources provided in the Russian version. An anonymous username, not my real name 16:13, 16 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.
Are you in too much of a hurry, An anonymous username, not my real name? Please restore the article to my personal space. There are reliable sources that can be added!-- Pustov ( talk) 08:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close‎. AfD opened by non- EC editor, which means that they do not have standing to propose the deletion of an article covered by WP:ARBPIA. This close is without prejudice to renomination by extended-confirmed editors in good standing. signed, Rosguill talk 17:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Bushra al-Tawil

Bushra al-Tawil (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm nominating this page for deletion as a breach of Wikipedia's policy on WP:BLP violating WP:V and WP:PARTISAN. Two sources come from [ Samidoun] which is not suitable for Wikipedia, another source comes from Addameer also clearly a partisan source. The lack of reliable sources on this topic causes this article to have little to no pertinent information, instead being a list of events. Given that this is a biography of a living person with close to no reliable sources available, it should be removed. Dazzling4 ( talk) 16:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Sources aside, nothing in the article satisfies WP:N. Just because something is related in some way to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict does not make it notable for inclusion - Wikipedia already gives too much unwarranted much attention this topic.
Xiaoreo ( talk) 01:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
New, non-extended-confirmed user whose second (and outside of their user page, only) edit is to comment on this AfD. Comment should be struck per WP:ARBECR. Jfire ( talk) 04:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note to admin: Should this AfD even proceed given that the topic clearly falls under the ARBPIA CT area and the nom is not extended confirmed? Please can the relevant page notices be added. Iskandar323 ( talk) 19:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep article needs more sources which an Arabic speaking Wikipedian can help find, not a rushed deletion.-- QazyQazyQazaqstan ( talk) 22:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Those sources need to show that this article warrants inclusion by Wikipedia's policy on notability WP:N. Wikipedia generally considers individuals notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable, independent, and verifiable sources (it is clear that, at least in English, this article lacks WP:SIGCOV), but notability can also be established if the person has made significant contributions to a specific field, has received notable awards or honors, or has played a significant role in a notable event or movement. If Bushra al-Tawil has achieved recognition or prominence in her field or through her work, and this recognition has been documented in reliable sources, she may be considered notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, based on my searches, I could not find anything that shows notability on either account. Dazzling4 ( talk) 23:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply
      • People who only do a cursory english language search can find themselves deciding that any major person outside of the West isn't notable. Her search results in english google will not be reflective of her overall fame. Stop the rush to delete and let's wait for some arabic speakers to help find sources.-- QazyQazyQazaqstan ( talk) 00:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep for general WP:GNG reasons. The page hasn't been written up correctly in the lead, but the subject is notable for being placed under arbitrary administrative detention without charge for a prolonged period for nothing more than their journalism. Another source on the subject's arrest is here (and there are a variety of links from humans rights watchdogs and news links out there) - the saga with this particular individual appears to have been ongoing for quite some time, and so is clearly WP:SUSTAINED, and is a notable part of the overall tapestry of abuses against journalists in the conflict. Iskandar323 ( talk) 03:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Consensus about Middle East Monitor on WP:RSN ( 1, 2, 3) trends toward "attribute" or "unreliable" so the source you linked (and the other MEMO source already in the article) likely do not help establish notability and we'd need to be careful how we use them in a BLP. (I'm undecided on this AfD at this time. It would be helpful to locate additional sources at or above the reliability level of the Al Jazeera article.) Jfire ( talk) 04:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
There are also mentions on Wafa, Palestine Chronicle, Dawn and Mondoweiss, and a further, more extended profile on Mondoweiss here, as part of a news round up. Iskandar323 ( talk) 04:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Mondoweiss is not appropriate for Wikipedia. As for each of the other articles listed, the name Bushra al-Tawil is only mentioned once, in passing. "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability," as per WP:NBASIC. Dazzling4 ( talk) 13:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Why do people always selectively quote guidelines as if no one else knows them or is likely to read them? That is preceded by: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Iskandar323 ( talk) 14:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, but trivial coverage by multiple independent sources is not sufficient for notability, which is what I was pointing out. You were compiling a list of sources that mentioned the name, but these trivial mentions are not sufficient to establish notability Dazzling4 ( talk) 14:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Mondoweiss is suitable, per WP:RSP, with attribution. Iskandar323 ( talk) 14:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Mondoweiss is WP:MREL and considered heavily biased. You should be using, its attributions if they are reliable, and not Mondoweiss itself as a source for factual information. For opinions on a debate you can reference Mondoweiss's position. Dazzling4 ( talk) 16:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Dazzling4: Please note that you shouldn't even have started this internal project discussion as it's covered by WP:ARBPIA and you are not an extended confirmed user. Iskandar323 ( talk) 14:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Al Jazaeera English is a WP:RSP. Can't see a problem there. Iskandar323 ( talk) 04:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
There is also coverage in The New Arab and a ToI mention. Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:58, 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 redirect‎ to Wayne Rooney#Personal life#Family (ATD). Daniel ( talk) 19:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Tommy Rooney

Tommy Rooney (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Played 22 minutes of the lowest possible example of professional football, in League Two for Macclesfield in 2004, plus one minute in the FA Cup two weeks later. Dropped into non-league after that and untraceable since 2008, when he was 24. Sources so far are four lines on joining Macclesfield, a passing mention in a list of releases, and then a load of dead link transfer stories from a specialist non-league website. A Google search overwhelmingly gives results for a Gaelic football journalist, which when you consider the difference in popularity between soccer and Gaelic football, is not really a sign that this is a notable footballer. Unknown Temptation ( talk) 15:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply

In a passing mention, Tommy Rooney was playing Sunday League with relatives by the age of 26. [6] This man passes the defunct WP:NFOOTY but clearly not WP:GNG. Unknown Temptation ( talk) 15:28, 16 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 List of Star Wars characters. Liz Read! Talk! 04:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Grand Inquisitor (Star Wars)

Grand Inquisitor (Star Wars) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor fictional character from Star Wars. No reception section, outside plot summary, or list of works he appears in we just have a 'concept and creation' based on primary sources and mentions in passing. Seems to fail WP:GNG (SIGCOV). Considering ATD, maybe redirect (merge a bit?) to List of Star Wars characters? I don't think the single source that mentions him in-depth CBR is of use (it seems to be just a plot summary). There is also this but it is just about a piece of art featuring this character, very niche trivia. PS. BEFORE showas few more sources but the coverage is limited to effectively: "this character has been redesigned from one side-show (Rebels) to another (Obi-Wan Kenobi) which upset some fans who complained about canon consistency". I don't think this is enough to merit keeping this ( Screenrant, Screenrant again. The latter is discussing a fan theory. This is not encyclopedic stuff IMHO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:02, 16 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 Zajączkowo, Tczew County. Daniel ( talk) 19:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Zajączkowo-Wybudowanie

Zajączkowo-Wybudowanie (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mass-created article by Kotbot. a bot operated by retired editor Kotniski.

Name means literally "Zajączkowo-Construction". As is visible from satellite images, this is actually a small industrial estate, and is described as a part of Zajączkowo on the Polish regulation on place-names (see p. 2518 here). I could not find a listing for this place on the Polish government statistical database, though this holds data for Zajączkowo going back to 1988. Importantly, businesses located at this site list their location simply as "Zajączkowo" (see here as an example, here for another), which is no surprise as "[placename]-construction" would be a weird way to describe your address anywhere in the world.

As such this place fails WP:GEOLAND, since it is not a legally-recognised populated place, but instead just a part of another place with no specific status of its own. Even if it did pass WP:GEOLAND, no page is needed for it per WP:NOPAGE.

This is likely another example of Polish communist-era infrastructure (e.g., state farms, forestry offices, mills etc.) being included as a territorial unit (probably some kind of no-longer-existent communist-era construction-related site), and then turned into a Wikipedia article by bots and bot-like editing.

I'm agnostic about deletion or just redirecting to Zajączkowo - either is good.

TL;DR - fails WP:GEOLAND, WP:NOPAGE, WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. FOARP ( talk) 13:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Stok? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
I corrected the article, coordinates and sources in Polish official documents. Formally it is part of the village. "XXX-Wybudowanie" referred to small settlements emerging outside the village of XXX. Articles about places in Poland are available on pl.wikipedia and are verified with the database of the Statistical and Geographical Office. Every town with SIMC listed is an official town in Poland. If in doubt, I advise you to check the SIMC field in the Polish article. Stok ( talk) 06:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks for responding. "Every town with SIMC listed is an official town in Poland" - the issue is that SIMCs were also given to many things that manifestly aren't towns, villages, or even hamlets, but instead state farms, railway stations, mills, forestry offices etc. Just having a SIMC doesn't mean that something is or was a town. FOARP ( talk) 08:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Piotrus,@ Stok - Also, though my Polish is far from great (as you will know if you ever read anything I've written in Polish!) translating miejscowośc as "town" I think may be causing a some misunderstandings.
In English, a "town" is an inhabited place that is larger in size/population than a village, but smaller than a city. Villages, hamlets, farms, etc. are not "towns". Whilst miejscowośc can be translated as "town" in some contexts, I think in the context of TERYT and the Polish regulation on place names, miejscowośc may be better translated as "locality", since it seems to include units that are much larger than "towns" (e.g., the city of Warsaw is included on TERYT under SIMC ID 0918123) and smaller than "towns" (e.g., the small locality of Warszawa, Bytów County is included on TERYT under SIMC ID 0746998). These are not towns, but they are locations, so "locality" seems a better fit here.
Or am I wrong here? FOARP ( talk) 09:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 00:22, 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 merge‎ to Zajączkowo, Tczew County. Daniel ( talk) 19:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Zajączkowo-Dworzec

Zajączkowo-Dworzec (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mass-created article by Kotbot. a bot operated by retired editor Kotniski.

Name means literally "Zajączkowo-Station". As is visible from satellite images, this is actually a railway station/marshalling-yard, and is described as a part of Zajączkowo on the Polish regulation on place-names (see p. 2518 here). Whilst the article includes a population, I could not find a listing for this place on the Polish government statistical database, though this holds data for Zajączkowo going back to 1988.

This is another example of Polish communist-era infrastructure (e.g., state farms, forestry offices, mills etc.) being included as a territorial unit, and then turned into a Wikipedia article by bots and bot-like editing.

I'm agnostic about deletion or just redirecting to Zajączkowo - either is good.

TL;DR - fails WP:NTRAINSTATION, WP:GNG, WP:GEOLAND. FOARP ( talk) 12:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply

-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 00:50, 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 delete‎. ✗ plicit 12:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival Awards

AfDs for this article:
Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival Awards (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed draftification. Draftify 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:06, 16 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! 05:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Angie Phillips

AfDs for this article:
Angie Phillips (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been here for many years. The subject is an ordinary weather presenter doing her job and fails WP:BIO. A WP:BEFORE failed to reveal any new sources for me. The existing sources are not useful in establishing notability. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Some celebrity-type articles covering her mentioned in the first AfD; same level of things still talking about her now. She showed up to work wearing the same blue dress as another news anchor [7]. Nothing I'd use for notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:41, 16 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 12:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Sani Bello Science College Dawakin Kudu, Kano

Sani Bello Science College Dawakin Kudu, Kano (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this is a disputed draftification there is little point in sending this back to draft because schools are no longer inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. No notability asserted, nor verified, nor can I find any with WP:BEFORE. Needs to be deleted to save the creating editor from expending further time upon it. If it gains notability then an article may be reconsidered, but I do not recommend a soft delete because of the GNG failure. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:24, 16 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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Hey man im josh ( talk) 13:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Tempo (film)

Tempo (film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable enough to pass WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator ( talk) 10:09, 16 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 Vachirawit Chivaaree. Liz Read! Talk! 04:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Cloud9 Entertainment

Cloud9 Entertainment (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A new article about a very young company. Feels promotional though use of peacock wording, but without any direct advertising. Has numerous references, though some of dubious quality. May possibly be saved if notable and copy-edited. Listing to gain consensus. Os ari us 14:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Os ari us 09:17, 16 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 2023 Israel–Hamas war. There is a clear consensus below that the article cannot be retained (I'd argue near-universal agreement). Debate was split between 'delete' and 'merge', and then within 'merge' to various different targets (including existing articles and potential new articles).

Based on this, I have closed this discussion as a redirect to the top-line article. This means the history is preserved behind the redirect at Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Editors can now, editorially and using normal consensus-building tools such as the talk page and relevant noticeboards, merge or split this content into any potential new articles as they see fit. This redirect can also be re-targetted from 2023 Israel–Hamas war to a more suitable target should a merge or split occur. Daniel ( talk) 10:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis

Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Duplicates content already at Amin al-Husseini and 2023 Israel–Hamas war

The connection between the content is also very tenuous; while individual aspects might meet GNG, the totality does not. BilledMammal ( talk) 08:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Iskandar323: I don't see how it is a "SYNTH" because the synthesis is in the sources, not of my creation. I didn't invent the allegation that the Palestinian cause is a continuation of the Holocaust; I'm citing an Israeli academic who accuses Netanyahu of making that claim; I'm also citing a couple of American academics who make that claim. You may think that A and B have nothing to do with each other, but if there are sources presenting them as connected, then the claim that the connection has been made (which neither I nor the article ever endorse as accurate) is not a SYNTH. SomethingForDeletion ( talk) 09:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply
The fact that the connection is based on claims made by Benjamin Netanyahu is really pretty much all that needs to be said about this. "A politician said X" is not a reason to create a topic. Iskandar323 ( talk) 09:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply
The connection pre-existed Netanyahu, and had been made by other pro-Israel figures before him, as the 2009 cite from Dershowitz demonstrates–six years before Netanyahu's infamous address. When Raz-Krakotzkin accuses many of his fellow Israelis of unfairly conflating the Palestinian cause with the Nazi Holocaust, he's not presenting Netanyahu as the origination of that conflation, merely as the highest profile expression of it. SomethingForDeletion ( talk) 09:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes, so the one half-decent source says the topic is idiotic. Iskandar323 ( talk) 09:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply
If notable people are making idiotic claims, what is wrong with documenting their idiocy? SomethingForDeletion ( talk) 09:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Maybe it has a home on some page somewhere, under idiotic ideas for the ages, but not here, on its own page, giving the idiocy undue credence. Iskandar323 ( talk) 10:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply
"Maybe it has a home on some page somewhere" seems to be an argument for "Merge" rather than "Delete". And I'd actually be okay with "Merge" as an outcome. The question is, merge where? My original idea was not a separate article, it was a subsection at the end of the Genocide against Palestinians article, but both you and User:Scientelensia were opposed to the idea of a section in that article; Scientelensia suggested a separate article, so I've done what Scientelensia suggested. As I've said all along, I think it is more important that the content live somewhere, whether it is its own article or a section within some other article is less important to me. SomethingForDeletion ( talk) 10:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply
My original plan was not to create a separate article, it was simply to add a section describing Israeli genocide claims to the Genocide against Palestinians article. I only decided to create another article instead when the feedback I got from other editors was that they didn't think the content belonged in the same article, and they advised me to create a separate article instead. How can it be that "article created merely to prove a point" when I didn't originally intend to create a separate article at all? My point was simply to document the fact these allegations have been made – a fact many people seem to be ignorant of – if we merged this content into some other article, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Because I think the allegations are notable (because the people who make them are notable). SomethingForDeletion ( talk) 09:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Articles can not be merged into a nonexistent article. Please do not suggest this before the article is created. Liz Read! Talk! 05:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
merge to the genocide of Palestinians article and rename that one. That work? nableezy - 00:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Nableezy: since you are saying "Merge", would you support or oppose the below proposal to merge to Second Holocaust? SomethingForDeletion ( talk) 00:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Some odd SYNTH, with no sources from RS we'd use. One is green per sourcebot, but that's not enough for a whole article. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    no sources from RS we'd use. Sources for the article include a chapter in a book published by Columbia University Press, and a law journal. Why are they not "sources from RS we'd use"? One is green per sourcebot What is this "sourcebot" tool? Is there a page explaining how it works? SomethingForDeletion ( talk) 18:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete: per G3 criterion (pure hoax). It's just petty revenge against the creation of the " Genocide against Palestinians" article. (Which by the way, is just a bunch of postmodern activists proposing the expansion of the definition of genocide to conveniently include the Palestinians. There's no way someone would take that seriously. It's comically harmless, not even worth deleting, and it's going to be merged with another article soon). That should pacify the Israelis. – Daveout (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    pure hoax It isn't a hoax that some pro-Israel sources accuse Palestinians of committing genocide of Jews/Israelis. Did I invent articles in the San Diego International Law Journal, a major Israeli newspaper, and a well-regarded group blog by law professors claiming that? Did I fake the quote from a well-known Harvard law professor in which he claimed that? It's just petty revenge against the creation I'm not engaging in revenge. I just thought the existence of these allegations was noteworthy and the fact they have been made ought to be documented. I have never once claimed they are true. One of the sources I cite in the article (the book chapter by Israeli professor Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin) argues they are essentially an Israeli smear job to equate the Palestinian cause with the Holocaust. I think you should WP:AGF. Which by the way, is just a bunch of postmodern activists proposing the expansion of the definition of genocide to conveniently include the Palestinians That's a historically ignorant argument. The guy ( Raphael Lemkin) who coined the word genocide defined it in an extremely broad way. Nobody is expanding the definition; on the contrary, the popular definition is heavily narrowed from the original one, and scholars and activists who you accuse of "broadening" it are just relying on the older broader definitions. No "factual relativism" involved here, just the perennial truth that different people define the same words in different ways, and most people are ignorant of definitions that differ from their own–even when those definitions are older. If I had an "agenda" in creating this article, it wasn't anything to do with trying to be pro or anti either side of the conflict, it was to do with trying to counter the ignorance of people who insist their own ahistorically narrow definition of "genocide" is the only correct one. SomethingForDeletion ( talk) 18:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic, fringe use of polarizing language where inapplicable. Here again: There was no such genocide, we shouldn't have an article on allegations about it. –  SJ  + 00:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Devoid of useful content and can't be fixed. This is only a "thing" in fringe circles. Zero talk 10:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    This is only a "thing" in fringe circles This isn't sourced to InfoWars or the National Enquirer; it is sourced to a law journal article, an article in a major mainstream Israeli newspaper, a blog post by the dean of Cornell Law School writing in a notable law professor group blog, a chapter in a book by Columbia University Press discussing a speech by the Israeli Prime Minister, a blog post by a famous Harvard law professor on the website of another major mainstream Israeli newspaper, an article in JSTOR, etc. Those aren't "fringe circles"; they aren't people like Alex Jones or David Icke, which is the kind of circles we normally consider "fringe" SomethingForDeletion ( talk) 18:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Second Holocaust: There is no reason to have two articles for the same topic. Parham wiki ( talk) 15:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thank you for that suggestion, I support it. It doesn't seem like there is support for this as an independent article, so I am changing my !vote to agree with yours. SomethingForDeletion ( talk) 18:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
    Better yet, merge into " paranoia" or " Conspiracy theories" Lol – Daveout (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Second Holocaust: (article creator) seems like an appropriate merge target and doesn't seem like there is going to be support for keeping this as an independent article. SomethingForDeletion ( talk) 18:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Totally Unencyclopedic! Using Wikipedia to gain sympathy against what that hardly exists. Palestinians don't have a military or armed forces to conduct this. The only force that do this is Hamas which itself is created due to Reverse genocide effect. Tousif ❯❯❯ Talk 09:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge both this and the Israeli one into Allegations of genocide in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, per nableezy above and my comments in the Israeli AFD. Levivich ( talk) 16:25, 18 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 History of paper. Liz Read! Talk! 04:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Kaghaz

Kaghaz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page for a single Persian word. Better off as redirect to paper? William Graham  talk 04:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge or Redirect and to determine what the target article should be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 16 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. Looks like we're not going to get agreement on this. The merge proposal by TimothyBlue sounds promising; that discussion can happen away from this AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Pokémon and pornography

Pokémon and pornography (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There doesn't seem to be much that makes Pokémon porn a unique subject that deserves its own article. Remember Rule 34, if it exists, there is porn of it. Overwatch pornography at least has some sort of influence (whether that influence is good or bad is up to you), but this... really doesn't feel like something worth noting besides that it exists. Most of what the article discusses, furthermore, is typical pornography related things that really isn't exclusive to Pokémon (reddit communities, fanfics). The doujinshi incident might be okay to stay as an article though. Negative MP1 09:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I agree with Skyshifter above. Other sources include:
  1. Rolling Stone: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/four-ways-pokemon-go-ruined-our-lives-252143/
  2. AskMen: https://www.askmen.com/news/entertainment/brazzers-makes-pokemon-go-porn-parody.html
  3. International Business Times: https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/pokemon-go-pokeporn-searches-increase-pornhub-after-game-release-1570321
- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'll try a second relist, otherwise this looks like No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, for now, per Salvidrim. Andre 🚐 00:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge: a trimmed version (1-2 paragraph) to Rule 34, this seems like a fad with fad passing refs, nothing substantial that makes this notable for its own article, by WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth.
Now I am worried that internet ads are going to start appearing for Pokémon porn.  //  Timothy ::  talk  18:39, 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 Geospatial metadata#Geospatial metadata tools. Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Pycsw

Pycsw (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pretty small open source project - its Github repo has less than 200 stars. I'm not seeing the coverage needed to justify GNG.

https://github.com/geopython/pycsw BrigadierG ( talk) 01:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several possible outcomes are mentioned here and we need a consensus for one in order to close this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:02, 9 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! 06:23, 16 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! 04:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Dell monitors

Dell monitors (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Largely unreferenced, and most of the references provided are primary sources from Dell's support site. It's probably not hard to find capsule reviews for these products, but they're largely not notable. Also, WP:NOTCATALOG; the list is just a summary of features and specifications with no establishment of notability for individual items. Mikeblas ( talk) 04:51, 16 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. ✗ plicit 03:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Beautiful and Unemployed

Beautiful and Unemployed (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

12 episode Polish TV series. No evidence of wider impact or reception. Nominated for deletion on pl wiki. My BEFORE fails to find anything beyond the standard information summarizing plot and casting, and the usual these days "will there be a second season" stuff that might as well be AI generated. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:45, 16 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 Arch Linux#Derivatives. Disregarding Mr vili's contribution, the sole argument to keep was from Astrophobe - and I find Aoidh's reply compelling. Based on this there is a consensus not to retain the article, so redirecting as suggested per ATD. Daniel ( talk) 10:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

CachyOS

CachyOS (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability, very minimal third-party sourcing and not much in-depth coverage available. GorillaWarfare (she/her •  talk) 17:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. GorillaWarfare (she/her •  talk) 17:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Article's subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, and WP:NSOFT. I have an essay on why DistroWatch is not a reliable source, and the only source that would be considered third-party in any way is this. MakeUseOf has only been discussed as a reliable source (that I can tell) here, which was not a conclusive discussion either way in terms of reliability, so for the purposes of establishing notability I'm inclined to lean towards "reliable" if only slightly. However, it is a single review, and is the only source that could be considered independent of the subject while also discussing the subject, and each of the applicable notability guidelines requires multiple reliable third-party sources at minimum. - Aoidh ( talk) 06:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I found the following seemingly independent in-depth coverage in some of the standard outlets for this sort of thing: ZDNet, Linux Insider, Computer Base, and the It's FOSS newsletter. Also something in this website that I know nothing about. At least three of these --- ZDNET, LinuxInsider, and It's FOSS --- are widely used in practice on Wikipedia, and I have no knowledge of any precedent deprecating them. Computerbase also looks like a standard software news site in Germany. They also all look independent and in-depth to me. I think GNG is satisfied with one or two independent reliable sources to spare. - Astrophobe ( talk) 02:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply
    I don't think these show notability either, there are questions regarding the continued reliability of ZDNet, this is an interview and while they may be used on Wikipedia, ItsFoss and LinuxInsider are indiscriminate in which Linux distributions they will review (evidenced by their reviews being within days of each other, which is commonly an indicator of a distro asking en masse these sites to review them). WP:NSOFT is specific that the mere existence of reviews is not in itself an indication of notability unless the reviews are all reliable sources that give indication that the software is in some way notable, and the reviews don't do that. As far as WP:NCORP, these reviews are all from Linux-specific websites that generally are indiscriminate in which distro they will review (i.e. if you have one and let them know they will review it) so are narrow interest publication as described by WP:PRODUCTREV. I think at most you have one, maybe two of these reviews (ZDNet and MakeUseof) that would meet PRODUCTREV, and two reviews (at best) is not enough. I don't think five of these generic reviews would be enough, even if they were all without question suitable; it needs more than what's here to meet WP:NSOFT or WP:NCORP. - Aoidh ( talk) 10:02, 27 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! 01:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. In AFDs, please avoid giving a "per X" vote and join the discussion with your independent assessment of available sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Arch Linux § Derivatives as {{ r with possibilities}}, or stub and keep. It appears this is notable. ComputerBase is reliable. And while modern ZDNET is due scrutiny after being purchase by Red Ventures, the author of the piece linked above is well-cited in Wikipedia and has been covering Linux for decades, so this piece should be considered reliable. However the article has a fair bit of unabashed promo including a check-mark bullet list of buzz, and so we can't keep this without reducing it to a stub. — siro χ o 08:22, 16 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 Nigerian film directors. Liz Read! Talk! 04:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Andy Chukwu

Andy Chukwu (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet notability or GNG, just a few passing mentions in small Nigerian publications Nswix ( talk) 00:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different redirect target articles proposed. We need to get that down to one suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 9 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! 01:51, 16 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. ✗ plicit 03:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Lanser Broadcasting

Lanser Broadcasting (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I doubt a one-market ( Zeeland, Michigan, near Grand Rapids) radio station owner has anywhere near the significant coverage to meet WP:CORP or GNG. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 16 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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 03:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Daria Lodikova

Daria Lodikova (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tennis player who does not satisfy general notability or tennis notability. This article is a contested draftification, which was moved from article space to draft space correctly by User:TheChunky the first time for better sources. The second draftification was technically incorrect, but was a response to the failure to provide the requested reliable sources. The one reference says that she played in the main draw of the Hong Kong Open, which is not one of the highest-level tournaments listed in the tennis notability guideline.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 wtatennis.com Bracket, showing that she played in the first round of doubles in the Hong Kong Open Yes No, a database entry Yes No
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 03:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Unofficial flags

Unofficial flags (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article lacks sources and may involve original research. 日期20220626 ( talk) 00:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply

user:Ghren has proposed the deletion of the article on the Chinese Wikipedia for the same reason, and the Chinese Wikipedia article is translated from the English Wikipedia article. If anyone can find reliable sources, please let me know, as this might keep of the article on the Chinese Wikipedia as well. 日期20220626 ( talk) 00:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete or Draftify. Seems like a dictionary definition, despite examples of it at the bottom. Brachy08 (Talk) 00:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Draftify - It seems like a useful article to me, but it does lack sources. Plus, it violates WP:SOURCES. We truly don't know if the information in the article is true or not, and one of the whole concepts of editing Wikipedia is to always have sources. Geko72290 ( talk) 00:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗ plicit 00:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply
In my opinion, I also feel it deserves to be blown up and redone. Brachy08 (Talk) 01:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes, probably. If that's the case, community members will decide. Geko72290 ( talk) 20:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗ plicit 00:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Who among you suggesting draftification is going to work on the article if that is done? The original author hasn't done any real editing in over a decade, and their last participation was to get a block (for uploading non-free material, specifically, flags) lifted. I question whether I would trust them to work on this article, but it makes no difference: they aren't going to do so. Which of you is going to take their place? I don't see pushing this off into a draft unless someone is going to feel the obligation or whatever to finish it. Mangoe ( talk) 11:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Soft Delete as not an encyclopaedic topic. We have Category:Unofficial flags that could be used to populate a list article, as well as plenty of standalone articles about individually notable unofficial flags, like Doug flag, Flag of Antarctica, Jolly Roger, Boxing kangaroo, etc. I think Flag of Northern Ireland is a section redirect to a well-sourced notable subject. This article does a very weak attempt at introducing the idea of unofficial flags and would need to be rewritten entirely.
    All the sources I've been able to find about unofficial flags tend to place them in context, like a political context of separatism, independence, or resistance; or a sociological context like group solidarity (sport events, pride parades, families of prisoners of war, etc). This article doesn't talk about any of the historical, political, or sociological reasons an unofficial flag might find popular usage. Meanwhile, it dips into recreational vexillology by including flag designs "that have been published".
    I could see the possibility of an article about the psychological benefits of unsanctioned flags, or the art of modern flag design, or the historical use of unofficial flags in different contexts, or the history of failed flag proposals, but the article as it stands is too broad to be a single topic, and too barebones to be a starting point for anything more encyclopaedic. Folly Mox ( talk) 17:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Interesting, although it seems to be more of a loosely-defined dictionary definition made up by the article's initial creator rather than an actual encyclopedic topic. Waddles  🗩  🖉 00:00, 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 delete‎. ✗ plicit 00:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Tom Bowl

AfDs for this article:
Tom Bowl (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fan-created joke bowl game without sustained coverage in reliable sources. Was nominated for deletion back in 2005 and was kept as it had "at least a modicum of mainstream media coverage", however our notability requirements have become much more well-refined since then. funplussmart ( talk) 00:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. No evidence of significant coverage and there’s lots of cruft. Also, the article needs to be blown up and rewritten to fulfil the holy manual Brachy08 (Talk) 00:23, 16 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_October_16&oldid=1181579651"