text
stringlengths 40
160k
| label
stringclasses 8
values |
|---|---|
Altani: ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 00:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , History , Royalty and nobility , and Mongolia . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 00:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, she exists, but what's here is basically a rehashing from whatever historical text that talks about her [34] . I can't see how this makes her notable. That's all that seems to be written, she grabbed the knife and saved the kid. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Tolui : With the very large caveat that I have no knowledge of Mongolian and thus am unable to search for this in Mongolian, I cannot find much coverage of Altani beyond what is in this article, which is rather humorously yet accurately described by nom as a 13th century WP:BIO1E . Having said that, this can probably be merged a bit more thoroughly into the Tolui article than it currently is. Tartar Torte 00:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as above is fine, or even insert this brief "anecdote"? into the Gengis Khan article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : As stated above, doesn't need to be its own article given its so limited. TheBritinator ( talk ) 11:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Not convinced there is any content here worth merging. It is essentially based on a single primary source ( The Secret History of the Mongols ). Redirecting to Tolui may suffice. (Did search for secondary sources like this article in JSTOR – essentially a passing mention which makes it clear the accuracy of the main source is contested.) Cielquiparle ( talk ) 11:38, 27 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. | merge |
Baruwar (Rajput clan): However, the content should be merged in Rajput clans , as it is a clan of Rajputs and information regarding it should be there. - Admantine123 ( talk ) 04:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Hinduism , and India . Admantine123 ( talk ) 04:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . Did a "search inside" of the 3 book citations in the article for the word "Baruwar", didn't get any hits. If I am missing something, consider adding page numbers to the citations. Did a Google News and Google Books search for "Baruwar", didn't see any promising sources. Based on what I just checked, I think the topic likely does not meet WP:GNG . – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 05:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Many such Dictionary items are created on Wikipedia, which donot contain reliable sources to back them. It should be merged in Rajput clans . - Admantine123 ( talk ) 09:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . I found that they have 4 citations, but didn't get any results. I found no results on Google News. CastJared ( talk ) 12:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FYI — Barwar (caste) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) exists and is older than this one but duplicates content; might need histmerge or just merged alongside this one if that's the way it goes. Stumbled upon it via a CSD request . Feel free to nominate it too; I didn't dig too far into either article. -- slakr \ talk / 13:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If this closes as merge/redirect/delete, I think boldly redirecting Barwar (caste) to Rajput clans would be a good option. – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 13:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Rajput clans as I found no search results at all. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 12:38, 22 June 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. | merge |
Embassy of Argentina, Athens: Fails WP:ORG . LibStar ( talk ) 01:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Greece , and Argentina . LibStar ( talk ) 01:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Argentina–Greece relations as an AtD. It's fine to cite a primary source there for confirmation it exists and its location in Athens. Jfire ( talk ) 01:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Jfire. AryKun ( talk ) 20:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge – Per above. Svartner ( talk ) 10:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
St Hugh's Boat Club: From a WP:BEFORE , not much has changed has changed since the last AfD. I'm not seeing any WP:SIGCOV on the club itself. The information of Weiss doesn't make the club itself notable. Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 16:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Sports , and England . Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 16:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to the St. Hugh College article. Not notable without the context of the school. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is suggested that this article should not be deleted for the following reasons: 1. SHBC alumni include American Olympic rower Anders Weiss who has his own Wikipedia page. 2. It is extremely common for Oxford college boat clubs to have their own Wikipedia page at https://en.m. wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Rowing_Clubs 3. It is suggested that all Oxford college boat clubs should be included to make Wikipedia more comprehensive. 4. Members of SHBC compete in the world-famous Oxford vs Cambridge boat race with a television audience of ~6 million. See for example the 1982 race at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boat_Race_1982 where Boris Rankov represented St Hugh's with a record-breaking fifth race, later recognised by Guinness World Records. Oxonwiki ( talk ) 11:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Point 1 doesn't mean we should have an article for the club, per WP:NOTINHERITED . Point 2 is just WP:OSE . Point 3 doesn't comply with the need for them to be notable , articles should only be created if notable. Point 4 is again WP:NOTINHERITED . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 11:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please re-read the article on St Hugh's Boat Club. I have added more information regarding the Club's history and the awards it has won. Most notable change is the fact that St Hugh's Women First VIII were the first and only women's crew to successfully bump a men's crew (magdalen m4) during the 1975 Summer Eights. This event significantly contributed to the creation of Women divisions for all subsequent Summer Eights (1976 onwards) and Torpids (1978 onwards). Additionally, the St Hugh's Women's Eight also won the College Div B in the first ever Henley Women's Regatta in 1988, another notable achievement by the club. Whyartlife ( talk ) 17:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I will note here that there is still no significant coverage of the club . The bulk of the references added are either for alumni ( WP:NOTINHERITED ) or published by St Hugh's. As there is no WP:SNG for rowing this article has to meet WP:GNG , which requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (my emphasis). I'm still not seeing that. Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 17:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Before I address your points, may I disclose that I am not a paid editor and am not being paid to edit the St Hugh's article. I do however am connected to the Boat Club as I am a member of the club and have participated/represented the club in recent events. As a result, I am trying to show how our club has a rich and notable history, especially regarding women's rowing at Oxford. Regarding your point about significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject - The Times has mentioned St Hugh's Boat Club multiple times during their coverage of the Eights Week, most notably during the years 1975, 1982-84. You can find reference to this at this website: http://eodg.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/dudhia/rowing/bumps/e1982/ which is an archive of all Summer Eights and Torpids Bump charts reconstructed by Anu Dudhia, who has stated that majority of the information for the years 1900-1995 came from " the bumps charts printed in The Times newspapers". This is referenced on the Bump Index website here: http://eodg.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/dudhia/rowing/bumps/ . Additionally, the St Hugh's Boat Club also produced the Women's crew which won at the first Henley Women's regatta in 1988 in the College Eights Division B. This can be proven by looking at the HWR results archive website: https://hwr.org.uk/results-archive/ I hope this is sufficient information proving why the Boatclub has notable history, seeing as there is proof showing that St Hugh's Boat Club women have been rowing even before women's rowing was introduced to the Olympics in 1976. This can be seen here: http://eodg.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/dudhia/rowing/bumps/e1975/ Whyartlife ( talk ) 08:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your first point is the The Times has mentioned the club. If you will read our guidelines on significant coverage , you'll find that a mere mention is not enough: we need coverage on the club, not mentions. As for your other points, unfortunately these mean nothing since Wikipedia does not have a special notability guideline for rowing so we must use the general guideline , and we are still lacking that crucial significant coverage that would pass that. Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 10:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Times has covered the club throughout multiple days as the Eights Week as proceeded. You can go on the site I cited previously and see for yourself. As per the notability guidelines, significant coverage doesn’t need the source covering the topic to be the main topic. The Times doesn’t target the club for its main coverage, that is true. The main coverage target is Eights Week/Torpids, but in doing so it does cover the Club and its performance during the events and how the club won Headship. Winning the Eights Week is a significant and notable achievement as Eights Week itself is a notable competition seeing as it has its own article on wikipedia. There is also coverage by the Daily Telegraph alongside the Times. Additionally, there is no original research being conducted to verify this, only a few google searches. As far as I can see, this should be meeting Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines. Whyartlife ( talk ) 08:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please note that The Times article from 1983 contained in the below website provides significant coverage for the club in a reputable newspaper: https://www.sutori.com/story/shbc-a-history--et3i3ZN8NKqrxq2irj2SLSi3? fbclid=IwAR2haOjUMrk4M7tpZ_B_N2ewC9XWESwex2GT6VvqzP1foLMpGw924x6ILx0 Oxonwiki ( talk ) 01:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect not notable enough for an independent article, doesn't look like it would meet WP:GNG . Also, please protect the redirect to stop this being recreated again. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 11:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Additionally sources have been added to the article which hopefully should meet WP:GNG requirements. Whyartlife ( talk ) 17:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please note that The Times article from 1983 contained in the below website provides significant coverage for the club in a reputable newspaper: https://www.sutori.com/story/shbc-a-history--et3i3ZN8NKqrxq2irj2SLSi3? fbclid=IwAR2haOjUMrk4M7tpZ_B_N2ewC9XWESwex2GT6VvqzP1foLMpGw924x6ILx0 Oxonwiki ( talk ) 01:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How can you be sure that this was published in The Times? I doubt "St Hugh's DevSec" is an independent source. Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 07:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Extremely important article. Boat Clubs mean a lot in Oxford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:4F80:CF80:79FB:D1BD:DED0:D0BD ( talk ) 16:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's not really how AFD, nor how Wikipedia works. Is your claim verifiable by Wikipedia:Reliable sources (see the lead section)? This deletion discussion is about whether the topic is notable in terms of Wikipedia or not. Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process might be able to help you. NotAGenious ( talk ) 16:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Disclosure, I am a current member of the St Hugh's Boat Club and have conducted research and added more relevant information regarding the club's history which should hopefully meet all requirements. Additionally, I am new to editing in Wikipedia so not fully up to speed regarding most of the short-forms and conduct, so please do bear with me. I do have a vested interest in keeping the article and have presented more data so a more informed decision can occur. Whyartlife ( talk ) 17:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC) — Whyartlife ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as a lot of editing has occurred on this article since nomination, please evaluate its current condition. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : fails GNG , as most Oxford boat club articles probably do. There's no significant coverage from sources independent of St Hugh's. Those interested in the history might want to start their own wiki on Oxford sports and societies, but Wikipedia isn't that place. — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - every other Oxford college boat club appears to have a page, including e.g. St Benet's Hall and Regent's Park . I don't see the point of deleting one and being inconsistent. Either have articles for them all, or have none and delete the lot. (Just on another note - shouldn't it be moved to 'St Hugh's College Boat Club'?) FieldOfWheat ( talk ) 15:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi @ FieldOfWheat , the existence of other articles is generally seen as a poor arguement for both deleting or keeping an article. If you have concerns about the notability of other articles, then that should be voiced in discussions concerning those articles. All the best, Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 16:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems you have an agenda. Every time someone puts an argument for keeping this page, up you pop to try and void it. I have no concerns whatsoever about the notability of other articles - if every other Oxford boat club (indeed every other Oxbridge boat club ) is notable enough to deserve a page (as they all are), so does St Hugh's. Leave it alone, and don't question me about keeping this page, or I might ask you why you're so keen to delete it. FieldOfWheat ( talk ) 19:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can assure you that I have no agenda here: please don't cast aspersions. I'm merely trying to explain the policies on which we should base rationales in these discussions. You (and other editors in this discussion) are new to AfD so I thought explaining and responding to these points would be helpful and useful. Regardless, I will not be replying to any more of these points, even if I feel it will help. Thanks, Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 20:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between a Redirect/Merge to St Hugh's College, Oxford and Keeping the article. I asked in the first relist if there could be some evaluation on the work to improve this article since the nomination but it seems like most opinion has been about whether or not Wikipedia should have articles on this subject, with limited discussion on the current state of this article and its sourcing. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Source assessment table. Based on sources in the article, redirect/merge seems reasonable, but I haven't sought out more sources so I won't bold a ! vote. — siro χ o 04:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? British Rowing [11] ? address, location etc ✘ No Wood, Tessa [12] school publication reporting on school subject ? ✘ No facebook ? WP:UGC ? ✘ No Sutori [13] ? UGC ✘ No St. Hugh's College Chronicle (all of them) school publication reporting on school ? ? ✘ No thames.me.uk (both) ? ? database entry for a few specific races ✘ No eodg.atm.ox.ac.uk (both) ? ? several database entries over time for specific races ✘ No [14] Henley Women's Regatta ? database entries on races ✘ No [15] Thames Ditton Regatta ? database entry ✘ No Goodbody, John [16] no mention of subject ✘ No "Good luck to Anders Weiss!" school publication ? ? ✘ No The American [17] entirely an interview with member ? ✘ No Sam Marsden [18] no mention of subject ✘ No "BBC investigated ..." [19] ? ? passing mention ✘ No Guiness [20] no mention ✘ No Rachel Quarrell [21] no mention ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . Merge to college article pro tem - Oxford colleges have always given rise to lots of writing and I've no doubt that it would be possible with time to pull together enough independent sourcing to support a separate article. It would be a shame to lose this content in the meantime. Ingratis ( talk ) 08:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Research Centre for Linguistic Typology: This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Possible WP:ATD could be redirect to its current university, but it has been part of 2, so that could cause confusion. Boleyn ( talk ) 17:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 18:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Education . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:40, 23 January 2024 (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 ) 19:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect to La Trobe University#Research as ATD, which seems to be its current parent institution. No indication of sufficient independent coverage to support a standalone article. Jfire ( talk ) 03:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to La Trobe University#Research , per Jfire - although Robert M. W. Dixon might actually be a better target, since I don't think this research lab really merits a mention in the Trobe U article. Suriname0 ( talk ) 17:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] User:Boleyn , do you have a preferred redirect target? Suriname0 ( talk ) 17:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for your input, both look like reasonable redirects. Boleyn ( talk ) 17:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Premium Beer: A standalone article isn't necessary or justified. There is no agreed definition of what "Premium beer" is; there is certainly no international agreement. Some of what's here is original research or opinion , and some is sourced to what is clearly AI-generated content - e.g., this article , used as a reference 7 times in the article. A more reliable reference describes the term as "nonsense". See also WP:NOTDICTIONARY . Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions . Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : While there are a few good sources included among the garbage, the lack of a formal definition of the term (and the fact that some of the sources contradict each other) suggests to me this topic isn't quite solid enough for its own article. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 15:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Maintain as a Standalone Article, But Improve Sourcing : Awesome discourse so far! Think that the right steps here are to maintain the article as a standalone, and just contribute to improving the sourcing. Rationale follows: Whether or not we personally feel that this concept is subjective, does not change the fact that it is truly a proper term in the alcohol and beer industry. The term "premium beer" is used more than 500 to 1,000+ times across Wikipedia, including in the definitions used to describe several notable articles from Heineken to Old Speckled Hen to Red Stripe etc. This list grows if you include premium "ale" or premium "lager," which are also captured in this article If we delete this article, then we are creating the potential misconception of the use of the term premium as simply being an adjective, across hundreds of articles. This poses a widespread neutrality issue, as in the absence of this article, the hundreds of articles that invoke this term do not adequately acknowledge that is it a nuanced indsutry term terminology, not an official title. Merging this article to Beer does not adequately recognize the fact that in its usage, it is used to refer to a specific concept that goes deeper than just the concept of beer, just like how we have standalone articles for Craft beer for production process, or Draught beer for style of serving, Premium Beer explains the usage of the common phrase which describes tier of price/quality/AbV. The term premium has just as much usage as Draft or Craft, would we propose merging those to Beer as well? As a final point, I don't think the rationale of sources contradicting with one another substantiates the merge/deletion - any proper term that describes a "tier" in an industry will always have sources contradicting to each other, just like Restaurant ratings it's just important that the article pays proper explanation/objectivity toward the key definitions/authorities. The article currently speaks to the nuance and interpretability of the concept, and does not asset a singular definition. Currently, across wikipedia, hundreds of articles assert that "XYZ is a premium beer" - the fact that definitions contradict with each other is even more reason that a central article explaining the nuance and interpretability is helpful. For example, the term "5 Star Restaurant" is captured by our page Restaurant rating - however, the article explains how restaurant tier can vary based on source/authority, from Michelin, to Magazines, to even smaller local authorities. If Michelin were to review a restaurant and deem it 3 stars, a local authority deem it 1 star, and a Magazine deem it 5 stars, each using different criteria, we wouldn't throw out the concept of "5 star restaurants" and restaurant ratings because sources contradict each other, because despite its subjectivity across sources it remains a proper term within the restaurant industry. Premium beer is the same concept, and this article currently, at least, does seem to do a thorough job explaining the leading interpretations/criteria of "premium" status. If we feel that the term "premium" is subjective and not a formal definition, then that challenges the neutrality of the usage of the term in over 1,000 beer articles across the platform. (listed below) Recommendation: Believe the path forward isn't deleting the article, but rather contributing to improving sourcing. See below for a list of several articles which use the term premium, clearly referring to the industry-specfic concept, if the Premium Beer page is deleted, will now just become an adjective descriptor and challenge neutrality 1. Heineken 2. Old Speckled Hen 3. Phuket Beer 4. Kingfisher (beer) 5. 333 Premium Export Beer 6. Cobra Beer 7. Red Dog (beer) 8. Beer in Australia 9. Foster's Lager 10. Yuengling 11. Rolling Rock 12. James Boag's Premium 13. Beer in Mexico 14. Beer in Morocco and the list goes on. As a first step in the right direction, I will work on improving some of the sourcing in the near term. Andrewkazimi ( talk ) 16:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Andrew, I realise you've put some work into the article, but your argument above is essentially that the term exists, and therefore should have a page. But WP:NOTDICTIONARY . And there is no one definition of what is a "premium" beer; anyone can legally call their product premium - and many do. Wikipedia reports on what the sources say. If sources describe Heineken as a premium lager, that's what we can call it. We don't call it one because it's > 4.5% ABV and therefore meets some definitions used in some places by some members of the brewing industry. (It's also only 4.3% in Ireland, so... not a premium lager?) See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS . If you want to work on the article to include such things as no official definition, different ones in different places, use as marketing, etc., then the article could be draftified until ready for mainspace. As it stands, though, no, it's not ready. Any lager above 4.5% ABV is considered premium, and any ale above 4.2% ABV is considered premium. - says who? Apparently a company with a home brewing app? They source their article to one you've used multiple times in the article, the Morning Advertiser, a UK marketing company... See where I'm going with this? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you Batsun! No, I think that's a bit of a minimization of my point, I'm happy to clarify. At this point I think let's give it some space for others to take a look, as I think we've both done a good job explaining our thought processes. As my final note Updates to the Article** -- Significant expansion of sourcing, as well as tweaks to language to better address the nuance of the topic. The original source Batsun/others raised as being used several times is no longer there. Additional sources added showing usage of term all the way since 1940's. Batsun, to address your point - no my argument isn't "The term exists so it should have a page" - and I think anyone reading this thread would agree that that's a bit of an intentional minimization. My point is that this is a proper term in the alcohol industry, used Pervasively, used hundreds of times across wikipedia, and very easy to confuse someone unaware that it is an industry concept into thinking it's just an adjective (i.e. "Wow! all these brands are premium!") The current article has taken steps forward in sourcing, and pays adequate attention to the informality of the definition, however the centrality of its usage in this indsutry and throughout the platform merits it being explained/contextualized. To your point about 4.5% to 5% - sure, I think it's easy to make the point that you're making which is that different areas/sources have different thresholds for the %. However the principle stands, which is that one definition of premium is that the higher the AbV the more "premium" the brand is. The article has been amended to reflect that as opposed to set in stone % thresholds, thank you for that feedback. As of next draft there is no source used "multiple times" and it's spread relatively evenly. I welcome any others to pitch in to editing the site, but I believe the current deletion tag should either be replaced with a tag to call for additional edits (if still necessary) or removed when we are satisfied. But I am of the mind that A. The pervasiveness of this term merits the article, not just that "the term exists" - it is important and used colloquially and officially in the industry B. Like any topic, you can point to a source that is uncredible, but the article has been amended to and includes much better sourcing that is credible. A call for improved sourcing is not a call for deletion. C. I agree the original draft could have started in the draftspace, however, at this time the article is now much farther along and should be addressed where it is with any relevant edits. We should not be retroactively drafting it because it should have been drafted before. At this point it feels like many of the original qualms have been addressed However, if Batsun has a more profound issue just with the belief that the concept of premium beer should not be described/explained on Wikipedia, and instead should just be used wherever it arises, then I defer to other members of the community to take a look here and pass judgment. Thanks for all of the awesome discussion on this one! Has been very enjoyable learning more and thinking through your points. Andrewkazimi ( talk • contribs ) 18:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been notified to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer . Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . Even after reading all the above, I still think that it should be merged, but it should be a real merge with some of the article merged . Bduke ( talk ) 09:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : "Premium beer" is a notable term in the marketing industry, and, based on the present sourcing and other reliable sources, an article that is not a mere dictionary definition can be written about: (1) the different definitions of the term [18] ; (2) consumer preference [19] [20] [21] ; and (3) economics and market trends [22] [23] . voorts ( talk / contributions ) 03:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Another source about premium as an image: [24] voorts ( talk / contributions ) 03:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 03:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, it's a term used within the marketing industry. It would be well served by a one- or two-paragraph section within the Beer article, outlining a) that there's no agreed definition of what it actually means; b) the beer industry generally, though by no means universally, considers it to be to with ABV (and there is disagreement as to what that ABV point is); and c) others, especially marketers, ascribe other values to the term, though again, there is no agreement as to what those values might be. That would also allay the article creator's fears about "not having links from 'Heineken' and 'Fosters' challenging the article's neutrality" (?) as a section heading can be used as a wikilink. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would agree with you if only the definition were at issue, but we have reliable sources discussing consumer trends and economics of the premium market as well. The fact that a definition isn't agreed upon is not a reason to not write an article about something; indeed, that indicates that a topic requires more space to discuss, not an artificial two paragraph limit. Those disagreements are precisely why NPOV requires giving due weight to different views. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 14:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith Talk to me 22:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : For me, this remains a clear keep. As others have pointed out, this term is dominant in the marketing industry, and the article goes on to cite several sources across fields that discuss the trend of premiumization in beer, including in Economics and Sociology... I just did a quick Wikipedia search of "Premium Beer" and I'm seeing it referenced over 1,200 times. Even more if I type in Premium Lager or Premium Ale. It's clear to me that: (A) This topic is pervasive both colloquially and across industries, and at least meets the threshold of notability for an article. To verify that, one can review the sources cited in the article, or perform a quick Google search. (B) A topic having "no universal definition" isn't reason for it not to have an article, in fact, if a term is extremely popular and widespread on top of having an ambiguous definition, that to me is even more reason for it to have an article, that way users can effectively read to understand the nuance, and not be confused or receive a positive bias when they see it used. (C) This topic is referenced some 1,000+ times across Wikipedia. This final point is a confluence of A and B. The term isn't just pervasive in marketing -- it's pervasive on our platform itself. The widespread use of this term across articles, in the absence of an article explaining what is means, given the positive connotation of the word premium represents a challenge to neutrality. We should have an article that makes it clear "hey, premium beer is a term that has various meanings, here are the considerations" because otherwise 1,200+ articles are just calling some beers premium while others not in a way that misinforms a reader and says "hey, this is a premium beer, this one is not, and that's a fact." *Addressing "But premium beer has no universally agreed definition A term having "no universally agreed definition" is not a good reason for it to not have an article: that's just reason for any article that does exist, to appropriately address the nuances of its explanation. **Addressing "Just put it as a sub paragraph within beer** A term used over 1,200 times across Wikipedia, with all of the usage we've seen across industries, seems to merit more than just a sub paragraph in an existing article.This is the same reason we have a separate article for Craft Beer or Draft Beer - they are dominant topics and capture nuances that just Beer doesn't. This remains a clear keep for me for the reasons outlined above. Andrewkazimi ( talk ) 16:07, 02 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not going to bludgeon the process - I made my contribution above - but I am going to call out misinformation. The term "premium beer" is used 85 times on en.wikipedia , not 500, or 1,000+, or (now) 1,200 times across Wikipedia, as has been claimed above. And lastly, I don't think we need to say much more about premium beer except what's written here . Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to closer: Please note that the above comment is from the article creator, who has already commented and ! voted in the above debate, on 15th January. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In Bastun's same spirit of not bludgeoning the process, want to call out that in his link he intentionally fenced the words around quotation marks, therefore it would exclude any articles that don't say exactly what he wrote. Therefore this excludes mention of "premium import beer" "premium priced beer" "premium domestic beer" et al. - which obviously all mean same thing. Here's an unfenced link where you can see the >1,000+ #s I'm seeing. Looks higher than 85 to me :) Link [25] The above link doesn't even include premium ale, premium lager, etc. That's correct, I am the article creator-- but isn't that clear? I've signed all my messages with my name. Unsure point of calling that out: you are the original nominator for deletion, right? Finally, on the point of "bludgeoning the process" which describes advancing one's point through volume of comments --- feel free to count up my # of comments, then count up his :) Grateful for this stimulating discussion. Hoping everyone has a great day and kudos to the closer for weighing up everyone's thoughts equally. I believe we should take a uniform and objective approach to applying Wikipedia's goals of neutrality, and notability. Andrewkazimi ( talk ) 19:07, 03 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, of course I included the search term in quotation marks; that's literally how you ensure you're only returning results with the actual search term, and how you exclude false positives, such as phrases like " premium-priced beers ", " non-premium lager ", " Part of the so-called premium sector ", or branded names such as 333 Premium Export Beer . And as of this comment, I will have made seven contributions to the page, at around 5.4kb, including the nomination. You are on over a dozen contributions, at 11.3kb, including two ! votes. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 01:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think both of you have been contributing productively to this discussion. Andrew's second ! vote and @ Bastun 's second comment both appear to be responsive to my !vote; it's not bludgeoning to note your agreement or disagreement with another editor. Regarding the two !votes, @ Andrewkazimi : per WP:AFDFORMAT , "You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others but do not repeat a bolded recommendation on a new bulleted line." I recommend keeping your original !vote bolded and un-bolding and striking the keep . voorts ( talk / contributions ) 02:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can do. I think you hit the nail on the head with my intention. I'm approaching this with attempts of being objective / just having a constructive conversation. Think we should all take that approach, as you particularly have been. Thank you! Andrewkazimi ( talk ) 21:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or delete - appears to have been created as part of a paid promotional campaign. WP:DENY - David Gerard ( talk ) 12:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you expand on that? The current article version doesn't look particularly promotional. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 20:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This isn't correct. There is nothing promotional about an article about premium beer.... David took issue with another article of mine (a living biography) and then somehow came here to weigh in on a completely different topic. This is a bit of a frustrating aspect of the wikipedia community: we strive for objectivity, but in reality a lot the times decisions are made by senior editors throwing their weight around behind subjective decisions. Bastun is able to nominate the article for deletion becuase "no universal definition" of the term, when universal definitions are not a requisite of having an article, he then doubles down on the term only being used in marketing, and maintains his stance despite being shown examples of the term being cited outside of marketing. Mr. David Gerard flags the article as paid promotion, but doesn't expand on how/why. Much of the Wikipedia review process is kind of just senior editors forcing their opinions. I have deep respect for all who have contributed, and I encourage all to assess articles based on the actual content of the article... Andrewkazimi ( talk ) 21:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You are now veering into personal attack territory. What I wrote is available in the nomination, above; don't try to put words in my mouth. Voorts , the current article doesn't look particularly promotional, but look at the history, including the recent addition of a "random" list of so-called "premium beers." Compare to Beer#"Premium"_beers - is there really that much more to be said? I mean... WP:NOPAGE exists for a reason! Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I believe there is more to write, as I noted above. Per SS , there's enough to write on this topic such that it should be summarized in the main beer article and a child article created here. The trend of "premiumization" is a real phenomenon that can have a neutral, encyclopedic article written about it. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 15:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Hadlow Down Parish Council: Parish councils are rarely notable - there are more than 10,000 in England. No secondary sources. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG . AusLondonder ( talk ) 16:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Politics , and England . AusLondonder ( talk ) 16:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Hadlow Down as an alternative to deletion given the content. Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 18:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Hadlow Down as preferred WP:ATD and as suggested in my deprod . ~ Kvng ( talk ) 16:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Nothing worth merging. Desertarun ( talk ) 19:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Sylheti cuisine: None of the sources in this article point towards a distinct Sylheti cusine; rather they talk about certain dishes which originate from the Sylhet district or happen to be popularly eaten in Sylhet. There is no source which mentions Sylheti cuisine to be notable in its own right. The article is also poorly written, and mentions unrelated content such as pop culture and information about nutrition. This article should be deleted. UserNumber ( talk ) 17:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : @ Guffydrawers : has also noted the numerous issues with the article, particularly the vague phrasing and inappropriate and misrepresentative usage of sources. A similar article by the name of Chittagonian cuisine was also deleted for similar reasons here . UserNumber ( talk ) 17:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : I propose that any valid, relevant & sourced information be merged into Bangladeshi_cuisine#Sylhet_Division and that the article Sylheti cuisine then be trimmed to only contain a redirect to the Bangladeshi cuisine article (not the subsection, as that may change). Regards Guffydrawers ( talk ) 15:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per norm. Mehedi Abedin 21:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 14 and Bangladesh . UserNumber ( talk ) 17:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and Assam . Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can those who have ! voted discuss their positions further? @ UserNumber : Are you okay with merge as an WP:ATD ? @ Guffydrawers : Any input about which information might be valid, relevant & sourced? @ Mehediabedin : What "norm" did you mean, or did you mean "nom" (although they recommended delete)? -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 18:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Worldbruce ( talk ) 18:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The google translation from Bengali of the title of the second ref is "Fisphas Kitchen - Sylhet Cuisine," so There is no source which mentions Sylheti cuisine to be notable in its own right is false. I haven't checked the translations of the other Bengali refs, but I've fixed a few of them because there's quite a lot of link rot. small jars t c 21:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the fixes. To be fair, the title you mentioned [37] is of a self-published blog by a non-expert, so not a reliable source . I've removed it from the article. -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 15:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Worldbruce : Sorry for my mistake. Actually I told to merge it because what the nominator suggested. And yes it is "nom" but I wrote "norm". But I didn’t suggest delete because maybe many pages have link with this article. Mehedi Abedin 02:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Worldbruce : "input about which information might be valid, relevant & sourced" I'm gradually working my way through the article, checking refs, simplifying and correcting. What remains when I'm done should be worth considering for retention. I'm trying not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, so care rather than haste. Regards Guffydrawers ( talk ) 14:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I have completed a rework of the article to remove junk, dead or irrelevant refs, enforce encyclopedic tone, translate relevant text from Bengali sources into English and more. The article is a lot thinner, so I continue to propose that what is left be merged into Bangladeshi_cuisine#Sylhet_Division in order to make this article a redirect to there. Sylheti cuisine is IMHO worthy of a section within the article on Bangladesh, but not so different to merit a separate article on English WP. Regards Guffydrawers ( talk ) ...but I see the Bangladeshi cuisine article has some of the same issues that will need addressing before we have a rounded and robust treatment of the subject.Regards Guffydrawers ( talk ) 07:02, 4 April 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. | merge |
2022 Crooks Fire: No injuries or deaths and appears to be a run-of-the-mill wildfire. Noah , AA Talk 20:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to 2022 Arizona wildfires - Merging would be more appropriate than deletion. Noting that this is a WP:BEFORE ! vote, given that article exists and this is a split from that article. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 21:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Environment . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to 2022 Arizona wildfires would indeed be the wisest choice for this article. TH1980 ( talk ) 01:06, 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. | merge |
Mount Marston: Alternatively, merge into List of mountains of East Antarctica Mach61 ( talk ) 14:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions . Mach61 ( talk ) 14:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - And frankly it's time we took a harder look at all of these mass-created Antarctica locations that are sourced solely to GNIS, an unreliable source. FOARP ( talk ) 08:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We definitely overindex them, but you’d need to be an SME to choose which ones to delete en masse and avoid a trainwreck, as there are (sigcov-inclusive) reference materials made by scientists and mountaineers. Maybe use a heatmap of what places humans have visited? Mach61 ( talk ) 00:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
TOI-1452: Makes a claim to be notable on account of having a planet, but that in itself isn't notable (not any more, anyway). There are a couple of papers about the planet, none dedicated to the star. Lithopsian ( talk ) 16:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions . Lithopsian ( talk ) 16:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to TOI-1452 b for insufficient information to stand by itself. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 18:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wouldn't merging the planet to the star system make much more sense instead? Orchastrattor ( talk ) 18:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi, I created the article. My original goal was to add some information about the star system for the planet TOI-1452b. The article for the planet already included a link to it's parent star system TOI-1452 (and edit history shows the link has existed since Sept of 2022). But the link was red since the star system article didn't yet exist. So I created the new article to populate content for the already existing (but red) link, and added the new content there. I do think that additional information about the star system will likely be learned in the near term. But if these two articles were merged in some fashion it would be fine by me. MetaEtcher ( talk ) 21:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't delete since there's already an article on the planet TOI-1452 b . These two articles should be merged into one, preferably at TOI-1452 (the entire system instead of the planet), but since there's only one known planet in the system it doesn't matter too much. SevenSpheres ( talk ) 16:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different Merge proposals here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
MPL Philippines S12: Article was filled with unreliable sources, like facebook and etc. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 02:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Philippines . ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 09:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - not too familiar with this topic, but would these sources count in referring to the league and season in particular? 1 2 3 PantheonRadiance ( talk ) 21:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Trim and Merge to MPL Philippines parent article. Too many facebook sources for comfort. Parent article seems to require trimming as well but that is beyond the scope of this AfD. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge very selectively to MPL Philippines , no need for a separate article. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 07:51, 31 August 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. | merge |
Beyoncé's three-act project: There is nothing in this article that is not already covered in the other two. ℛonherry ☘ 18:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . ℛonherry ☘ 18:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and merge anything not duplicative to Beyoncé#2022–present: Trilogy Project and the respective albums per WP:MERGEREASON . We already have 2 places for this info - we don't need a third. Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Wikipedia:Fancruft , Wikipedia should not have tons of articles about a 3-part trilogy just because it is a trilogy. This can just be covered on Beyoncé's own page. AskeeaeWiki ( talk ) 19:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/redirect to Beyoncé#2022–present: Trilogy Project as redundant like has been said above. Would not be opposed to recreation in the future if more sources discussing all three albums collectively come about, but so far it's mostly, if not entirely, been about the two albums separately. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 19:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , as per above rationales. Theknine2 ( talk ) 11:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge any new info with Beyoncé#2022–present: Trilogy Project and the album pages per above. If there is none, delete. It is WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article as there is not enough about the trilogy that can’t just be covered on the Beyoncé and album pages. If delete is chosen I don’t think a redirect is needed as the name isn’t likely to be a popular search term. CAMERAwMUSTACHE ( talk ) 13:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , this page does not add anything new when compared to Beyonce's main page or the individual RENAISSANCE and COWBOY CARTER album pages - it is simply repeating the same info. Anyone following her Discography box will be able to follow through the three albums and notice they are three acts part of a trilogy. UltimateDisco ( talk ) 14:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Until sources begin to discuss the impact of the trilogy in its' entirety (most likely after Act III is released), all new information should appear under the Beyoncé#2022–present: Trilogy Project section of her page. Trainsskyscrapers ( talk ) 17:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Multimedia Container Format: Zero independent sources, nobody cares: tagged since 2022 - Altenmann >talk 20:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software . Owen× ☎ 23:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect into Matroska . Streamline8988 ( talk ) 06:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which is also nominated for deletion. But maybe together they will survive. the WP:RS scrutiny. - Altenmann >talk 07:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect into Matroska . Absolutely no chance of this having any reason being kept. An unreferenced crummy article. X ( talk ) 19:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Legends Drum and Bugle Corps: It does not seem to meet the notability requirements to be a standalone page, and I am against a merge to List of defunct Drum Corps International member corps per my comments on the talk page. Why? I Ask ( talk ) 07:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Organizations , and Michigan . Why? I Ask ( talk ) 07:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion due to the previous AFD. That closed as Redirect, is that an option here? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sadly, it can't be redirected to the old target because it no longer qualifies. They are no longer a Drum Corps International member corps . Why? I Ask ( talk ) 15:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge selectively to List of defunct Drum Corps International member corps . Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I like the idea of merging, thus preserving some content. -- BoraVoro ( talk ) 10:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
List of Is It Legal? episodes: Not much has improved since then, other than the addition of a table instead of a plain list. The article is still unsourced, so I'd say this fails WP:NLIST and should perhaps be merged to Is It Legal? . Spinixster (chat!) 08:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists . Spinixster (chat!) 08:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per my statement in the 2nd AFD outcome. Nom makes no assertion that any effort was made to source or otherwise improve the article. Jclemens ( talk ) 08:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, but to be honest, is it still worth a separate article? Even with television series that have around the same episodes as Is It Legal, the episodes are kept in the original article (examples: Barry , Ted Lasso , Russian Doll , Never Have I Ever ). I'd say a split is only warranted if there are a lot of episodes or if the article is too long (examples: Boardwalk Empire , Succession , The Mindy Project ). Spinixster (chat!) 11:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Did you start a merge discussion first and fail to gain traction? Or Boldly merge it and were reverted? You've already garnered one "delete" vote from someone who apparently doesn't understand NTEMP and ATDs. As a discussion, sure, a merger proposal is appropriate. As a matter of policy, however, the lack of sourcing as a fixable problem is not a justification for deletion. The topic is the show itself, so primary or trivial sourcing (e.g. summary, TV Guides, etc.) for each episode which presumably exists somewhere would be sufficient. Jclemens ( talk ) 16:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Is It Legal? . No sourcing whatsoever, just an external link to the British Comedy Guide, which is a British version of IMDb. The larger issue is that the main article also has no sourcing, just external links to sites Wikipedia does not recognize as reliable sourcing. — Maile ( talk ) 14:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per nom, the show doesnt have enough episodes to justify having this page. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ OlifanofmrTennant Would you like to consider an WP:ATD and merge the list to the original page instead? You seem to be hinting at that in your vote. Spinixster (chat!) 01:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious ( talk ) 18:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Per Spinxster. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Is It Legal? per nom. Fails NLIST. // Timothy :: talk 16:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
E.D.I. production discography: I am not against a merge to E.D.I Mean#Production credits . ~ UN6892 t c 18:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Lists . ~ UN6892 t c 18:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge seems right, probably worth collapsing the section headings, and let's mark the whole section unreferenced and give editors a bit of time to fold existing sources in. — siro χ o 22:11, 15 July 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. | merge |
C6A1 FLEX: If that were the case we would have at least a dozen articles (for example, the British L7 and subvariants, although extensive, do not have their own article and are covered at the FN MAG article). Furthermore, it makes no sense to start an article at the C6A1 variant. If an article were warranted for the Canadian version, it would be titled C6 machine gun, and cover all variants. It makes no sense for this single "FLEX" variant (which is just a brand/marketing name by Colt Canada) to be given its own article. The content should be merged under the Canadian section of FN MAG. Elshad ( talk ) 11:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Firearms and Canada . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to relevant section of the FN MAG article. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me ) 07:10, 28 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. | merge |
List of supermarket chains in Belarus: 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 15:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography , Lists , and Belarus . 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 15:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 15:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of supermarket chains in Europe . Listing notable entries only. Ajf773 ( talk ) 23:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠ PMC ♠ (talk) 12:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Europe's article, as above. Dawid2009 ( talk ) 06:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with the general list of supermarkets in Europe. User:TheOmniDex ( talk ) 16:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Jibanyan: Not sure the first source at further reading section helps, but the second one is dead? Anyway, even thou we can still access it; not sure it will squick through WP:GNG . Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 13:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Literature , Television , Video games , and Japan . Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Yo-kai Watch . The reception is worse than bad and there's no indication of GNG being passed. I didn't say the character list because that is honestly TNT material in itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Zxcvbnm. The reception doesn't support a separate article, per WP:SIGCOV . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 21:24, 3 December 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. | merge |
2012 U.S. state secession petitions: This fails WP:NEVENT . I remember it, Obama won reelection, some upset conservatives created petitions on a website that doesn't exist any longer, they received official responses from the White House, and that was that. – Muboshgu ( talk ) 05:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America . – Muboshgu ( talk ) 05:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Secession in the United States#State secession then selectively summarise (post-AfD) at Secession#United States . Muboshgu 's point on the 10-year test is spot on: all of the sources presented are WP:PRIMARYNEWS , and there has been no WP:SIGCOV since then. All recent RS I can find are mere mentions, and the entire thing fails WP:NEVENT for (amongst other problems) WP:EFFECT , WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE . Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 13:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per other users. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 20:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Epic non-event. (In fact, this is the first I've heard of this nonsense.) TH1980 ( talk ) 01:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per other users. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 20:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Predictions of the end of Twitter: elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I did a search and there are other articles similar to this- Predictions of the end of Google and Predictions of the end of Wikipedia . I wouldn't mind culling all of them. — Sean Brunnock ( talk ) 11:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agree about notability. And to extend the argument to WP:NOT , it's hard to see hot-take opinion pieces as Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field ( WP:CRYSTAL ). The 2014 and 2016 predictions in the Twitter article, and the truly stupid predictions at Predictions of the end of Google , should show that this type of content lacks encyclopedic value. Market share data/traffic metrics would be encyclopedic (whether they show a rise of decline, as long as it's reliably sourced), but would belong in the main article. DFlhb ( talk ) 07:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - WP:CRYSTAL is exactly right. Some people consider a major reorganization to be a kind of end of Twitter as we know it, some mean the end of its mainstream popularity, some are predicting the company will declare bankruptcy, some mean the Twitter name and website will go offline forever. Anything is possible, but the topic is far too vague to be verifiable. 〈 Forbes 72 | Talk 〉 22:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment if this is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL , then why is Predictions of the end of Wikipedia an existing article? I don't think it's a violation, it is reliably sourced. PhotographyEdits ( talk ) 14:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Wikipedia predictions mostly relied on philosophical/sociology arguments (that Wikipedia "could never work"). The predictions themselves are pure opinion (primary), and without the academics (secondary) analyzing and dismissing the bullshit Wikipedia predictions for what they are, that article would be a basic POV fail. My argument wouldn't change if I had a time machine and knew for a fact that Twitter was going to die three months from now; we're still just listing people having "predicted nine of the last five recessions". This is a child articles; if these op-eds wouldn't be WP:DUE enough for an entire summary-style section in the parent article, it makes little sense for the child article to exist (which no one will come across). DFlhb ( talk ) 09:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 17 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete , synth, more than half of the refs are just Musk-related hype. Artem.G ( talk ) 19:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as an unnecessary junk drawer. A redirect to Twitter wouldn't hurt, but wouldn't be obligatory either. Predictions and speculations made for different reasons at different times are, if they need to be discussed at all, best covered within the history of Twitter so that they have the proper context. Otherwise, we're doing the equivalent of writing a "Top 10 Times Twitter Was Declared Dead" listicle. XOR'easter ( talk ) 22:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTESSAY . SWinxy ( talk ) 00:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Twitter per WP:ATD . I think it can be summarized in a sentence or two. PhotographyEdits ( talk ) 09:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect: Agree with this proposal. User:Let'srun 18:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I should note that there is also a Predictions of the end of Google and Predictions of the end of Wikipedia . InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 15:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect: a (very) short summary to Twitter . WonderCanada ( talk ) 10:51, 24 July 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. | merge |
Battle of Romny: Notability as independent topic is rather dubious. Article had been created by an editor who has been involved in similar cases in the past. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 18:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , Russia , and Ukraine . RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 18:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete it does look not notable to me. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 20:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Notability does look questionable. WP:NOTNEWS . Cinderella157 ( talk ) 22:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Most of the incidents are unconnected, nor was there a battle by any means. The whole article should be merged and pasted to a new section about Romny Raion in Russian occupation of Sumy Oblast . Jebiguess ( talk ) 01:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Correction, merge. Jebiguess ( talk ) 20:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Northeastern Ukraine campaign , as appropriate. Searching for the exact title finds nothing significant. — Michael Z . 14:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Northeastern Ukraine campaign as per Michael Z BHC ( talk ) 08:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Merge as two different target articles are suggested here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Russian occupation of Sumy Oblast#Romny Raion looks the easiest, most of the material is already there. But further reorganization and merges of both targets are still possible based on the different ongoing discussions. - Indefensible ( talk ) 02:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge WP:ATD-M Lightburst ( talk ) 13:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Comparison of homeowner associations and civic associations: Its synthesis would will remain the latter unless WP:reliable sources could be found that extensively compare these associations. The top search results ( [44] [45] ) are merely 4 paragraphs. Scholarly sources are unlikely to provide necessary comparison [46] [47] . XxTechnicianxX ( talk ) 02:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Wow, what a flashback! I confirm with the noms assessment. Still fails GNG and OR. Thank you for tagging me. Missvain ( talk ) 03:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 04:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Neighborhood association : and source properly. Owen× ☎ 11:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge if you can find sources. I assume its different in different nations. D r e a m Focus 19:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . There is no clear merge target (why NA and not HOA, or other similar topics)? And even if there were, nothing here is sourced, so there's nothing to merge anyway. If you want to flesh out content at any similar articles, then do it de novo . 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 22:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
List of honorary citizens of Schleswig-Holstein: Precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of honorary citizens of Lubbock Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of honorary citizens of Templin See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 1#Category:Honorary citizens , and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of honorary citizens of Zwolle . Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 21:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions . Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 21:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment it is concerning that these categories have been deleted with reference to past decisions to listify the categories and then a proponent of deleting the categories is proposing to delete the lists. Jahaza ( talk ) 22:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which past decisions to listify? I am unaware of any. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 23:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This one [15] you linked to on Categories for Discussion [16] . Jahaza ( talk ) 03:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, I didn't see that because The result of the discussion was: Delete . עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:05, 24 June 2010 . It didn't say "listify". Thanks for pointing it out. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 07:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:GNG , multiple sources discussing award are now added to article. Side note, this region is much larger than the ones listed as precedents. — siro χ o 07:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Followup note, forgot to mention that it meets WP:NLIST as the group is discussed as such in those sources as well. — siro χ o 22:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Why don't we move this to Schleswig-Holstein as a section? Suitskvarts ( talk ) 06:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That would be acceptable for me. It is no longer unsourced, but I don't think it's enough for a standalone article. @ Siroxo : What do you think about merging to Schleswig-Holstein ? Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 16:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This would be an acceptable outcome, as the main article is around 5000 words or so, still "readable prose size". That article has a lot of links out to sub-articles already, so it may also not be necessary to merge. — siro χ o 06:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Update Category:Honorary citizens closed as Delete (all) . List of honorary citizens of Zwolle closed as Redirect to Zwolle . Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 16:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nederlandse Leeuw , it's not clear to me what you are advising be done with this particular article. L iz Read! Talk! 04:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Liz I advise a merger to Schleswig-Holstein (per Suitskvarts and with the consent of Siroxo), making this page a redirect to a section in that article (per the Zwolle precedent). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 11:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Terrible choice. No really, how is being an honorary citizen less defining or notable for a person than recieving an award (which we have tons of categories for)? ★Trekker ( talk ) 19:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It depends what kinds of awards. Some awards are WP:NONDEFINING per WP:OCAWARD . Category:Honorary citizens and its various subcategories have been deleted again and again because they are not considered defining enough. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 03:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:33, 17 August 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. | merge |
May the odds be ever in your favor: Of the 10 sources: 1 is the original book with the phrase ( WP:PRIMARY ) 2 link to a non-reliable site designed to promote the phrase 1 just mentions the phrase the rest are somewhat OK-ish sources that do not actually even mention the phrase (I have simply searched them, so a mention or two could have escaped my attention) Викидим ( talk ) 00:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions . Викидим ( talk ) 00:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect/merge anything reliably sourced that turns up to the main Hunger Games article. While the phrase itself doesn't appear to meet the WP:GNG , it's common enough that somebody might search for it here. GreenLipstickLesbian ( talk ) 03:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to The Hunger Games : I could not find any significant coverage, and none of the material in the article is suitable for merging. Helpful Raccoon ( talk ) 04:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Eh, current sources 6 and 7 probably belong in a cultural impact section. Jclemens ( talk ) 06:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Once we zoom out and look at The Hunger Games, and not just at the phrase, there is indeed a large cultural impact. It is therefore documented in a score of research articles (see doi : 10.3138/jrpc.25.3.372 and [37] as very different examples showing the breadth of material available from the researchers), so journalism from daily newspapers is not needed as a source at all. Викидим ( talk ) 06:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge selectively to The Hunger Games . There's not enough here for a spinout article on the phrase itself, at least not yet. Jclemens ( talk ) 06:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to The Hunger Games . Walsh90210 ( talk ) 17:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per all. Doesn't meet the WP:GNG but a selective merge could preserve what is in reliable sources. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 20:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to The Hunger Games per others. Notable in that context, but not for a standalone article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to The Hunger Games . I agree with the above discussion that there is not enough coverage to support a separate article, but a selective merge would preserve the coverage that does exist and this is a viable search term so it would be helpful to lead readers somewhere for it. Aoba47 ( talk ) 21:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Poso Pesisir language: Onel 5969 TT me 22:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions . Onel 5969 TT me 22:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Pamona language GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 22:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as suggested above. Mccapra ( talk ) 06:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , but carefully pruned for factual errors and made-up stuff not mentioned in the sources. I have fixed the most blatant ones. – Austronesier ( talk ) 09:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 09:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as suggested and is reasonable. Languages in the Austronesian languages family can be so close that basic words in Tagalog, Malay, and Ilokano are mutually intelligible cognates, while their glossaries can also be distinct. I recall that President Obama's mother wrote about this phenomenon. Bearian ( talk ) 17:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Bearian : Just for the record, this is not about obvious cognacy between related languages. Tagalog, Malay, and Ilokano are very much not mutually intelligible; it is just easy to tell for the layperson they're related from a few identical words. That's nothing special about Austronesian languages: I can say [dat is mai̯ hau̯s] in the Moselle Franconian dialect of German, which sounds exactly like the corresponding sentence in an English variety with TH-stopping. OTOH, Poso Pesisir is almost identical to the central dialects of Pamona in every respect. There is literally more linguistic variation among Mid-Atlantic US English dialects compared to that. – Austronesier ( talk ) 20:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge properly sourced material with Pamona language , unneeded CFORK with a good target that will be improved after the merge. // Timothy :: talk 17:35, 19 May 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. | merge |
Sterile Records: Related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earthly Delights (record label) . No reliable sources . UtherSRG (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Business , Companies , and United Kingdom . UtherSRG (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . Both the founders of this label and the band they played in have articles; there's no reason why we'd want a redlink here and no good reason why this needed to be adjudicated at AfD. Chubbles ( talk ) 08:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - I second the proposal to merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkiehne ( talk • contribs ) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there is support for a Merge but no Merge target specified. Earthly Delights is being merged to Nocturnal Emissions , is this a possible Merge target as well? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Nocturnal Emissions per above. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 00:29, 27 June 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. | merge |
National Stupid Day: All of the coverage is from the same 2 day interval on November 11-12 2010. No evidence of any lasting significance whatsoever, as has been noted by the creator at Talk:National_Stupid_Day . Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 23:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would also be open to merging this article with the main Garfield article. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 01:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation , Military , and United States of America . Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 23:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did have a good discussion about this here , so I'll spare everyone the trouble of a long-winded rant :) keep as a WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK #3 pass – WP:NEVENT doesn't apply. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 23:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The controversy surrounding the panel was an event, and a single comic panel out of an ongoing series doesn't qualify for NBOOK. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 23:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I tend to feel that it's a stretch to say "this cartoon should have to pass NEVENT because the art was also covered in the context of the public reception it caused", but it's worth having an AfD to settle the question, if anything :) I could see this going either way, figured it was worth the write anyway. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 23:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] oh, and good catch on NBOOK, Hemiauchenia – 'parently it doesn't apply to comic strips :) theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 00:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 00:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC) Merge to Garfield per RS found below and WP:NOPAGE . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 17:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – it's still remarked on by RS today, see McCance, Rodney (2022). The Creation of Garfield . Pen and Sword. -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH ) 09:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How substantial is the coverage? If it's just a 1 sentence passing mention then I wouldn't consider it sigcov. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 22:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It’s a few paragraphs, but most of that is a summary of the strip and Davis’s letter. The book itself is a history of Garfield and lists National Stupid Day as one of several “notable” strips. Spirit of Eagle ( talk ) 23:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Maddy from Celeste. ★Trekker ( talk ) 22:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Garfield . I found a 2018 News18 article which has a paragraph about the strip controversy; I suspect I could probably drum up a few more post-November 2010 sources if I started cracking open databases. However, I ultimately think this article is much better covered within the context of the Garfield article. I've looked through the available sources and was unable to find any evidence of lasting impact; the 2022 Creation of Garfield Book outright states that the controversy resulted in "no long-term effects on Garfield." Several of the sources (including some summarized in the article) question whether there was really a controversy to begin with; the book states that things "blew over" after Davis's apology. Ultimately, this was a poorly timed strip that resulted in two days of media coverage and a handful of sporadic mentions in the years and decades after the strip ran; I think this information is best covered within the Garfield article rather than as a standalone article. Spirit of Eagle ( talk ) 01:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep - It had 9,921 views while on the main page, which is pretty remarkable. The article is well-written, explanatory, and deserving of being a stand-alone article. And it already had all those nit-picking DYK editors looking at it from every angle before it went live on the Main Page. Let's loosen up, have some fun, and let this stay as its own article. — Maile ( talk ) 00:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) (2nd nomination) , none of these reasons for keeping an article are valid. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 04:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And I reinforce my Strong Keep, whether any editor agrees or not, or whether anyone digs something to support their viewpoint. Bottom line ... if enough Keeps are here, it is unlikely to be deleted. — Maile ( talk ) 17:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability is based on coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Article views and the quality of the article are irrelevant; even articles that reach a milestone such as DYK can fail our general notability requirements. If you believe this article should be kept, then I encourage you to review WP:GNG and make an argument in line with that guideline. Spirit of Eagle ( talk ) 22:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Garfield - this strip was discussed at the time of publishing. If we look at the sources used in our article there are eight - but they are all basically the same coverage (they describe the cartoon controversy and print the apology). WP:ATD-M seems like a healthy compromise which preserves the material. I also checked WP:SIZESPLIT which states < 6,000 words < 40 kB Length alone does not justify division or trimming : the Garfield article (5,233 words) is not too long to accept this material. Lightburst ( talk ) 15:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . This was actually a full section on the Garfield article at one point until I reduced it to a portion of the History section . Then it was removed . Anyway, this really seems to be forgotten nowadays and thus fails WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTNEWS . Contrast Cow Tools and Loss , both of which have been the subject of jokes years after their release. Right now, there's not much more to this comic than, say, the May 30, 1990 strip ( which people also misinterpreted ). - B RAINULATOR 9 ( TALK ) 20:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Garfield . Agree with the nom's rationale and would lean delete, but as the strip was discussed at the time and caused some controversy, there is a case for a very short mention of it in the Garfield page. Also per Rainulator. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Garfield, it doesn't have WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Suonii180 ( talk ) 17:37, 17 December 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. | merge |
Henderson family: Reywas92 Talk 01:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . Reywas92 Talk 01:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge just a bit to William Henderson (architect) and perhaps Gordon F. Henderson . I think the latter makes sense as the redirect target. — siro χ o 05:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Scotland and Canada . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Bored with Prozac and the Internet?: The only source cited is the band's website. I couldn't find any secondary sources. JMB1980 ( talk ) 00:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs , England , and United States of America . Skynxnex ( talk ) 05:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] is everything I could find on the album (the last is a passing mention but might be worth having if this gets kept). Personally, I don't think this is enough and the article should be redirected , but if more coverage is uncovered then that could easily change. As for a redirect target, I think TV Mania is also lacking and should probably be merged into Duran Duran , but that's a whole other discussion and TV Mania is otherwise the most obvious and appropriate target. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 06:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of those sources are focused on the band rather than the album. Consequently, a merger or redirect would make more sense. JMB1980 ( talk ) 06:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and merge . Currently it's borderline on WP:NALBUM /GNG. But, even if it turns out there's enough SIGCOV, the topic of TV Mania and this album are inextricably linked, and both articles would improve if handled as one. — siro χ o 07:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : There is some coverage of the album ( [84] USA Today, [85] Mxdwn, [86] Rolling Stone interview) but if TV Mania's only release is this album, it seems reasonable to cover this in context of the TV Mania article per points 2, 3 and 4 of WP:MERGEREASON . As an aside for the TV Mania article, looking through Google Books and News shows plenty of coverage from Billboard , the above USA Today article and a few other promising sources. Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 10:58, 25 June 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. | merge |
Barangays of Pasay: Alternatively , make a collapsible table at Pasay#Geography with this article's info. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions . Lenticel ( talk ) 02:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Pasay#Geography as a collapsed table, as nominator's suggested ATD. This will surround it with enough context to avoid various NOT concerns. — siro χ o 03:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Pasay , for the same reasons as Siroxo. (Also, I shudder the thought of this setting a precedent for Manila's 897 barangays :P --- Tito Pao ( talk ) 12:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Pasay . Shankargb ( talk ) 02:48, 7 December 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. | merge |
KLPD-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 00:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Colorado . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 00:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Soft Keep Definitely a sub-par article, but has the 2 sources there, just scrapes by notability in my opinion. Geardona ( talk to me? ) 18:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources are databases including one that is auto-generated by the infobox. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 23:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or merge to KZCO-LD Odd case, but this LPTV probably isn't notable. However, it shares a channel with one that probably is. Full info on its subchannels and mux should be contained in KLPD-LD, which is actually the host. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 23:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and merge to KZCO-LD : Subject does not meet the WP:GNG on its own. Merging and redirecting pertinent info into the parent article makes the most sense as a WP:ATD . Let'srun ( talk ) 01:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Quiet party: Seems non-notable and perhaps obscure commerical events without any wider social impact. Seaweed ( talk ) 20:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment the best source I can find is [1] , but I'm not entirely convinced this source is entirely unprompted by the company that is the main subject of the article. Every other relevant Google hit seemed non-independent, web-pages of companies who host quiet discos. If we can't find genuine unconnected secondary sources, perhaps it's WP:TOOSOON ? Elemimele ( talk ) 20:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It looks like this article had this other article merged into it. On that revision there are several links to reliable sources covering quiet parties, including non-trivial coverage in The New York Times and SFGATE . Those references should be edited into this article. I do agree that the concept seems not to have caught on, so a merge into a new "variants" section on Silent disco could work too. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 21:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Party . The concept doesn't have the traction in sources or popular media for a standalone article. There are plenty of niche parties discussed at the parent article. Desertarun ( talk ) 14:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets GNG per above sources from old redirect. Including additionally from that same redirect a USA TODAY article — siro χ o 00:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Party#Types as a new L3 section, I guess. I don't think silent disco works as a target; the parties discussed there all involve some form of performance entertainment experienced through headphones, which seems like a pretty distinct concept. On review of the sources mentioned above, while I can't deny that this formally satisfies the GNG, from a practical standpoint I just don't see much in them to build an article out of. They are mostly about first- and second-hand experiences of attending a Quiet Party. (And what citable facts these articles contain relate mostly to what seems to have been a business/hustle run by Rebhan and Noe -- note mention of "franchising" in one article -- which raises a different set of issues .) We are, I think, missing several levels of coverage around both silence and parties that would have provided better merge targets -- wouldn't it be lovely if we had Partying in the 2000s ? -- but Party is already eclectic enough that this is probably fine there. -- Visviva ( talk ) 23:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to party per Visviva as a more appropriate location for this content. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 01:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Party#types per above. - Indefensible ( talk ) 01:51, 27 June 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. | merge |
How often do you think of the Roman Empire?: Americanfreedom ( talk ) 18:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Internet . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not a hoax, but definitely TikTok coverage falling into WP:SENSATIONAL WP:RECENTISM and unlikely to have long-term notability as per WP:SUSTAINED . For those reasons, delete . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 19:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Legacy of the Roman Empire . Perhaps the newness of the trend has not proven to be sustained enough to stand as a full article, but in-depth sources from the New York Times , The Atlantic , and The Washington Post are nothing to overlook. (Plus a Forbes article just released an hour ago, among many, many other sources). I oppose an outright deletion. Delete the redirect of Gaius Flavius , though. Why? I Ask ( talk ) 20:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as I don't think this specific TikTok trend is much more than WP:NEWS buuuuuuuuuut I do think there is space (and reason) for Wikipedia to cover how the Roman Empire lives in modern perception and continues to be a subject of interest for many people. Rome lives in many hearts and minds! ★Trekker ( talk ) 20:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And as a woman I would like to add that I do think of the Roman Empire at least once a day! ★Trekker ( talk ) 20:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . fails WP:GNG . DrowssapSMM ( talk ) 21:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why delete instead of merging clearly notable coverage? ★Trekker ( talk ) 21:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to a brief section in the tik tok article. We don't need to say much more than it exists. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , not a hoax, but it's just a trend. In the case of long-term notability, no this does not fit that case. It is a meme that can be maybe be included in the Legacy of the Roman Empire , but it will die by the end of the week. Conyo14 ( talk ) 22:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per User:AirshipJungleman29 . If it's still a thing 6 months from now, recreate. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO! ( talk or whatever ) 23:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Change vote to Merge with Legacy of the Roman Empire . MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO! ( talk or whatever ) 10:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Legacy of the Roman Empire per Why? I Ask. - Indefensible ( talk ) 23:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Legacy of the Roman Empire per above as article creator; also @ Americanfreedom : , I wasn't alerted of this AFD. — Knightof theswords 23:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Legacy of the Roman Empire , fails WP:GNG as a standalone article but still has notable sources about it. Brachy 08 (Talk) 04:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of lasting significance, and it's for that reason that I'm not supporting a merge/redirect, either. Wait to see if there's more than a single news cycle's worth of "check out this meme" before putting anywhere. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep/merge . Definitely not a hoax; I saw something about this just yesterday—didn't read it, but suspected it might be some sort of debate about hypermasculinity/hyperconservatism. Not sure if it's going to have long-term significance, but evidently it's got a lot of coverage and probably can be noted somewhere. Not sure if it really belongs under Legacy of the Roman Empire, but that's a possible target if not kept at this title. I note that this was nominated for deletion only a few hours after it was created. Since it's not a hoax and neither libel nor inherent copyright infringement (if there is any offending text, it should be easy to rewrite), shouldn't we give the article creator, and anyone else interested in the topic, a reasonable opportunity to expand or otherwise improve the article before deleting it? P Aculeius ( talk ) 16:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete (or Draftify ) - Nothing to indicate that this has any lasting impact beyond the single news cycle in which it was trending. And I disagree with the argument that the fact that it may have further sources in the future to indicate lasting notability means that it should be kept until then. The exact opposite is true - an article on a topic that has not been proven to be notable should not be left in the mainspace of the encyclopedia until it has demonstrated that it passes the notability requirements. I am also against merging it anywhere at this point for the same reason - there is no indication thus far that this trend will actually wind up being notable enough to even be covered in an other article without giving undue weight to how much importance it actually wound up having. That said, I am perfectly fine with sending this back to Draftspace, so if lasting notability is eventually shown for the topic, it will be easy to either restore the article or merge it to an appropriate broader topic. Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete votes should just support merging because otherwise we are likely to have no consensus and the article will sit there as-is. - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose merging with Legacy of the Roman Empire . Looking through that article, it does not have anything like an "in popular culture"-section, so if we merge there, such a section will have to be created. These sections are problematic in general, and adding one to that article would not be an improvement, especially not if it had to include even TikTok memes not mentioned in any secondary sources about the topic. Even a one-sentence mention of this meme will give it as much weight as Italian fascism's obsession with the Roman Empire, which is plainly WP:UNDUE . (I have no preference between keeping, deleting, draftifying or redirecting.) Jhvx ( talk ) 19:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't really see the sources highlighting it as a fun TikTok meme, but rather a look at how a supposed male obsession with the history of Rome in particular represents how the empire supposedly represents hypermasculinity. That point (not the "meme" per se) is the real encyclopedic content. (See also this Rolling Stones article or this CNN article .) I agree that most "in popular culture" sections or articles are absolutely freaking terrible. But for the Roman Empire, I could see something working. Why? I Ask ( talk ) 19:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It would really just be one sentence with a source: "In September 2023, males were asked how often they thought of the Roman Empire in a popular TikTok trend" or something similar. It doesn't require much analysis. Conyo14 ( talk ) 20:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with Conyo14, the subject is really a modern extension of the Roman Empire and hence Legacy of the Roman Empire is the most appropriate location for the content. Not much sociological analysis is needed, although it can be included with any supporting references. Just because it happens to be a meme on social media does not mean it should be discounted. That is just how it works: history in the making. - Indefensible ( talk ) 22:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Legacy of the Roman Empire . While the trend seems to meet GNG and could possibly be kept, I think the merge is a good suggestion, per WP:NOPAGE . A merge also prevents us from returning here if SUSTAINED is not met in a month or two. — siro χ o 05:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete No indication that is notable. Its off the moment and has no meaningful historical value. Fails WP:SIGCOV . Why is there all these "merge" entries like its a reasonable conversation. The Legacy of the Roman Empire is a well-written academic article. It will completely destroy it, putting this trash in. scope_creep Talk 09:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You should reconsider your uncivil attitude, something isn't "trash" just because you don't like it. ★Trekker ( talk ) 15:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Legacy of the Roman Empire . I would rather it be deleted as un-encyclopedic rubbish, but a merge seems appropriate. Lightburst ( talk ) 20:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Zou Presbyterian Church Synod: Fram ( talk ) 15:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Religion , Christianity , and Manipur . Fram ( talk ) 15:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete : I lean delete right now because all I can find on this denomination in independent sources are passing mentions about church buildings in articles about other things. There is an outside chance that more sourcing exists in an Indian language, but I wouldn't put money on it. ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 15:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : Per below arguments for AtD. ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 19:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete per Pbritti. I found a passing mention of the synod on a Welsh Presbyterian website's history of the church in India, but that's not quite a secondary source, or WP:SIGCOV. Wikishovel ( talk ) 16:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect , after re-reading WP:ATD-M, User:Jahaza's argument makes sense. Wikishovel ( talk ) 09:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect to Presbyterian Church of India . There's not enough here to warrant a separate article. The info about this synod can be included in the main article for now and broken off again if sufficient sources are found. Other synods of the PCI may have enough info for separate articles (e.g. those founded in the 19th century) Jahaza ( talk ) 21:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Let's see if there is more support for a Merge or Redirect as an ATD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : Partial merge performed at Presbyterian_Church_of_India#Structure - no objection to slight expansion of that capsule summary provided that it is properly referenced. ~ Hydronium ~ Hydroxide ~ (Talk) ~ 05:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Presbyterian_Church_of_India#Structure : a few mentions online but in the context of the main church. Password (talk) (contribs) 06:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Sound BlasterAxx: ~ T P W 15:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions . ~ T P W 15:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nominator. Performing a WP:BEFORE search returns no RS . FatalFit | ✉ | ✓ 00:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It does get some reviews in bigger technical websites [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] but there's very little here beyond run-of-the-mill coverage and no particular reason to keep the current content (which is largely copied from datasheets and press releases) as a separate article. -- Colapeninsula ( talk ) 11:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nomination, reviews found by Colapeninsula are good, but as they say, not evidence of separable notability. — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 14:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep , otherwise merge per nom. IMO the third-party reviews cited in this AFD and the previous one are sufficient to pass the GNG (edit: and also WP:NCORP / WP:PRODUCTREV , given their significance, depth and apparent independence). However, given particular problems of this article and the general problems of product articles, I would ordinarily still favor a merge. But the problem IMO is that Sound Blaster is already rather unwieldy and is getting into WP:SIZESPLIT territory. It seems like merging now is just going to make more work for future splitters, with no real benefit. (I wonder, though, if perhaps some sort of reconfiguration into a List of Sound Blaster USB products or some such, spinning off that entire L3 heading from Sound Blaster , might be better way to structure our coverage.) -- Visviva ( talk ) 22:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , agreeing with the assessment of potential sources by Colapeninsula that they are run-of-the-mill even if reliable and in-depth. SWinxy ( talk ) 23:33, 19 July 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. | merge |
Snoot Game: I believe this article does not meet the requirements of notability to justify its existence, this can be seen in all four provided references (and all sources available on the internet, for that matter) as none of them talk directly about Snoot Game, but rather talk about it in the context of its criticism towards I believe this article does not meet the requirements of notability to justify its existence, this can be seen in all four provided references (and all sources available on the internet, for that matter) as none of them talk directly about Snoot Game, but rather talk about it in the context of its criticism towards Goodbye Volcano High . Therefore I believe that keeping this topic as just a mention in GVH's article is enough. My original PROD was endorsed twice: once by Zxcvbnm mentioning that it fails WP:GNG which I agree with, and once more by QuicoleJR mentioning that there is no significant coverage, which I also agree with. The PROD was contested six days after the original proposition by User:CJ-Moki , the author of the article, citing an inconclusive discussion on the talk page.
I believe that this article should be deleted because there is zero coverage ‘‘about’’ it. There is only coverage about its controversy regarding the game that it is parodying, and therefore it is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Galo223344 ( talk ) 22:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Goodbye Volcano High , I believe coverage of the controversy in question is perhaps notable enough for a subsection on the Goodbye Volcano High page. CJ-Moki ( talk ) 22:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed. However, any mention of Snoot Game in GVH’s article has been reverted for one reason or another, so it'd have to be discussed on it's talk page. Galo223344 ( talk ) 22:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Goodbye Volcano High as WP:ATD , but it very clearly and obviously fails WP:GNG for its own page. WP:NOTCENSORED so at the very least it should have a (named) mention due to the Kotaku article, despite being highly controversial. Semi-protection may be needed to keep it from being removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 23:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Goodbye Volcano High , makes sense to mention there, but not independently notable. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 13:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - This is not notable enough for its own page, and I don't feel it's even notable for Goodbye Volcano High , so a merge is unnecessary. The "event" was a small troll campaign that barely got any attention outside of 4chan and the game's fandom, resulting in one Kotaku article. Per WP:DUE , there's no point over-inflating the importance of that troll campaign by adding it to the article about the game. — The Hand That Feeds You : Bite 15:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here are 3 different (non-cross-referencing) sources mentioning Snoot Game by name in relation to Goodbye Volcano High. https://eip.gg/news/goodbye-volcano-high-visual-novels-pax/ https://www.canardpc.com/jeu-video/a-venir-jeu-video/goodbye-volcano-high-2/ https://kotaku.com/goodbye-volcano-high-ko_op-snoot-game-4chan-ps4-ps5-1849731598 And here are 3 more that reference the Kotaku article https://www.queerty.com/despite-years-long-troll-campaign-lgbtq-developers-keep-creating-super-queer-video-game-20221106 https://www.news.com.au/technology/gaming/altright-game-steals-assets-from-lgbtq-indie-title/news-story/da0b481f22f8b32d01a97ce4ca5d222d https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/11/07/goodbye-volcano-high-snoot-game-4chan/ I'd say that this alone warrants at the very least a mention in the article (Now sure if an entire section, but still). But going more informally: If you search for Goodbye Volcano High in Google, the first autocomplete suggestions include "Goodbye Volcano High 4chan" and "Goodbye Volcano High Snoot Game", if you search on Youtube "Goodbye Volcano High" and sort by popularity out of the first 4 results, two of them are about Snoot Game, the 8th one being Snoot Game's trailer. This shows that at the very least there is a little bit of relevance about Snoot Game in relation to Goodbye Volcano High. Galo223344 ( talk ) 16:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The EIP.gg article barely touches on the topic, even noting I am not going to give Snoot Game more coverage than it is worth. I cannot comment on the CanardPC link, as I do not speak French and it appears to be paywalled. Other articles referencing the Kotaku article don't strike me as persuasive, just that other outlets are pointing out Kotaku's work. And we don't go by Google Search completion results, so that's a non-starter. Overall, I still don't see that there's enough relevant content here to require a merge. Here's the crux of my argument: this was a flash-in-the pan trolling campaign by 4chan (which are a dime a dozen), and which did not create enough interest outside of the game's fandom to be WP:DUE for inclusion in the article. Placing this into the article is giving far too much weight to an event which had no real impact on the game's development, and didn't cause much more than a ripple around its marketing. Maybe after this is deleted we could discuss a single-sentence mention of the campaign in the game's article, but that's a matter for Talk:Goodbye Volcano High . There's no need to merge in anything from this article. — The Hand That Feeds You : Bite 17:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies. The CanardPC article used to be free, you can read it here [1] Galo223344 ( talk ) 20:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Saying things like "it is not worth covering" indicates wanting to WP:CENSOR the article to protect the original game, which is understandable but doesn't factor into Wikipedia policy at all. WP:UNDUE is based on something's relative coverage in reliable sources, and there is an entire large Kotaku article, as well as mentions elsewhere, linking the two games. If RS believed it to be small and not worth noting, they would probably have ignored it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 23:01, 25 April 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. | merge |
Chùa Hà station: The article already cited mentions it once in a quote. This article [36] mentions that it's named in a sign at a different metro station . I don't think that's significant coverage . Two articles [37] [38] report on trash piles at this station, among others. Again, I don't see sigcov. Three suspiciously similar articles [39] [40] [41] briefly report on possible plans to build parking spaces at this station, which is ROUTINE in addition to not being significant. Toadspike [Talk] 15:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations , Transportation , and Vietnam . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge the position data, etc. to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) and redirect there if sources cannot be found (they're most likely to be in Vietnamese, so do check in that language). There is no reason to delete the information present in the article which will be useful if it is expanded in future. Thryduulf ( talk ) 18:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge there isn't enough coverage (or content) for a separate article from Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) yet, but there might be in the future. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 23:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Competent man: Fails the general notability policy. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . UtherSRG (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom — TheresNoTime ( talk • they/them) 13:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources brought up by prior AfDs are interesting, but nothing that you can really expand an article over. I support a merge to Robert A. Heinlein . Ca talk to me! 13:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Robert A. Heinlein . — The Anome ( talk ) 13:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Jack of all trades, master of none , as this is really about the characteristic, rather than Heinlein's specific formulation of it. Once that is done I will nominate Jack of all trades, master of none to be moved to Jack of all trades , and the disambiguation page to be moved to the disambiguated title. BD2412 T 19:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep . Meets WP:GNG with sources shown below. This concept indeed did originate in criticism of Heinlein's work, however it's extended beyond Heinlein to at the very least Harlan Ellison , Piers Anthony , James E. Gunn , and analysis of real world effects, via sources below. There does seem to be some amount of conceptual overlap with Jack of all trades , however I am not sure if merging is appropriate as risking OR, so even considering WP:NOPAGE , I still think keep is the best option. Here are some demonstrative sources from a non-exhaustive search in Google Books: Ellen Weil and Gary K. Wolfe's Harlan Ellison: The Edge of Forever [51] has a discussion of the concept in relation to Heinlein and Ellison No writer had done more to promote science fiction's myth of the competent man than Robert A. Heinlein, an author who is almost never cited among Ellison's precursors or influences. Heinlein's hard-edged stories all point in the direction of "The Cold Equations" by portraying a mechanistic universe in which the engineer, by virtue of training and skill, is the natural master. "Very early in life when I read Robert Heinlein I got the thread that runs through his stories- the notion of the competent man," Ellison once told an interviewer. "I've always held that as my ideal. I've tried to be a very competent man" (Platt 166). But Ellison is missing the point. Heinlein's imaginary worlds, like those of Isaac Asimov and other writers of science fiction's "golden age" of the 1940s, seem deliberately constructed to reward the kinds of competence that science fiction readers a thought they already possessed--technical facility, arcane knowledge, an understanding of scientific principles, above all problem-solving skill-and that too often go unrewarded in the messy worlds of schools, jobs, and social relationships. Classic science fiction often portrays a kind of techno-geek utopia, and Ellison was never able to fully buy into this world. From the very beginning, his fiction brought to the surface the underlying fears and anxieties of the readers' real world- loneliness, alienation, insecuri-ty--and suggested that all the technological fixes of science fiction couldn't eliminate them. Discussion relating to James E. Gunn in Michael R. Page's Saving the World Through Science Fiction: James Gunn, Writer, Teacher and Scholar [52] With Stewart, Gunn created a good example of the "competent man," the efficient and resourceful Heinlein/Campbell hero, capable of achieving the goals of a system outside of the direct influence of the bureaucratic realities of the system itself. This is, in essence, the nature of the frontier theme-the Admiral and his men on the outpost station in "Communi-cations" are also good examples. In later work, Gunn will continue to explore the nature of the competent man, but often placed within the structural inertias of bureaucratic systems, illustrating that the Heinlein/ Campbell hero has limitations. In the end, and not unexpectedly, Stewart succeeds in convincing the Rigelians to join the Alliance, through rational persuasive discourse. Like most of the stories Campbell published in this vein, it is more an argument than a heroic action adventure. A discussion relating to author Piers Anthony 's work from Willaim Glass, via Michael R. Collings' Piers Anthony [53] At the same time, Castle Roogna is also constantly (if entertainingly) didactic, in something like Heinlein's SF juveniles of the 1950's. Dor is clearly the naive Heinlein youth, his quest their usual one for competence and maturi-ty-even if it is complicated by tritons, dragons, ogres, zombies, tangle trees, forfons, and the like; and even if the older, Heinlein competent man character is a very intelli-gent, highly magnified spider. [9] A discussion relating to cultural criticism of real world "AI" in Richard Heimann's Doing AI [54] Consider that science fiction writer Robert Heinlein's "competent man" is sometimes seen as the archetype for insiders.12 Heinlein notes that, "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.»13 Heinlein adds, "Specialization is for insects. " The fact that most of us can't do half of these things Heinlein considers human competence is perhaps why inspiration for artificial intelligence often comes from science fiction. This exaggerated anthropomorphic viewpoint, however, is a high standard for almost all applied problem solving. After all, businesses need to solve problems even if those solutions are as specialized as an insect's. More specific to Heinlein in Thomas D. Clareson and Joe Sanders' The Heritage of Heinlein: A Critical Reading of the Fiction [55] Jack Williamson acknowledges that the characters in The Rolling Stones, which he calls "a delightful romp through space ... a dream of personal freedom," are all variations "on the brilliantly competent man" ("Youth" 22, 23), a term for Heinlein's protagonists first used by Alexei Panshin (HD 12). But in saying this Williamson traps himself in a sense, for he is hard pressed to find individuals who fulfill Heinlein's essential criterion that a character must change/grow. Some more specific to Heinlein in Farah Mendlesohn's The Pleasant Profession of Robert A. Heinlein [56] Heinlein's understanding of what a man should be and do is scattered throughout his work, and at various times in this book I have tackled aspects of it. What emerges is that the concept of the 'Heinlein hero' or the 'competent man' that has come to be the accepted face of Heinlein's masculinity is actually rather problematic; perhaps only Lazarus Long fits this model of the masculine man. There is a tendency to dismiss Heinlein's literary skills; to dismiss Heinlein's characters as examples of the 'competent man'; to assume that dogmatic characters are ipso facto the authorial voice... The doofus male may be smart in his own right, but he has to be courted with a metaphorical club and/or dragged in his destined direction by a metaphorical tug of the hair. The doofus male - interestingly - has never taken his rightful place alongside Heinlein's competent man as a key Heinlein character. Both club and tug are usually operated by the highly competent Heinlein female. — siro χ o 05:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Robert A. Heinlein , as it seems this is largely a term that refers to his works. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect as this is almost exclusively related to his works. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 03:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per siroχo's analysis of the sources. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk ) 03:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge subject to later re-creation with the added sources. Right now, there's only four sources, two from one author. That's not significant coverage. It's also really part of a continuum with the Mary Sue trope. Bearian ( talk ) 01:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Community of Nazareth: Nothing much to merge to Anglican Church in Japan JMWt ( talk ) 10:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Japan . JMWt ( talk ) 10:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Would it be helpful if I added an external link to the Order's website, and more content? fishhead64 ( talk ) 15:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Christianity . Skynxnex ( talk ) 15:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] leaning keep It's hard to wade through all the false hits on the place of Jesus' birth, but I found at least some material from The Living Church . The issue appears to be that it's stubby. I don't know whether we have any guidelines on religious orders. Mangoe ( talk ) 15:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Former religious orders in the Anglican Communion . According to the source listed in the article, there were only three members left, with the majority having passed away in recent years. According to the website of the Anglican Church in Japan via Google Translate , the Community was disbanded in April 2023. FYI I think that the Japanese name of the order is "ナザレ修女会" and the building is "エピファニー館". Matt's talk 16:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Former religious orders in the Anglican Communion as not enough coverage or content for a standalone article imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 18:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Martin, Washington: Almost nothing in the article is about the "town" of Martin, because there isn't anything to say: It was a minor railroad maintenance point that later had a station for a nearby ski area. Of all the cited sources, only reference 14 comes close to substantial coverage; many sources don't mention Martin at all. I couldn't find any additional sources that aren't already cited, and none are more than trivial mentions (e.g. photos of trains taken at Martin). I suggest a delete; I could also live with a merge of relevant content to Stampede Pass , Northern Pacific Railroad , or Meany Lodge (from which much of this article's content seems to have been copied). WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 15:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Washington . WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 15:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge to Stampede pass. I agree with nom. The newspaper record supports this is a train station near Stampede pass that had good ski properties. But there was never a town there. The nearest towns were Easton and Weston. I don't however understand why there was a siding and a station there. Refueling, or maintenance maybe? Here are news clips that are helpful in understanding the place. Describes it as remotest place in county. [27] Stranded Skies spend the night in Meany hut. [28] People ski at Meany SKi hut [29] James.folsom ( talk ) 21:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In further reading of the papers I did see a passing mention about steam locomotives needing to stop for water after a long climb up a grade. James.folsom ( talk ) 19:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a notable railway complex rather than as a populated place (although some railway workers must have lived there). Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 21:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Your assumption that some workers lived is factually incorrect, as my second source makes it clear there were no overnight facilities at the site. Several, other sources I read make it clear it is miles from the nearest and very remote. James.folsom ( talk ) 23:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect to Martin Ski Dome , which appears to have been expanded by the same author. There's enough here for an article, but I think the ski dome is a better target. SportingFlyer T · C 17:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette Edit! 18:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Martin Ski Dome , nothing showing this meets GNG or NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 17:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Martin Ski Dome . This page does not meet GEOLAND and would be a delete for me, but it is just about a plausible search term for the proposed target. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Boomf: WP:INHERITORG states that an organization is not notable merely because a notable person was associated with it. The company went into administration in 2021, see here and here [expired token, link not available] . I don't think the company would be considered noteworthy on its own merits without the named associations. The creator of the article also appears to be a SPA, who exclusively wrote about, perhaps for promotional reasons, Boomf. Uhooep ( talk ) 10:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It would be against consensus to argue that Boomf is notable because it is associated with James Middleton. At the same time it is against consensus to argue that a topic with significant independent coverage is not notable because it is associated with James Middleton. We should consider the coverage that exists, not speculate about why it exists. Gab4gab ( talk ) 12:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 22:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect to James Middleton . This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP criteria requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *about the company* . "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject . In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified or reworded. Looking at the references, all of the information has been provided by the company and/or a company exec (e.g Middleton) and there is no "Independent Content" - i.e. "original and independent opinion/analysis/investigation/etc" *about the company*. There's a review of the product but that doesn't provide sufficient in-depth information about the *company*. I'm unable to locate any references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability so a Merge is the best option. HighKing ++ 12:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a Merge and/or Redirect. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unsuitable for its own article as per nomination. Links to James Middleton seem to be a good reason to merge with a redirect to his article. Karnataka ( talk ) 17:43, 1 July 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. | merge |
George (Rainbow): Bungle has one Den of Geek source but that is it. I could not find anything for the other two. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 17:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and United Kingdom . QuicoleJR ( talk ) 17:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge very lightly into parent article. Only meaningful content seems to be some mild (humorous) confusion over what Zippy is supposed to be and his subsequent appearances in other media. Dronebogus ( talk ) 20:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge all to Rainbow (TV series) seems appropriate, there is a mix of information not in the main article. (slight lean toward keep for the moment, with a possible alternate merge destination see below) — siro χ o 22:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge selectively. There is slight coverage to WP:PRESERVE , but not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV for a separate article. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 22:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge all to Rainbow (TV series) . Lots of passing coverage, not enough in depth for WP:GNG . Climbing High: Life Under the Rainbow Exposed and Rainbow Unzipped: The Shocking Truth about Zippy, George and Bungle - In Their Own Words appear to be humorous rather than factual. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 10:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment They're certainly not good articles but there are a few untapped sources. There is some coverage of the actors/puppeteers (particularly Bungle but also Zippy) [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] - and Stanley Bates has his own article so no need for duplication there. Also the press has published a bit on the costumes/puppets [22] [23] . But merging is probably OK unless someone wants to actually expand the articles. -- Colapeninsula ( talk ) 14:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm still not super familiar with this show and it's place in culture, but it seems as if the things around the show (like these puppets) are indeed meeting GNG. I'm slightly leaning toward keep but for now will just retract my bolded merge ! vote. What do you think about something like a Characters of Rainbow article as a merge destination for all 3, that can hold the existing coverage in the existing articles, as well the new coverage you've found? I'm open to other ideas as well. — siro χ o 19:20, 17 July 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. | merge |
Pine Bowl (stadium): 162 etc. ( talk ) 16:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Pennsylvania . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Saint Francis Red Flash football . DeGol Field and selective merge. Article is unsourced and the only things I could find in a brief Google search were primary sources and Wiki mirrors. Not enough to pass WP:GNG . I will reconsider if more coverage is found so please ping me if any becomes available. Frank Anchor 18:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per Frank. Cbl62 ( talk ) 18:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with DeGol Field rather than redirect to the football team. The new stadium is/was called Pine Bowl Stadium when built and is "located on the site of the former Pine Bowl". PK-WIKI ( talk ) 18:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am fine with this as a merge/redirect target as well. Frank Anchor 19:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . Makes sense to me as well. Cbl62 ( talk ) 00:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with DeGol Field per PK-WIKI. Jweiss11 ( talk ) 03:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with DeGol Field per above, oppose redirect/merge with Saint Francis Red Flash football . // Timothy :: talk 04:23, 13 April 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. | merge |
Hero Wars (video game): Suggesting redirect to Nexters . IgelRM ( talk ) 22:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . IgelRM ( talk ) 22:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - There's VentureBeat interview and Aftermath article. PCGamesN has a short list entry. -- Mika1h ( talk ) 16:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also here's a short thing Kotaku did. -- Mika1h ( talk ) 17:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I don't think the sources amount to SIGCOV. There aren't really enough real reviews of the game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Somewhat off-topic, but mobile games don't commonly receive traditional reviews and "real" is rather subjective. IgelRM ( talk ) 13:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Mobile games certainly do get traditional reviews, and pretty often too - at least from what I've seen. There isn't a particular reason to judge this game differently than the rest. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 09:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It seems like much of the coverage linked above is not about the actual game, but rather its marketing campaign, and the broader trend of "fake" mobile game trailers. You could maybe do an article on fake trailers and talk about hero wars there. But as a standalone the notability feels pretty weak. CurlyWi ( talk ) 23:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I think the lack of reception is the achilles' heel for the article. Directly paraphrasing the only sources available, the only evaluation in the sources are that Kotaku says the plot is "unremarkable", the art is "shady" and the gameplay loop is "incoherent", and PCGamesN describes the game as one of the "best" computer games for mobile and implies that it's addictive. The VentureBeat article is great but is heavily a primary interview source. There's also the Aftermath article and the point about the promotion, but for that to single-handedly be able to make the game notable, there would need to be more coverage than one inconclusive WP:VG/S source. On the point above about reviews, yes I agree 'real' isn't a fair threshold for assessing sources but I don't think there is enough coverage that should support a section of how the game was independently reviewed and evaluated at this point. On mobile games having a unique hurdle for notability, I get it: I used to write a lot of indie game articles and it's frustrating to hit these roadblocks for things that seem self-evidently notable when the reviews and coverage just isn't there. Keeping an open mind if there's more sourcing out there. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 23:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The game does not seem to meet neither WP:GNG , nor WP:VG/S as the only notable source I see is VentureBeat . Other than that, the article seems to have a list in the Gameplay section, which is a little concerning, as it is sourced to an unknown source aswell. MKsLifeInANutshell ( talk ) 05:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are few sources, but they exist. And it seems that it needs to be keep . But, if we decide to delete, let's transfer the information to Nexters . This is one of the company's most significant games. Wikipedia should have at least a section about it. ЖуковАФ ( talk ) 12:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any support among those arguing for Delete for a possible Redirect or Merge as mentioned by the nominator and the last editor who advocating Keep. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I agree with the article creator that the article should be merged to Nexters if it's not kept. -- Mika1h ( talk ) 15:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Nexters for now as it fails SIGCOV. Bhivuti45 ( talk ) 18:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not much to Merge in the article that would be suited for a different aarticle but an acceptable ATD. microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 20:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Ignirtoq: There is one singular mention on one line with no source in a single not particularly notable book from 1907; aside from that I can find absolutely nothing else. CoconutOctopus talk 18:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Religion . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We can probably merge to Inuit religion § Deities based on the 1907 source [13] and the fact that it is listed in a Gale reference from 1992 [14] , and this Oxford University Press reference from 1995 [15] . Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 20:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 18:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Inuit religion § Deities per Siroxo 's refs and recommendation above. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:57, 15 December 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. | merge |
ProStores: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to eBay . Bearian ( talk ) 18:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the subject is not equal to eBay for merging. I think we cannot merge every tiny startup or subsidiary to the parent company. While it's possible, I find little logic in doing so. -- Johnpaul2030 ( talk ) 08:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge what little content there is and redirect to eBay as per Bearian . Mr.choppers | ✎ 21:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
VESA Stereo: Fails the general notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing . UtherSRG (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Video Electronics Standards Association . Owen× ☎ 17:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
1925 Delaware State Hornets football team: Failure of WP:NSEASONS , they only played two *high school* teams. Reywas92 Talk 20:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions . Reywas92 Talk 20:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless improved. The claim that the team "represented Delaware State University in the 1925 college football season" is false, because no college matches were played, and as such the rug is swept from under the article. Geschichte ( talk ) 09:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Delaware State Hornets football unless SIGCOV is found. Alvaldi ( talk ) 16:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I wonder how are we supposed to deal with articles like this - not just for DelState but for early college seasons as a whole, many of which were like this. Historically, we have regarded and usually kept every season of a Division I program (I can't recall one ever having been deleted). Would some type of merger be best? I don't particularly like the idea of a plain redirect as then all the details of the season is then lost; I still think we should have these details somewhere . Also worth noting that DelState is a historically black program; the white papers didn't tend to cover black teams and people all that well and the black papers of the time are almost exclusively offline or don't exist anymore. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I'd be open to a redirect and merge of the info here into a new article covering this program in the 1920s, but waiting to see if anyone has any other ideas before I ! vote. Let'srun ( talk ) 20:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Delaware State Hornets football, 1924–1929 per Cbl62 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1924 Delaware State Hornets football team . Jweiss11 ( talk ) 21:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Delaware State Hornets football, 1924–1929 per WP:NSEASONS ("In cases in which the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article."). The Delaware State football program was just getting started in the 1920s and played a total of only 10 games during the decade. Merger is also consistent with our past precedents at 1924 Michigan Mines AfD (merging multiple articles into Michigan Tech Huskies football, 1920–1942 ) and 1879 Swarthmore AfD (merging early seasons into " Swarthmore football, 1878–1887 "). Cbl62 ( talk ) 17:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Delaware State Hornets football, 1924–1929 per WP:NSEASONS . Subject is not notable enough for a standalone article per the GNG. User:Let'srun 16:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Delaware State Hornets football, 1924–1929 per above. // Timothy :: talk 16:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I feel like I've stated this a hundred times in relisting comments but a Merge is not possible unless there is an existing target article. If you want a Merge to another article, get started creating it. Otherwise this looks like a Redirect or Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:46, 21 December 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. | merge |
AppletViewer: There's been tags on this page since 2019 and 2020 and no improvements have been made. Lewcm Talk to me! 19:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . Lewcm Talk to me! 19:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Java has been notified of this AFD via their talk page. Lewcm Talk to me! 19:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There is a suitable redirect target: Java Development Kit . Pavlor ( talk ) 10:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to or merge with Java applet . Java Development Kit is too broad a subject to redirect to, but applets are the ideal destination for context. Something like "Applets could be viewed independently of a browser with the appletviewer executable as part of the JDK ." SWinxy ( talk ) 21:46, 4 December 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. | merge |
Beyond the Grave (Gungrave): It has zero WP:SIGCOV . Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 08:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Gungrave . The article largely uses sources about the game itself that mention him in passing, which is not a viable basis for a character article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 10:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Gungrave . Impressively well written article for a protagonist of an obscure game, but his importance only amounts to being mentioned in the Gungrave article. NanaOn-Sha ( talk ) 07:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC) sock puppet NinjaRobotPirate ( talk ) 03:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . Sadly, this otherwise well written article is not meeting WP:SIGCOV . Ping me if you think I am wrong. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 00:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Gungrave per Zxcvbnm. Largely an extension of the main topic, without enough WP:SIGCOV that is independent of the game itself. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 01:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Gungrave ; agree with the above users that this article does not have enough sigcov to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCHARACTER . Link20XX ( talk ) 16:02, 31 July 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. | merge |
Prankstar: As always, films that have never been released are normally not notable enough for Wikipedia articles at all -- and while it's possible that there could be occasional exceptions for unreleased films that have generated an unusual volume and depth of reliable source coverage and analysis, that's not in evidence here at all: three of the four footnotes are primary sources (Tom Green's own self-published website and the self-published website of the studio that tried to make it) which aren't support for notability at all, and the only one that comes from a media outlet is a Q&A interview in which its existence gets briefly namechecked but which isn't about the film in any non-trivial sense, which isn't enough "coverage" to get the film over WP:GNG all by itself. This just doesn't have enough notability-building coverage in proper reliable sources to earn an exemption from having to have been completed and released. Bearcat ( talk ) 18:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America . Bearcat ( talk ) 18:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge "Little is known about the film". It can be a one-liner in the main Tom Greene article then, using the AV Club source. I don't see anything about this unreleased film. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. If you are proposing a Merge, please specify the target article. Thank you. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Oaktree did specify a target article for a merge: Tom Green . I certainly have no objection to that. Bearcat ( talk ) 15:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Tom Green - The film is already briefly mentioned in the main Tom Green article, using the above mentioned AV Club source. All that really needs to be added there at this point is a sentence stating that it was never released, which would not really require a merge to do. Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:32, 2 July 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. | merge |
No. 659 Squadron AAC: PercyPigUK ( talk ) 14:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom . PercyPigUK ( talk ) 14:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge No. 659 Squadron RAF into AAC article. Gavbadger ( talk ) 15:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with No. 659 Squadron, this seems to be one lineage. Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk ) 21:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into No. 659 Squadron RAF . Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge No. 659 Squadron RAF into this article. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Reasonableness: I can see a merge request with Reasonability on the page, but am not 100% sure if this is the best course of action. Would appreciate further input. GnocchiFan ( talk ) 13:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTDICT , and the reasonability article along with it. If anyone can find secondary sources that discuss the concept of reasonableness in the context of other legal constructs then I could see the point of the article, but not in its current form. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , I do see a few legitimate sources in the article, maybe it could be renamed Reasonableness (legal norm) . Alaexis ¿question? 14:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy , Law , and Politics . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , as creator of the former. The concepts of reasonableness / reasonability are core to modern political theory and jurisprudence, and also have distinct uses in criminal, administrative, contract and constitutional law. As for "vagueness" and WP:NOTDICT - see WP:BROAD , and compare with articles like Justice , Rationality and Morality , and with Fairness - which is tagged for article creation , rather than deletion . François Robere ( talk ) 14:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename + merge Agree that Reasonability should be merged with. The concept appears everywhere in the law and across legal systems, maybe can give a proper scope with something like The concept/principle of reasonableness in law (avoid parentheses as it is not really disambiguation as such?). Selfstudier ( talk ) 14:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Selfstudier : How do you propose we deal with the concept of reasonableness in political science , which underlies some of its legal uses? François Robere ( talk ) 15:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I wouldn't personally, except to the extent that an allusion to it might fit somewhere in an article dealing with the purely legal aspects. Unlike the principal topic where the concept is bounded in practice, I doubt there is much to say there that is similarly constrained eg discussing what does reasonableness even mean? Selfstudier ( talk ) 16:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Alexy (in Reasonableness and Law , 2009) starts with the statement that "in order to be able to say what the reasonableness of law is, one has to know what “reasonableness” in general means" (curiously, he provides no clear answer). He then proceeds to discuss the meanings of "reasonableness" in political science, then in jurisprudence. I wouldn't say one is more ambiguous or exact ("constrained") than the other, and they certainly overlap in the definitional and normative parts; I think we should cover these two as theoretical background, otherwise we'd be left with a few gaping holes around the question of "what exactly is 'reasonableness' and where did it come from". Incidentally, Rawls is mentioned in that book roughly 287 times, and it's not the only source that ties the two subjects (just from a cursory look, we also have Hevia (2013), Zipursky (2015), and Mangini (2018)), so there's obviously some discussion to be had there. François Robere ( talk ) 18:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] curiously, he provides no clear answer Right, because in general it is a philosophical question. I still think it is better to have a page primarily on the legal aspects and without disambiguation. Should someone want to try and make a page out of the (many) other aspects of reasonableness ("How Can I Tell If My Algorithm Was Reasonable" below, for instance) that's doable too but then I don't think there is a concept/principle/standard that is as easy to get one's hands around as it is for the law, which is already tricky enough. Selfstudier ( talk ) 11:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename + merge per Selfstudier. Reasonable is a very very common concept in law and can have quite specific legal definitions dependent upon case law. Tal pedia 15:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename and merge per above. The definition of reasonability is quite complex in a legal context and involves a number of legal concepts. Some articles that touch upon the notion of reasonableness include Man on the Clapham omnibus , A moron in a hurry , Person having ordinary skill in the art , Prudent man rule , Objective standard (law) , Reasonable person , Duty of care . Dawkin Verbier ( talk ) 15:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Merge to Reasonability : I think there may be a good reason to keep this page around given the 2023 Israeli judicial reform#Abolition of "unreasonableness" grounds centering on this legal concept. Adding a section on the concept of Reasonableness in Israeli would resolve the DICTDEF issue, make the article more encyclopedic, and distinguish it from the redirect nominations presented. Also, for full disclosure, I am a lawyer so that may be affecting my vote. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 16:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just a particular case, probably comes from British law in the first instance, there are a few things in Israeli legal system coming from there; "unreasonableness" is just propspeak, the concept (or standard) is still reasonableness. Selfstudier ( talk ) 16:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's fair and I'll change my vote. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 17:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep/Merge with Reasonability . Agree that we don't need both pages, but reasonability as a legal concept is incredibly ubiquitous and important. There are tons of secondary sources discussing this concept in relation to law - below are just a few from academic journals in the last decade: Kevin P. Tobia, How People Judge What Is Reasonable, 70 Ala. L. Rev. 293 (2018) Alan Calnan, The Nature of Reasonableness, 105 Cornell L. Rev. Online 81 (2020) Brian Sheppard, The Reasonableness Machine, 62 B.C. L. Rev. 2259 (2021) Karni A. Chagal-Feferkorn, How Can I Tell If My Algorithm Was Reasonable? , 27 Mich. Tech. L. Rev. 213 (2021) Benjamin C. Zipursky, Reasonableness in and Out of Negligence Law, 163 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2131 (2015) Legal search engines ( WestLaw , LexisNexis ) return tens of thousands of results just among secondary sources (direct links are difficult because West charges an arm and a leg and sometimes the articles are otherwise paywalled). I don't think the name matters much, (Reasonableness, Reasonability, Reasonable (legal norm/concept/maxim), etc. ) but the substance of the current Reasonableness page should be kept in one place or another. Kalethan ( talk ) 16:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and split and disambiguate. The legal concept satisfies GNG easily and by an exceptionally wide margin. The article is not a mere definition, and therefore does not violate WP:NOT. "Reasonableness" is the WP:COMMONNAME of the legal concept. Reasonability should be merged into the article on the legal concept. The political concept should be WP:SPLIT to a separate article. Some of the sources in the article are not the best available or the best starting point for the legal concept. The best place to look for the legal concept is periodical articles about law (rather than politics or philosophy): [30] [31] . That confirms that there are a large number of entire periodical articles about the legal concept, including, amongst many others, [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] . The coverage in those articles satisfies GNG and goes far beyond a definition. That establishes that GNG is satisfied and the article does not violate NOT. For the avoidance of doubt, reasonableness is a single concept. The fact that is used in other (compound) concepts does not change that. The fact that it is possible to speak of a "reasonable time" does not mean that either Time or Reasonableness is "just a word". The fact that it is possible to speak of a "reasonable person" does not mean that either Person or Reasonableness is "just a word". And so on. This AfD nomination is like saying that we should get rid of the article Time because it possible to speak of proper time , daylight saving time , unix time , reasonable time , planck time and a multitude of other times. James500 ( talk ) 20:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For the avoidance of doubt, WP:HEYMANN says we can split this article right now. If one article in one in one interdisciplinary philosophy book "ties" the legal and political concepts (and I am not sure that it does), that does not prove anyone else accepts that view. It is not obvious to me that "reasonableness in general" is the same thing as "reasonableness in law and politics". What about reasonableness in morality [40] or argumentation theory [41] [42] or something like this [43] for example? The Bongiovanni book is part of a series on "law and philosophy", which would seem to indicate that it is about philosophy of law in particular, and not primarily about law and/or politics generally. I think we should probably have articles on Reasonableness generally, Reasonableness (law) , Reasonableness (politics) , Reasonableness (philosophy of law) , Reasonableness (morality) and Reasonableness (argumentation) etc. It is not obvious to me that we should have an article whose scope is effectively Reasonableness (law and politics) , using a single philosophy book as a starting point. James500 ( talk ) 20:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] When I changed Reasonableness from a redirect to a stub (and later a short article) I took note of two things: first, that a merge with Reasonability would probably be due at some point; and second, that the term is difficult to define, and appears in multiple contexts that are difficult to untangle. This is not as if to say that untangling them is impossible, but we have to careful not to severe the connections between subjects: the legal norms are buttressed by legal theory, which is built, in part, on a political philosophy. So I'm okay with splitting the current article to Reasonableness (general / disambig), Reasonableness (law) (specific norms, doctrines and standards) and Reasonableness (political and legal theory) (Rawls, Scanlon, Barry, and others), but we have to make the connections between subjects explicit through "background" or "theory" sections. François Robere ( talk ) 10:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Laws are not necessarily "buttressed by legal theory ". Some time ago, Atiyah said that English law had a general aversion to theory; and Lord Lloyd of Hamstead said that jurisprudence was a dirty word among English lawyers. James500 ( talk ) 05:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, and Aharon Barak said " In my eyes, the world is filled with law. Every human behavior is subject to a legal norm..... Wherever there are living human beings, law is there. There are no areas in life which are outside of law. " So there are scholarly differences of opinion on the ubiquity of legal theory. Good things to go into an article somewhere (and that are currently not in Reasonableness or Reasonability ). TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 13:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ TulsaPoliticsFan : Thanks for reminding me: "Every norm is part of the fabric of a system. [And] every legal system has rules and principles side by side... The principles fill the normative 'universe'. They are the "soul" ( voluntas ) that surrounds the body ( verba ). All legal norms are created on the backdrop of these principles. It is only natural that these principles be used to understand the legal norms" (Barak, 2001). François Robere ( talk ) 18:14, 2 August 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. | merge |
Kill Screen Festival: Notability appears tied to Kill Screen magazine, merge into section there? IgelRM ( talk ) 13:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Events . IgelRM ( talk ) 13:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Mentioned in RS here , here and here under its former name, Two5Six. If this counts as an RS, it's mentioned there as well. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the Vice and PCMag sources (I had already added the Fastcompany source). My first thought was also "Keep" but two5six is a marketing agency founded by Jamin Warren . So I think it needs attention from someone familiar with Wikipedia:Notability (events) . Edit: I think this shows that two5six is the common name in any way. IgelRM ( talk ) 14:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Articles from before the name change don't necessarily demonstrate it's the common name, just that it was once called that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Found Game Informer and Fortune . nydailynews describes Warren was founder. IgelRM ( talk ) 11:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Kill Screen . Both articles are short and the Festival article doesn't receive that many page views anyway. Also seems like the festival is infrequently held. Some1 ( talk ) 00:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (notify) 17:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . Just because something is has independent notability (which here is fairly loose), it doesn't mean it requires its own article. Having them both split would be detrimental to both articles, and Some1 also makes a good point about how the festival is held infrequently anyways. λ Negative MP1 06:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of the festivals in Category:Festivals in New York City could conceivably be merged to whoever put on the festival. For example, The New Yorker Festival could be merged to The New Yorker . But given one is an organization and the other is an event, I don't see how it is "detrimental". In my opinion, an article like this should only be merged if it's a sentence or two with zero room for expansion. Otherwise, merging removes the possibility of any future development of an article by in essence implying it's not notable to any editors who may wish to work on it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As nominator I also think we should focus on Notability (events) and not whether a merger would make sense. IgelRM ( talk ) 18:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 06:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Moscow loan: I can imagine this being merged somewhere as a line, but an article seems unsupportable. BD2412 T 20:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Finance . BD2412 T 20:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge to Polish United Workers' Party , where the topic is already discussed. Per nom, there is not enough here to justify its on article. Yilloslime ( talk ) 22:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 22:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Soft delete or Merge to Polish United Workers' Party#Dissolution of the PZPR in the event that someone wants to do a full treatment of this topic. This article has been here since 2007 and it looks like it's been a stub the whole time. Some Wikieditors have taken an interest in de-orphaning etc. but no one has done the legwork of getting enough sources to establish notability. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 01:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Polish Wikipedia has a longer article. No BEFORE was done by the nom; mine show this topic is discussed in some Polish sources, try the following Google Books query: "Moskiewska pożyczka" 1990. There are even English-language hits - see query "Moscow loan" 1990. This book in English for example mentions it as a "well known example" of something. It seems to be a notable topic. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 10:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How much BEFORE is necessary to know that a million dollar loan is not by itself notable? The Polish Wikipedia article is longer because it contains an entirely unsourced section. BD2412 T 22:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 10:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting just in case anyone wanted to offer any more specific references to establish notability. If not, this looks like a probable Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. The coverage in Polish United Workers' Party is sufficient; and I'm not convinced this is a suitable phrase to redirect. I can't speak for Polish coverage, but this article is the best English coverage ... and the loan itself is tangential. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 01:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Arbeidernes blad: The original deletion rationale was: "Painfully obscure, this newspaper only existed for four months in 1898. None of the sources deal with the newspaper in a substantial way." There were two keep votes, which were exactly that, votes. One stated that "The article provides basic facts about a well-attested historical publication", which does not touch upon policy at all. The other stated that "The article is informative ,it can be made a stub article instead of deleting it". Aside from it already being a stub, being informative is not a policy either. One user asked for "translation of the key sources", but I'm opining that there are no key sources sufficient for Wikipedia guidelines. Sure, the facts are verifiable from catalogue sources such as this and this . But catalogue info is not enough since Wikipedia is not a directory. This history of labour movement newspapers from 1935 spends a whole four sentences on Arbeidernes blad, and this 1923 history of the city spends less: three sentences. Worst of all are the current sources in the article, which fall very short of demands and are passing mentions. It could be merged to its successor, had it not been equally short-lived. There is no shortage of newspapers in Norway that lasted for a year or less. Not all of them, or rather very few of them, are notable. The first lasting workers' newspaper in Ålesund was in fact Nybrott (Ålesund newspaper) , where Arbeidernes blad could warrant a mention in a section about forerunners. To sum up the above, Arbeidernes blad fails WP:CORPDEPTH , WP:MILL , WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:GNG and there is a lack of WP:ATD . Geschichte ( talk ) 09:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The article provides basic facts about a well-attested historical publication. Users seeking information about Arbeidernes blad can currently find such information at this article rather than finding nothing. Doremo ( talk ) 10:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment. I'm stunned that the nomination is actually longer than the article. Is there anything it could be possibly merged with? E. g. as a summary in an article on the history of press in Norway or the history of the city? If not then I guess it can be kept if it is important to the history of the city or local press (as the nominator points out there were many short-lived publications in Norway)? -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 15:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It could be merged to Nybrott (Ålesund newspaper) if it existed. Maybe even to Sunnmøre Arbeideravis although that is more of a stretch. In the city article I think it would be WP:UNDUE , and there is no article about the local press. Geschichte ( talk ) 12:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Doremo Do you have a policy-based argument? Your vote thoroughly fails WP:ATA . Geschichte ( talk ) 12:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My reasoning is only common-sense based. Wikipedia is probably the only place online where this information about this publication can be found in one place in English, and just deleting it doesn't help or serve anyone's interests. It simply makes access to information disappear. Doremo ( talk ) 13:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment. Why not create a broad article on history of newspapers of Ålesund where all these bits and pieces could be collected, with suitable redirects? -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 13:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have no objection to that suggestion; my only objection is to simple deletion. Destroying information (or access to it) helps nobody. Doremo ( talk ) 13:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you are knowledgeable on the subject then start this article and start putting material there. Start writing. Be WP:BOLD ! -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 13:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I appreciate the sentiment (and the suggestion), but I have no expertise on the topic. I simply translated the English WP article from the Norwegian WP article Arbeidernes blad (and added some sources). Doremo ( talk ) 14:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Some would say that's a good start. -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 16:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Four lines about a 100 yr old newspaper doesn't say notability. I can't find mention if it, could be a brief mention in the "History of newspapers in Alesund" if someone wanted to create the article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - nothing on the page to show notability, nothing in the previous AfD and nothing offered here. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information WP:NOTEVERYTHING . It is possible that this is a datapoint in a historical page of media in Norway, that doesn't somehow justify a page in and of itself. JMWt ( talk ) 16:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , History , and Norway . Skynxnex ( talk ) 18:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : how's List of defunct newspapers of Norway as a possible merge target? Right now it's just a bare list, but it could just as easily be a proper list article with brief descriptions. -- asilvering ( talk ) 09:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That seems like a good merge target. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have no objection to a merger with a redirect. Doremo ( talk ) 09:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 01:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] • Merge with List of defunct newspapers of Norway . The newspaper itself is definitely not notable, and shouldn't be kept as per Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE . However a merge is a perfectly acceptable WP:ATD . Industrial Insect (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as suggested to List of defunct newspapers of Norway . BusterD ( talk ) 13:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of defunct newspapers of Norway ]. Formalizing my suggestion above. -- asilvering ( talk ) 17:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Toriel: Doing a WP:BEFORE shows that's the case across the board: any discussion is strictly in the context of the game and its story, and not a proper examination or discussion of the character. While there's some discussion about a possible character list, I feel what's here is fine to redirect to the parent game for now, and any usable reception cited in it if workable. Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 08:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 08:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Creator keep Standalone notable character, passes GNG. Kill Screen has 4 paragraphs discussing Toriel as part of an article about video game moms. The Greatest Stories Ever Played: Video Games and the Evolution of Storytelling has multiple pages discussing Toriel and how the possibility of killing her is given more impact due to the preceding events. The Game Designer's Playbook p.58-59 also has several paragraphs talking about how she is a good tutorial that sets up herself as a boss. Ethics at Play in Undertale , a paper with 11 citations, has numerous pages discussing Toriel starting at page 2. I think even ignoring all the other sources, these prove that it does not need to be merged, though there are definitely many other book mentions due to her boss fight's prominence as one of Undertale's most well-known moments. Her article is not the most well developed at the moment, but WP:SURMOUNTABLE and WP:NODEADLINE . AfD is not the right place for a reckoning for any notable character below a certain standard. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 09:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But you yourself are pointing out the very observation I made: the sources focus on how it acts as a tutorial for the game itself and the significance in that context. The slight outlier is Kill Screen, but even there it's framed in the context of how the game subverts your expectations and primarily relays what we already learn during that sequence. The rest can be used just as easily for the game and don't define her importance as a character *outside* of that game itself, or any study of her character or design. The article could just as easily be written "Undertale tutorial" and achieve the same results, and express just as little notability separate of the game itself. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 09:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Toriel IS the tutorial. It's in the name. Unlike most games, in Undertale it's intrinsically linked to a character, where she is directly giving the protagonist advice on how to play, framed diegetically within the game's universe. I would not agree that it's only about "Undertale tutorial" due to how completely the character encompasses the tutorial segment. For the entire Ruins (i.e. tutorial) part you are mostly talking to her, and she disappears for most of the rest of the game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 09:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm well aware of that. But you wrote this about the character herself: how's she important or discussed outside of that Zx?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 09:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . I'm not convinced that there is much to Toriel that isn't tied into the game, based both on what is there and my source search. To me, it's telling that all but one article is about Undertale. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 12:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] redirect to undertale. Tunni327 ( talk ) 11:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE . ✗ plicit 12:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:JUSTAVOTE applies here. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 16:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect Fictional characters need to make an impact on the outside world to be notable. Despite being a major character in the beginning and at the very end, I'd say this character's role in the game is about as impactful as Sans, Papyrus, Undyne, or even Alphys. The sources are good for a merge to "Fandom" under the "Cultural impact" section. I do not think it warrants an entire article though. Conyo14 ( talk ) 22:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the lede summarizes how the character impacted the outside world - "The character has received attention from critics and fans for her personality as well as the atypical moral choice of her boss battle." And, as shown in reception, "Nathan Grayson of Kotaku stated that while he killed Toriel during his playthrough, his encounter with her made him cry due to her friendliness and relatability as a character." This is real-world impact without a doubt. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't disagree that she had an impact, I disagree it warrants an entire article. I feel this can be condensed to the section of Undertale. The rest is plot (primary or tertiary source material only). Conyo14 ( talk ) 15:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge selectively. Extremely bloated, especially with in-universe story stuff. Some mentions of the important stuff in the gameplay (the tutorial) and a shout-out in the games reception section is plenty. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . Article contain mostly in-universe stuff and the "gameplay" source could be instead merged at Undertale . Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 16:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Create an article called List of characters in Undertale or Characters of Undertale , and merge to a section there. The notability of Undertale characters as a group is sky-high; I'm sure we could have enough critical, sourced commentary for such an article to be valid. While I'm not sure Toriel stands alone, I think there's absolutely enough material for her to have her own section on a list article. (I'm not a fan of the recent move away from such list spin-off articles... I think they can work very well as a compromise when there's clearly notability-as-a-group but that doesn't easily rise to giving one specific character their own article.) I think that "merge" votes to Undertale as a whole would result in either the Undertale article being overstuffed with character detail, or valid referenced material getting lost. SnowFire ( talk ) 20:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There was a discussion here about such a character list, and while it was considered a decent idea concerns that it'd just end up a coatrack article were also raised. In this case I think the relevant information from this article merged into the game wouldn't cause a massive bloat however, as really the most that needs to be carried over is the tutorial reception which can be retooled towards them game easily. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 20:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think COATRACK is a good analogy. A section about a character of Undertale, in an article called "Characters of Undertale", is perfectly on-topic. COATRACK is about "sneaking" in content from something non-notable into something notable, like if the article Music of Undertale had a long section about some minor collaborator with Fox on the music and their life story. The valid concern would be complying with WP:LISTCRIT and WP:CSC - but "notable as a group, but individually non-notable" is one of the direct examples in CSC that would justify inclusion of Toriel as a section. To be sure, I assume that the worry is really "what if this includes every single character, including Bob the Temmie," but that's just common sense & maintenance. SnowFire ( talk ) 20:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well might be a good discussion to elaborate on in that discussion I linked. I do think here though Sergecross is right: the article is bloated, and very little needs to be copied over, and a concern that a character list should be made to WP:PRESERVE the info is minor. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 20:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Undertale or a separate char list. Lack of significant dev details and reveption puts her in context of the game rather than as a standalone char. M asem ( t ) 15:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Undertale or a character list, per Masem. NegativeMP1 ( talk ) 15:22, 24 July 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. | merge |
2024 Bryansk drone strikes: Randomly one of the many [71] Ukrainian strikes against Russian oil facilities got an article. Merge to Attacks in Russia during the Russian invasion of Ukraine . Super Ψ Dro 00:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Russia , and Ukraine . Super Ψ Dro 00:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Aviation . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Attacks in Russia during the Russian invasion of Ukraine per nom. This strike does not stand out from the many other drone strikes on oil refineries listed in that article. Gödel2200 ( talk ) 13:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
MyWorld: But the article appears to be about Lyoness, which already had an article at Lyoness although lead states now myWorld. (Speedy deletion was contested) IgelRM ( talk ) 23:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Austria , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . Merge content to Lyoness and move that article to this title. If I'm correctly understanding, Lyoness rebranded in 2017 but its article is horribly outdated now; most of the post-2017 information is in this one. ~ A412 talk! 06:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a separate page, as it easily passes general notability but needs to be updated with sources from the other lyoness page (background and history). 扱. し. 侍. ( talk ) 13:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We would virtually have to rewrite the entire article based on information from the Lyoness article. IgelRM ( talk ) 14:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Lyoness and move that article to this title. Reliable sources do not establish notability for myWorld, the Austrian Ltd independent from that of myWorld, the current iteration of the Lyoness family of scams . There are some hits in the Austrian joint library system, but they all just go to "investment" "newsletters" in the business of laundering press releases. GR Kraml ( talk ) 06:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I've added multiple reliable sources from Der Standard , Kleine Zeitung , L'Hebdo , Handelszeitung , etc which provide sufficient and for sure independent description of the MyWorld/Lyoness and thus establish the subject's notability. -- Moem-Meom ( talk ) 11:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If Lyoness and MyWorld are related by sources, is a merge into Lyoness feasible? IgelRM ( talk ) 10:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] not sure, the discussion is on deletion and both topics are notable though share shared past Moem-Meom ( talk ) 12:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] so, I see both pages are eligible for Wikipedia, at least since I've added enough "meat" (reliable sources) to meet the General Notability Guideline. The discussion is on deletion, and the consensus is that the topic is notable. Moem-Meom ( talk ) 12:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment. There was never any doubt that the Lyoness family of scams was notable; what's at issue here is whether we need two separate articles for its two trademarks. The sources you added to the article are not helpful in this respect. About a third of them leads to 404s or 410s or otherwise fails verification. Most of those that superficially work are explicit about the fact that "MyWorld" is just a new CI Lyoness has adopted after its original CI became radioactive. In addition, the Background section is massively padded with inappropriate WP:INTEXT , and language like "garnered significant attention from notable newspapers" straddles the line between original research and desperation. What is going on here? GR Kraml ( talk ) 21:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep German language sources are top and notable with in-depth topic coverage both on MyWorld now and previous history, especially focusing on various journalistic investigation. -- Loewstisch ( talk ) 13:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep with new SIGCOV added recently and a long quite problematic history, the company (which is the biggest cashback service globally as far as I know) easily passes GNG. I also think the distinction and evolution from Lyoness to MyWorld are significant, to justify separate coverage and articles. -- Old-AgedKid ( talk ) 18:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Lyoness to here and then redirect to here - according to the suggestion by A412 above. The company meets notability but it doesn't make sense to have two separate articles on the same subject matter. HighKing ++ 11:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Lyoness : this is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK . I'm not sure if the title should stay at myWorld or Lyoness. There might need to be an RM to determine the common name. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 01:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Will Botwin: It may be preferable to Merge this page somewhere within Columbia Records , but I'm of the opinion that it be Deleted . AlexTheAwkward ( talk ) 15:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting list for Businesspeople . AlexTheAwkward ( talk ) 15:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Coverage is all about him talking about the musical people he represents, nothing specifically about him. [10] one paragraph blurb where he answers questions, then [11] is typical. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , i like your suggestion of merging the content, not all of it, but just a brief small couple of lines that takes all of the content and retains the most important bits within the actually notable aricle, Columbia Records . Iljhgtn ( talk ) 16:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think it's possible to merge a sentence or two to Columbia Records § The 1990s–present — siro χ o 17:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Was the subject part of the awards here or am I missing something? Anyway, leaning towards delete as there is nor SiGCOV in RS and fails WP:GNG , WP:BIO , and ultimately WP:ANYBIO . dxneo ( talk ) 08:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Morales (The Walking Dead): Once again all coverage is casting information and episode summaries, there is interviews but those arent independent. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Television . Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep if more sources are found, otherwise merge to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters . BOZ ( talk ) 23:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirecting to that page would be more sutable as the information there is sufficent. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/redirect per all. There aren't enough sources here, but this would WP:PRESERVE the history for someone to revisit. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 15:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Acquisition of WWE by Endeavor: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep/Objection/Comment: A precedent of Disney's purchase of the entertainment unit of 21st Century Fox, I recommend to retain the article to expand further. - 174.89.100.11 ( talk ) 04:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, blank, redirect for now — Redirects are cheap , plausible search term, has potential for becoming a real article someday. Deletion would serve no purpose here. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify and rename to 'Merger' I agree this article has potential, but it's about a proposed merger, it hasn't even been approved yet. Nswix ( talk ) 06:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with WWE - This article lacks potential to be a real article on its own, best merge it with WWE for now. Deleting this article altogether serves no purpose. Hansen Sebastian Talk 10:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Precedent has been set by Disney's acquisition of Fox and its associated article. The article should be expanded and not deleted as there is more information about the merger/acquisition on the individual WWE, UFC, and Endeavour pages than in this article. The information adds to the unnecessary bloat found on the three other articles but would be beneficial if moved to this article. Mt.FijiBoiz ( talk ) 16:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST is an argument to avoid. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha ( talk ) 18:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notability of this specific event is demonstrated through multiple major secondary sources. GaryColemanFan ( talk ) 17:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well it's a good job I'm not arguing against the notability of it then isn't it, or I'd have egg all over my face right now. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha ( talk ) 18:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ ItsKesha Stop trying to influence the opinion of others please, you act like a new fan and have zero respect for historic events like these. Dilbaggg ( talk ) 03:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ ItsKesha I took a second look, you are not disputing the notability I see, then ok I am sorry, your main concern is that its too soon but the process has been initiated and the deal finalized per corporate laws, and thus this historic article must stay. Best wishes. Dilbaggg ( talk ) 04:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep WWE founded as WWWF in 1963 by Vince J, later bought by Vince K in 1982 had been run for 40 years under him 1982-2022. He made the company public in 1999 the same year I started watching. It is the largest professional wrestling organization in the world and UFC is the largest Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) organization in the world and a merger between these two Kingpins of combat sports is one of the most WP:Notable and is supported by numerous WP:RS and historic event ever in the history of wrestling, MMA and sports in general. This should definitely stay and be seen as a landmark in both Wrestling and MMA projects as well as corporate merger and acquisition, with Endeavor owning 51% shares, first time the McMahons have minority shares and now the means of operations are going to be different. This is highly significant to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling . Best wishes all. Dilbaggg ( talk ) 03:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] that's all great, but this is still just a proposed merger. It hasn't been approved by anyone yet. Nswix ( talk ) 04:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The deal has been done and is set to be effective soon, there is no backing out of the commitment with Endeavor will pay $ 9.1 billion and becoming 51% of the shareholder. This is corporate law and there is no backing out, just because some people perceive it not being complete doesn't change anything, it is an unfolding event, and there is no backing out of the deal as per corporate law ans the process has been initiated and updates will continue to be added to the article. Dilbaggg ( talk ) 04:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What 'corporate law' are you talking about that supercedes the need for both shareholders of Endeavor and WWE need to vote to approve the deal and for regulators to sign-off on the merger? Nswix ( talk ) 05:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The process has already been initiated and will be finalized on the 2nd half this year, and there is no backing out and this is all supported by WP:RS and meets WP:Notable guidlines so it should be left alone, anyway i already gave my vote, best wishes. Dilbaggg ( talk ) 05:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nobody has argued that there aren't sources or that it isn't notable. This comment is a massive waste of time. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha ( talk ) 19:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - If the editor proposing this deletion put more effort into reading my words than planning a snarky comeback, they would see that I specified that there are sufficient sources (and, thus, sufficient content) for this specific event to have an article. As such, I'm saying that the proposal to keep the information in other articles is not the best path forward. This editor is pushing for deletion based on an essay. I'm pushing for inclusion based on GNG. If the editor prefer essays (although closing administrators won't find them as compelling), they could check out WP:POTENTIAL. Certainly, regardless of how the even turns out, the acquisition has already got significant mainstream coverage, with a reasonably certain guarantee of a significant amount of mainstream coverage to come. However, even in its current state, it more that meets the threshold for a stand-alone article. Further, I would suggest that a closing administrator might be wise to look at the conduct of the proposing editor and consider whether they are not here to build an encyclopedia, comparing their hostile editing style (both in their responses here and in their long-term conduct on Wikipedia) against WP:NOTHERE and paying particular attention to such items as "Treating editing as a battleground", "Little or no interest in working collaboratively", and "Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention". Perhaps this will reveal that an indefinite block is long overdue. GaryColemanFan ( talk ) 00:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm pushing for deletion on the basis that there is simply not enough information to necessitate a content fork. If the editor questioning this had put more effort into reading 30 words he would understand this. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha ( talk ) 21:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In saying that, I also find proposals for a merge highly acceptable. How's that for working in collaboration. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha ( talk ) 21:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - There's enough here to satisfy notability requirements. Although the merger isn't yet finalized, this is already an independently notable story regardless of what comes next. LM2000 ( talk ) 06:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's currently six paragraphs of information, three of which are two sentences or fewer in length. I'm not arguing whether it's notable enough for inclusion, so do you think this is enough information at present to warrant a content fork? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha ( talk ) 21:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would rather have a short one paragraph summary on the parent articles with a main article link to this one, as opposed to including this level of detail on the parent articles. A merge would not be the end of the world at this point but I think it would be pointless as eventually another article will created to detail further developments. I'm in the weak keep camp, my secondary choice would be to draftify. LM2000 ( talk ) 09:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Endeavor_(company)#UFC–WWE_merger . Sure, this news event has enough coverage to pass GNG, but this coverage is also notability for Endeavor (company) and WWE . As most of this page is redundant background and redundant to Endeavor_(company)#UFC–WWE_merger , I see no reason for a duplicative page that per WP:NOPAGE does not need a standalone article. Reywas92 Talk 17:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment @ ItsKesha 's main objection is that he finds this Wp:Too Soon , but thats his views, there are plenty of information and this meets WP:Notable ,, WP:V , Wp:RS and all major encyclopedic guidelines. This is a historic event in not just WWE but pro wrestling in general, a merger with UFC might even bring irl shoot fight style wrestling in WWE similar to Brawl For All . The largest wrestling promotion being sold is historically significant and that is acknowledged throughout the pro wrestling world and deserves its own article. This article is as significant as Acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney and has changed the wrestling event forfever. The corporate sale has been reached Endavour would hold 51% shares and higher voting power, it is a significant and historic change, please ItsKesha learn to respect history and also you did agree on the WP:Notability of this but just feel its too soon, but the deal is confirmed and the more things go the more they will be added in compliance with WP:RS and this is indeed a great encyclopedic material. Dilbaggg ( talk ) 10:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're getting your policies in a twist. As I've already pointed out to you; "[n]obody has argued that there aren't sources or that it isn't notable". All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha ( talk ) 19:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dilbaggg, I do not think these are good arguments for a deletion discussion. You've made your case repeatedly, there is no need to WP:BLUDGEON . LM2000 ( talk ) 09:06, 23 April 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. | merge |
Fearless Photog: In writing articles for wikipedia it's important to demonstrate *why* a subject meets notability through significant coverage discussing the topic and illustrating people discussing a subject and why it's important outside of the scope of the main subject. While this is an obscure character in the He-Man franchise, there's no indication of that importance. Furthermore it's not an isolated instance of an obscure character in the franchise being revisited as a toy much later. And as a fictional character, which should be the most important aspect of such an article...there's nothing. The whole subject could be covered in a list entry with nothing lost Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 15:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - MTV news gave significant coverage about this in a very detailed review at https://www.mtv.com/news/urxntw/picture-perfect-motuc-fearless-photog-action-figure-review The other references show it covered in https://www.sun-sentinel.com/1986/01/01/youthful-mattel-toy-creator-awarded-college-scholarship/ and elsewhere. You couldn't fit all the valid information in the article in a list article, most would be lost. It has enough information to fill its own article. Notability is determined by coverage, not personal opinions. D r e a m Focus 16:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Literally all of that could be fit into a paragraph on its development. What reception is there of it as a fictional character? Even as a toy there's still nothing indicating any significance over any of the other MotU toys, other than its origin. The coverage indicating that importance isn't there. The coverage discussing it as a fictional character and why it's important also isn't there Dream. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 16:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters where he has an entry. There's niche newspaper coverage of its creation because, hey, cute/cool news, 12 year old kid designed a toy, and then a reliable review of the toy. Very borderline. I'll note that the newspaper above is Sun Sentinel while the article cites but does not link to a presumably similar story in Gettysburg Times . I'll ping User:Cunard who is good at finding newspaper sources. Maybe there's more. I am nonetheless not feeling that notability based on effectively one-event coverage in regional newspapers plus a review by anonymous MTV staffer make for a strong case to keep. How's this better from all those articles abotu video game characters or like we routinely merge, even if they cite dozens listicles? Is this better because regional newspaper coverage > modern listicles? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 03:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep has notable reliable third person sources. Dwanyewest ( talk ) 00:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the He-Man characters list. It's not really a matter of notability here, but of the fact the information here can be easily covered in the list with little to no detriment. The article just doesn't have the bulk to justify its separation. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 04:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per others and as a notable topic. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 00:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE by not clearly demonstrating its impact or significance. GNG is not passed here, no prejudice to recreation if someone is able to find sources that indicate why this character is recognized by the public at large. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 00:04, 16 December 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. | merge |
LGBTQ+ Production of Family: Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️⚧️) 02:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support deletion - there's plenty of content here, but the article is very poorly-written and is redundant to LGBT reproduction and LGBT parenting . Any useful content should be merged to one of those articles, where appropriate. sawyer / talk 03:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Medicine . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - this reads like a hodgepodge SYNTH and a content fork of several better articles we already have, including LGBT parenting , LGBT reproduction and Artificial insemination . If Fram 's claim is true that entire sections were copied without attribution from those other pages, the problem is even more serious. Owen× ☎ 14:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support Deletion - As said already by Owen× ☎ and sawyer , we already have articles that cover what is mentioned on this one, making the article very redundant, if there is any new information that is properly referenced, should be merged with one of those articles. — Nanami73⚓ ( talk ). 15:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment this article was created by a student editor. It may make sense to move this to the creating users namespace. Esolo5002 ( talk ) 07:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to LGBT reproduction if there is anything to merge. This is an obvious content fork. My very best wishes ( talk ) 02:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for either a Merge or Userfying this article to the page creator's sandbox. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : duplicate topic. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 04:05, 30 December 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. | merge |
The Steve Earle Show: Hits for "The Revolution Starts Now" are about the song of the same name, not the radio show. Fails WP:GNG . Let'srun ( talk ) 13:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Music , Radio , and Politics . Let'srun ( talk ) 13:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to parent article. That seems simple and reasonable enough. Why? I Ask ( talk ) 14:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Steve Earle per WP:ATD . Currently the biography doesn't even mention the show by name and the content would seem like a better fit on Earle's bio page than on the radio station page for WP:WEIGHT reasons. 4meter4 ( talk ) 18:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
2023–2024 Indian truckers' protests: No prejudice to recreation/undeletion if this does become a huge national event like the 2020/2021 protests. Sohom ( talk ) 20:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Law , Transportation , and India . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm happy to support a Merge as well. Sohom ( talk ) 11:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP definitely an important event in the history of Strikes for New Law Systumm ( talk ) 16:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : WP:TOOSOON . It's important is not a rationale for keeping. Queen of Hearts 03:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Motor Vehicles Act per below and WP:ATD . Queen of Hearts 06:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It seems important and has lots of sources, could be improved though BasedGigachad ( talk ) 19:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Motor Vehicles Act and move this article's text to its controversies. Charlie ( talk ) 14:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Selective merge with Motor Vehicles Act . This lacks significant secondary coverage in its own right but a few details might be relevant at the target page. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 23:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Kansas History: DePRODed with reason "Significant academic journal as part of a significant historical society in the US". However, this assertion is not supported by any independent reliable sources, neither for the journal nor for the society, so merging this to the society does not appear to be a good alternative. Anyway, PROD reason still stands, hence: delete . Randykitty ( talk ) 14:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions . Randykitty ( talk ) 14:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Kansas . Randykitty ( talk ) 14:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This was never published as an academic journal, and should not be assessed that way. It is (or was) a publication of the Kansas State Historical Society in Topeka, Kansas. It was published as "a journal of the Central Plains : a ten-year cumulative index." Whether or not this is currently in publication is probably not an issue. But as for the validity, it is listed at the Library of Congress [1] , and World Cat as of 1978. [2] — Maile ( talk ) 17:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : academic journal or not, being listed in WorldCat or the LoC is not an indication of notability as inclusion is automatic for any periodical published in the US and is certainly not SIGCOV. -- Randykitty ( talk ) 07:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My remarks above do not say WorldCat or the LoC gave it notability. I only said "validity", which is not the same as "notability". Validity just affirms they exist. — Maile ( talk ) 13:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nobody has questioned the validity , it exists. But what makes you think this is notable ? -- Randykitty ( talk ) 15:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This is a scholarly journal (although it might not have been considered one when it was still under the umbrella of the Kansas Historical Society...Kansas State University has a significant history program). And it's not at all unusual for articles within scholarly journals to win awards...awards they wouldn't have won had the journal not existed. Coverage and scope is sufficient in my view. But if it is decided to delete, then the article about the precursor journal (Kansas Historical Quarterly) should come up for deletion as well. Its article is just a stub. Intothat darkness 17:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : the awards make perhaps the articles notable or their authors (even though they look pretty minor to me), but even if the journal had not existed, those articles would have been published elsewhere, there's an abundance of local history journals. Whether this is deleted or kept, the article on Kansas Historical Quarterly should be a redirect at best as we don't make separate articles for periodicals if their name changes. -- Randykitty ( talk ) 07:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "..even if the journal had not existed, those articles would have been published elsewhere." Seriously? How can you know that? While you can assert there are a number of local history journals, that doesn't automatically guarantee publication or anything else. I don't find your contention persuasive or indicative of this journal lacking notability. Intothat darkness 12:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's a fact in academic publishing: if an article is rejected by one journal, it almost invariably gets eventually published elsewhere. These articles got an award. Even though minor, it would not have been difficult to get them published elsewhere. -- Randykitty ( talk ) 13:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I know about academic publishing, but your statement is still opinion and isn't in my view related to the notability of this journal. The fact is they were published in THIS journal, and received awards when published in THIS journal. Intothat darkness 13:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, of course, I was just responding to your hypothetical "if this journal didn't exist". My point remains that these minor awards for articles (not the journal ) do not make this notable . -- Randykitty ( talk ) 15:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No...you were asserting these articles would have been published anyhow, which you can't know. While this might at one point have been a local history journal (that's debatable, but the article isn't about the precursor journals), Kansas History is now overseen and published by the notable history department of a major university. I see no reason to modify my Keep based on what you've demonstrated so far. Intothat darkness 16:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And I don't see even a shred of policy-based reasoning to keep this. WP:NOTINHERITED . -- Randykitty ( talk ) 21:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I get a strong sense of Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT here. Which is not a solid reason for deleting the article. Intothat darkness 02:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And given the absence of any independent RS that you come up with, I get a strong feeling of WP:ILIKEIT , which is not a solid reason to keep the article. -- Randykitty ( talk ) 06:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- It is difficult to get independent RS for academic societies and their journals, but that does not mean that they are NN. My guess is that this is a low level academic journal, but it is peer-reviewed. Peterkingiron ( talk ) 16:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sigh. Since when is it sufficient to be peer-reviewed in order to be notable? A few weeks ago there was a huge discussion at WP:NJournals and other places where some editors only wanted to accept that a journal is peer-reviewed if that was confirmed by independent references. And journal articles would only be acceptable if they meet GNG, forget about NJournals... I feel like I'm sitting on a seesaw...-- Randykitty ( talk ) 16:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Library of Congress as of 1988 ^ Kansas History: A Journal of the Central Plains -World Cat Search Results . Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 17:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment We have three keeps and the original nom who seems determined to badger anyone who votes keep. Three to one seems like a reasonably clear consensus, especially since there have been no other delete noms. The journal itself is an academic, peer-reviewed publication put out by a major university and its articles have won awards. It's not a newsletter pushed out by a county historical society. Intothat darkness 18:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I agree to keep as well based on the reasons stated above. In addition, the article may have been edited lately, but I don't see language that would indicate that there were contributions by a close contributor. It is linked from a number of articles and seems to me to be a worthwhile and helpful article. – CaroleHenson ( talk ) 19:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - So far we have no policy-based arguments supporting keep. Maile66 has confirmed that the journal exists, but this is not a valid reason to keep the article. They note that the journal was never published as an academic journal, and should not be assessed that way - in which case we default to WP:GNG , and no reliable independent sources has been provided (the Buckskin Bulletin gives a passing mention; everything else is either primary or a catalogue listing). There is the argument from Intothatdarkness that the journal is notable because of the awards it has won - which might possibly pass C3 of WP:NJOURNALS . However, if we are going to make this argument, we would need evidence that these awards are indeed significant enough to demonstrate the journal's historical importance in its subject area - and for this we would need reliable secondary sources attesting to the importance of these awards, which have not been presented (and I cannot find any evidence of this myself). Peterkingiron notes that this is a low level peer-reviewed academic journal; however, being peer-reviewed does not make an academic journal notable (indeed, pretty much every academic journal is peer-reviewed - almost by definition). CaroleHenson notes that the article does not show signs of a conflict of interest, and that the article is useful - neither of these are valid keep reasons. Determining the notability of academic journals is notoriously difficult - and, for that reason, controversial. WP:NJOURNALS can be a useful resource but it is imperfect and controversial - notably, it does not have the consensus around it to be a policy or guideline. However, the recent critiques of NJOURNALS have been that it is too lenient , that too many non-notable journals are kept based on NJOURNALS arguments. What is less controversial is that a journal which does not pass the requirements of NJOURNALS is likely to not be notable. In this case, we have a journal which is not indexed by any selective databases: indexing in such databases can be a useful benchmark for notability. Equally, WorldCat lists Kansas History as being held by 1372 libraries worldwide . Whether this counts as sufficient to establish notability is a subjective judgment call - but, by comparison, the American Historical Review is held by 2945 libraries and the Journal of American History is held by 2691 libraries . To my mind, this would be the best argument for keeping this article, but - especially absent any further indicators of notability - I find it to be insufficient. And, given that there is no subject-specific notability guideline for academic journals, we ought to be referring to the general notability guideline , which requires independent reliable secondary sources, of which none have been provided. WJ94 ( talk ) 10:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] One of the awards was presented by the Western History Association , an academic organization promoting scholarship in this area. I don't know that I'd call that a minor award. But clearly mileage will vary. Intothat darkness 15:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For perspective, look at the huge number of awards that this association gives every year... --15:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC) Randykitty ( talk ) @ Intothatdarkness : Do you have any reliable sources which support the significance of this award? WJ94 ( talk ) 15:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you have any that say it's not? Frankly, since there isn't as much money or status in the humanities their organizations don't tend to be as exhaustively or obsessively covered as, say, science or obscure soccer players. The nom appears determined to steer this through to deletion, so I bow to the inevitable. Intothat darkness 17:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge - Maybe it's just a newsletter or a magazine but it's obv a major publication by and for serious Kansas history nerds, and third in a chronological series of three per this . We cite it in articles such as Sacking of Lawrence . If the consensus is that it's not notable enough, I believe it should be folded into a section of the article about the historical society. jengod ( talk ) 21:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge both Kansas History and The Kansas Historical Quarterly into Kansas Historical Society . The second journal seems to be little more than a name change from the first, and both are inseparable from the organization that produces them. Nothing would be lost by merging and presenting this information in the context of the organization. BD2412 T 23:52, 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. | merge |
Winkin Sports Complex: The citations are either the related university or an un-reliable blog. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 18:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Maine . Chris Troutman ( talk ) 18:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note I've added several more news stories about the complex. It's a borderline case of meeting GNG, IMO. I'd lean towards keep and if not then merge to Husson University#Athletics . -- User:Namiba 21:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The article isn't particularly interesting per se , and in its current state is indeed probably borderline. Maybe WP:NVENUE ? The Bangor press might just get it over the line, however, we have many, many stubs about less not particularly significant places and structures (e.g., Pickford, Michigan , University of Belgrade Faculty of Civil Engineering , Taiwan Design Museum , Kiroli Park , or River Cur – all of which need better refs and some general improvement, but should be kept in my view). I'm mostly for keeping and improving things if they aren't rubbish or worse (i.e., I lean " inclusionsist "), so I'd also lean keep or merge (the latter only if it's not salvageable). -- Cl3phact0 ( talk ) 11:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Husson University#Campus if, as at present, sources lack sufficient independent coverage to pass the GNG and no further sources contributing towards notability are found. Rupples ( talk ) 22:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge properly sourced content to Husson University#Campus . Target article will be improved and a material from this article will find a home. // Timothy :: talk 05:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Impa: Article mostly relies on Valnet sources at reception, thus failing WP:GNG . SyFy Wire is the only valuable source, but only that isn't enough. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 13:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 14:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Characters of The Legend of Zelda#Impa . The article simply relies far too much on content farm sources from the same group of websites. I assume that the creator, Fieryninja was unaware of this, but content farms publish insane amounts of fictional minutia, and should not themselves be what an article relies upon to prove notability, as is rapidly becoming a more and more common problem. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Characters of The Legend of Zelda#Impa , per Zx. I'd like to keep this around, but the current sourcing state just isn't doing it, and I don't believe there's enough SIGCOV to buff the article's current state per a search. Ping me if something turns up and I'd be willing to change my vote, though. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 16:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Characters of The Legend of Zelda#Impa . Looking back, there is not enough significant coverage for this character. Fieryninja ( talk ) 05:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom, plus creator self admits a lack of coverage. NegativeMP1 ( talk ) 15:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Characters of The Legend of Zelda . Article relies on poor-quality video game content-farming "journalism" that doesn't demonstrate notability. – dudhhr talk contribs 23:12, 20 August 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. | merge |
CinemaWins: I will note, that the target of this as a redirect Cinema Sins does not currently contain information about this channel. Tartar Torte 14:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Entertainment , and Internet . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect : Article currently only referenced by two primary sources (both of which appear to be CinemaWins's YouTube channel). Should stay as a redirect. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ ( talk ) 15:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Restore the redirect with added information. No independent sources. My solution is to convert the "Controversy and criticisms" section to a "Reception" section and give CinemaWins its own section. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's this source: https://www.avclub.com/tv/reviews/cinemawins-2015 110.175.62.4 ( talk ) 03:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails GNG. InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 04:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Stilt-Man: Industrial Insect (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation . Industrial Insect (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 11:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to a relevsant list of characters, nothing here suggests WP:GNG is met. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 11:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: S in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE , but send Lady Stilt-Man's information to List of Marvel Comics characters: L . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 16:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: S in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 20:55, 14 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. | merge |
Post-Vac: The adverse effects of the vaccine are the same in Germany etc. as any other country so this term makes no sense for an enwiki article title. The content should be covered if WP:DUE at COVID-19 vaccine or potentially adverse effects of the COVID-19 vaccine if a split is merited. ( t · c ) buidhe 14:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm against deletion but the article should be renamed: I'm not a native English speaker but the term "post-vac" sounds very English to me – yet I didn't find articles about it from other countries than Germany, Switzerland and Austria. And the articles from Germany and Switzlerland are really profound, it is an established term there. " "Post-Vac-Syndrom": Mehr als die Hälfte der weltweiten Fälle in Deutschland registriert" . www.aerzteblatt.de (in German). 29 June 2023 . Retrieved 13 July 2023 . "Post-Vac-Syndrom - Schwer krank nach Covid-Impfung: Seltenheit oder Leid mit System?" . www.srf.ch . 10 February 2023 . Retrieved 15 July 2023 . What's odd is that more than half of the reported worldwide cases (that show symptomes described as "Post-Vac" in Germany) occurred in Germany. -- Lugioner ( talk ) 14:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The German Paul Ehrlich Institute writes in its recent report: [26] "Beim Vergleich der dargestellten absoluten Zahlen von Verdachtsmeldungen fällt auf, dass zum Zeitpunkt der Auswertung ca. 50 Prozent aller weltweit registrierten Verdachtsfälle (n=2.657) mit diesen Gesundheitsstörungen aus Deutschland berichtet wurden (n=1.452). Dabei ist zu beachten, dass in Deutschland keineswegs 50 Prozent aller Impfdosen weltweit verabreicht wurden." (transl. with DeepL) "When comparing the absolute numbers of suspected cases presented, it is striking that at the time of the evaluation, approximately 50 percent of all suspected cases registered worldwide (n=2,657) with these health disorders were reported from Germany (n=1,452). It should be noted that by no means 50 percent of all vaccine doses worldwide were administered in Germany." -- Lugioner ( talk ) 16:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: COVID-19 and Germany . Shellwood ( talk ) 15:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Austria and Switzerland . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For the moment, I would keep . The story is important, it's being reported in quite serious sources, so we can't ignore it. But it doesn't fit well into a global article on the vaccination because it's almost exclusively a German-language-area phenomenon, and quite possibly nothing to do with the vaccination. We don't yet know what it means, what it is, or where the story is going, so I would leave the article as it is, until things are more clear. But with no prejudice against a future merge or move. Elemimele ( talk ) 20:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would also vote to keep the article and fully agree that the subject is important and that serious sources have been quoted. It does not do to simply ignore the ongoing research into this highly sensitive and important subject. I do not consider it a merely "German" related problem. However, it is a fact that the German minister of health, dr. Lauterbach, has officially accepted the phenomenon of post-vaccination damage. More research on this subject should indeed be done with an open mind. The answer does not lie in a mere "deletion" of the article. Hanengerda ( talk ) 05:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect : Half is a content fork, and the other half is related to Germany with sources in German ... so why is it being described in English Wikipedia. The "Background" section uses Template:Excerpt which in this case includes the first paragraph, omits paragraphs 2-6, and ends with the 4 bulleted points while omitting the important preamble "Documented rare serious effects include". A serious error. Put the content into COVID-19 vaccination in Germany#Above-average number of "post-vac" reports in Germany and leave Post-Vac as a redirect. Grorp ( talk ) 06:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC) Added: I will point out these phrases from the non-extracted content: "the term is only common in [3 countries]"; "no causal relationship has been found"; "post-vac has been little studied"; "it was found that [symptoms] after vaccination were no more common than would be expected based on normal incidence". In other words, this subject is a fringe theory and falls under the guidelines of WP:FRINGE . The second half of the article already exists in an article where it belongs; here it is a WP:CONTENTFORK , and WP:SYNTH by trying to associate known adverse events with the new German-regional term "post-vac" — where I'm quite sure if I checked all nine of those extracted sources, I would find not a single one of them uses the term "post-vac". This whole article is being used to push a POV . Grorp ( talk ) 00:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The excerpt template wasn't in the original Wiki-article, and it's grouped in a way that the sources of the excerpt are held apart from the sources of the "core article". The template used has the simple form {{Excerpt|COVID-19 vaccine|Adverse events|paragraphs=1}} perhaps it can be improved but the word "rare" in the preamble isn't necessary since the three bulleted points indicate themselves the incidence rates: "...one person per 250,000 to 400,000 doses ...", "...These affect about one person per 100,000...", "...0.3 to 5 cases per 100,000 persons with the highest risk in young males..." The criticism about the non-English sources is the main part: Now the English version of the statement from May 2023 from the Paul Ehrlich Institute has been included: Statement from the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut on "Post-Vac Syndrome" after COVID-19 Vaccination (dated 19 May 2023) and instead of the translated quote (from the comprehensive safety report from June with earlier(!) data cut-off) above one now has an actual quote in English: "When comparing the absolute numbers of reports of suspected cases presented, it seems notable that at the time of the evaluation, more than 50% of all suspected cases registered worldwide (n=2,817) with these symptoms were reported from Germany (n= 1,547). It should be noted that by no means were 50% of all vaccine doses administered worldwide administered in Germany." So now 3 of the 12 sources of the core article are in English (plus the 9 sources from the excerpt)-- Lugioner ( talk ) 10:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Non-English sources are fine, whether the article is merged or kept. We are a global encyclopaedia. Some people are interested in things that happen in non-English-speaking areas, and for those areas, often the best sources are in the local language. Elemimele ( talk ) 18:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Our goal is "the sum of all human knowledge", not "the sum of knowledge known or cared about by English speakers". We have several similar situations, including the MMR vaccine and autism hoax (which really only exists in English-speaking countries; in France, they all "know" that the MMR is fine, but the Hep B vaccine causes MS, and in parts of Africa, they all "know" that the polio vaccine causes infertility). Disinformation tends to stay within language bubbles . WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 00:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge : The topic has clearly received attention in the German-speaking world. Regardless of if it is a "real" phenomenon or not, it is notable as a topic. The fact that it relates to German speaking countries is not a reason to say it should only exist in the German version of Wikipedia and not the English version. People who speak English and don't speak German may still be interested in learning about the topic, and there are plenty of English Wikipedia articles that relate to topics relevant to other countries/languages and not to English or English speaking countries: for example, Hikikomori . And it's not so much whether or not the adverse effects of the vaccine are the same in Germany as in the rest of the world or not that matters; it's that the concept is uniquely conceptualized in Germany that matters and makes it notable. Vontheri ( talk ) 20:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to COVID-19 vaccination in Germany . This is clearly a WP:CONTENTFORK , and definitely should not be left alone under an obscure title where pro-fringe editors can edit it unnoticed. Tercer ( talk ) 12:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and merge if there's anything useful. There not enough here for a separate article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions ∆ ° co-ords ° 19:46, 20 July 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. | merge |
Astaroth (Soulcalibur): QuicoleJR ( talk ) 13:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy , Video games , and Japan . QuicoleJR ( talk ) 13:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I'm sorry, but this is flat out absurd. If you feel notability is an issue tagging it with the appropriate templates would have been better or taking it to a GAR. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 13:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] GAR does not deal with notability. And AFD is definitely a system to debate notability, that is why 90 percent of AFD nominations are made. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 13:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] GAR can absolutely deal with notability if you feel an article does not meet sufficient standards and you have issue with the sources used and feel they aren't up to current standards. Additionally cleanup tags exist for a reason. As it stands personally while I feel the article is weaker, it has enough material and courage to stand fine on its own, and the recent trend of using AfDs to force discussions (i.e. Reptile (Mortal Kombat) ' s is troubling to say the least.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 13:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The "recent trend" has nothing to do with removing GA articles. It is just because fighting game characters who do not meet guidelines get noticed. Additionally, the Reptile one was not a problem, just a discussion on notability that decided that the article was notable. I do not believe this is notable. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 14:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See the discussion here if you do not believe me about GAR and notability concerns. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 14:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are correct in your assertion that GA standards and notability are unrelated. That said, this is a relatively detailed article, so a vague "it's not notable" nomination is less than ideal. You should be more detailed in explaining why it's not notable, what's wrong with all the sourcing present, etc. You're not likely to get much input when you put all the work on everyone else to wade through all that. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My specific problem is that most of the references are primary, which does not contribute to notability. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 15:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Suit yourself, but you've failed to persuade the first 3 people to read your nomination. You'd think that's not a good sign... Sergecross73 msg me 15:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Kung Fu Man : The withdrawal has been undone. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 21:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the above. Notability seems to have already been vetted, and independent sources clearly exist, even if primary sources are somewhat overly relied upon. BD2412 T 15:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawing nomination. I missed some sources when I originally looked at the reflist. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 15:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changed my mind. Sorry. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 21:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge To List of Soulcalibur characters#Astaroth . Contrary to the previous arguments which give no evidence, GA articles can in fact be subject to AfD, I have done so multiple times. GA has nothing to do with notability and standards change over time, with this article having become a GA in 2009, fairly early in Wikipedia's lifespan when fictional cruft was still welcomed. Right now it only has trivial coverage and lacks secondary sources with significant mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sources in the reception section pases GNG. Problems with "fiction cruft" (which I assume means 'in universe' information) isn't relevant when there is clearly other things in the article that show coverage. ★Trekker ( talk ) 12:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Almost all reception sources are passing mentions in reviews, which is the sort of typical thing for a list of characters, but can't support a page. There's one mention in a book, but I can't access it - I doubt it's major though, considering it's used to cite only a single sentence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Soulcalibur characters#Astaroth . Sourcing standards have greatly increased since this GA was listed in 2009. No, GA criteria has no bearing on notability . I'll affirm the above assessment that the majority of sources are primary, showing no external notability for the character apart from the series. In the remaining sources, I don't see what can be construed as significant coverage in multiple reliable , independent sources , nevertheless out-of-universe coverage. Insert Credit's Tim Rogers stated "It takes a certain kind of gamer to prefer Astaroth" . Australian GamePro noted his size gave the character great reach . These are passing mentions that do not confer notability of the character somehow removed from the game itself. The standard alternative to deletion in this case is to merge to the existing parent list's section on the topic. czar 04:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Soulcalibur characters#Astaroth , focusing on what reliable, secondary sources have written about the character. I'm simply not seeing significant coverage in secondary sources to meet the GNG . Woodroar ( talk ) 13:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the Soulcalibur characters. This is a tough one but the reception just isn't there. The NY Times source is particularly a letdown, as it's a miracle for characters of this ilk to even get that kind of coverage, but alas Astaroth has only a passing mention. Plus, it was GA'd way back in 2009, which is practically a lifetime in Wikipedia years. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 05:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak merge to List of Soulcalibur characters per Czar. The reception is built on WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS , and there isn't enough to support an article once you remove those. I say "weak" only because WP:GAR would have been the preferred channel to start, but I don't put much weight on GAs from 2009, when the review process commonly ignored major issues. Wikipedia is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and we don't let procedure get in the way of a consensus about content. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 19:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Merge The standard has increased unlike before. Thou, the article is not poorly written, the reception was full of trivial. GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per the other keep ! votes. I know that notability is technically not required for a GA, but as pointed out, this probably should have gone through GAR first. But other than that, the sourcing does seem to cover important aspects of the character. MoonJet ( talk ) 05:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:GAR . Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems ( including not meeting the general notability guideline , the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I realize the GameRant articles aren't considered 'bueno' by some editors, but they are at least giving feedback on the character. That said also added another study by Rachel Hutchinson discussing his design and reactions to it. I'm digging through for more at this time while I wait for FGO to update. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 07:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was mentioning to Moon in the Quan Chi discussion that it's rather frustrating sites considered situational like Game/Screen Rant are sometimes the only ones who will give the time of day to lesser known VG characters. Any legitimate character coverage from these sites should be considered admissible in establishing notability, as long as it's not under something like "12 Worst Hangnails in Gaming." sixty nine • whaddya want? • 16:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] One of the rare times I agree with you in these AFDs, Beemer69 . The weird thing is that discussion on these sites was already leaning towards "they can be used for notability, so long as they aren't from listicles," so I have no idea why the person who opened the discussion concluded that the consensus is that these sites are not to be used for establishing notability at all. MoonJet ( talk ) 17:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Honestly I feel it something is being said and citeable, and not a passing mention, they should be used from a source like that. Question is with them and the new study, how is Astaroth looking to folks?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 17:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The unfortunate reason is that these sites are content farms . These articles aren't the product of subject matter experts writing within their field or even a nuanced study of something they've researched for weeks. They're just content pumped out to feed algorithms. We shouldn't trust it (because there's no regard for fact-checking or accuracy) and we certainly shouldn't reward it, either. Woodroar ( talk ) 17:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Kung Fu Man I wish there was more out there in terms of viable reception, but it’s nonetheless looking much better; good work. Not sure how much time is left but I’m contemplating changing my vote. 'Fraid I'm sticking with merging after further investigation. I appreciate KFM's efforts in adding the document but the pre-existing sources are the roadblock. The content from Tim Rogers and the NY Times add nothing, while one paragraph is devoted to his gameplay than the actual character. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 20:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] On the contrary, Game Rant , Screen Rant and The Gamer all have fact-checking policies. MoonJet ( talk ) 21:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, nobody is debating that GameRant/ScreenRant/TheGamer check their facts. That's why they're situational, not unreliable. The main issue is that, being content farms, they write about everything. The notability guideline usually relies on the fact that news sites have a minimum threshold of noteworthiness, so it's impossible to tell if something is notable just by having been written about there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 08:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The question is, in this particular instance do you feel it augments the other references to provide enough notability or not? I really feel it should pass with the second Hutchinson study added there also.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 13:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Soulcalibur characters#Astaroth - While there are tons of sources cited in this article, the majority of them are primary (posts/interviews on the official Soul Calibur or Bandai Namco websites, official twitter accounts, etc) or things like product listings. And the non-primary sources are not significant coverage on this character in specific. Many are, as noted by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ above, just brief mentions of the character in general reviews of the games as a whole, and some are literally nothing more than the character's name mentioned once. When a couple of listicles that have short dedicated entries on Astaroth are the best "sources" included, that is not a great sign for notability. And searching for additional sources outside of what is already in this article does not produce any better results - outside of routine coverage of character announcements and game guides, there is no significant coverage on Astaroth outside of mentions in general coverage of the games as a whole. Rorshacma ( talk ) 21:28, 19 April 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. | merge |
Death-Throws: ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Comics and animation . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . To the closer if this outcome ends in merge, I ask that any redirects of it's members be transferred to their respectful List of Marvel Comics characters pages. -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 01:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Jothefiredragon ( talk ) 04:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations - There is only a single non-primary source being used in the article, and searches only turned up one other viable source with this entry in a book, which does not really go into much analysis or anything beyond simply summarizing their fictional history. As a very minor fictional group, there is not enough coverage in reliable sources to support an independent article, but probably is enough that a merge would be warranted. Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge for reasons given above. Bduke ( talk ) 23:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Rorshacma. There isn't enough for WP:SIGCOV but there is an WP:ATD here. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 05:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep if more sources are found, or merge with List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations as per above. BOZ ( talk ) 06:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Asbestos Man: There's a couple of sources discussing his relation to asbestos, but there is so little beyond those sources that I don't see why this can't be covered more effectively in the characters list. I'd suggest a merge there as an AtD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 18:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation . Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 18:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on existing sources in the article, or failing that merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: A . BOZ ( talk ) 23:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: A in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 01:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The two asbestos-related sources demonstrate that the character has a small but unique place in Marvel history. Most minor characters don't get coverage like this. Toughpigs ( talk ) 03:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Two sources don't make a whole article, especially not for a character as minor as Asbestos Man. My BEFORE found maybe one more usable source, and sure that's decent , but the amount of information is very short and there's not enough sourcing to really justify a split. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 03:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you tell us what the third source is that you found? Toughpigs ( talk ) 17:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies, I really should've included that in the nom. The Rise & Fall (and Legacy) of Asbestos Comic Book Villains I say it's iffy because it looks like a blog, which to my knowledge aren't reliable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 20:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think it further demonstrates notability — again, somebody writing about how Asbestos Man reflects the changing understanding of the dangers of asbestos. Toughpigs ( talk ) 22:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Blogs still aren't reliable to my knowledge. I'd typically agree this presents some degree of notability, but in this case, there doesn't seem to be much that is usable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 22:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge Per nom. Random throwaway villain. The presented sources fail WP:USERG and fail to show he is notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge whatever is deemed notable by someone who knows more about it than I do. Bduke ( talk ) 23:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The trivial mention about the asbestos industry using a character like this for coverups could be mentioned in that article, there's no need for a standalone. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 06:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Lili (Tekken): Zero WP:SIGCOV and most of the coverage were just only announcements on Tekken 8 and nothing else. This source is also trivia [11] . The design section sources were game guides and passing mention of Lili with the only one genuine source about out her minor controversy in Australia. GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 13:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 13:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 13:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I was actually about starting to work on this one. I recently added this to the article as a real life example. Then here's one piece I found discussing the controversy behind her sex appeal (particularly due to her being under 18), which I have yet to add to the article. Then there's the article from GamesRadar that discusses her, along with Dragunov. We also have this , which while an announcement of her in Tekken 8, goes into more than just a routine announcement. And since Lili is probably the second-most popular female character in Tekken after Nina Williams, I'm holding the benefit of the doubt she has more as well. MoonJet ( talk ) 20:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of the sources that you've shown were trivial/passing mention, meanwhile the Lili cosplay thing as martial arts is situational into unreliable (cannot be used for notability). I'm not sure why you kept repeating that statement "Lili is probably the second-most popular female character in Tekken. I'm holding the benefit of the doubt she has more as well". Look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Williams (Tekken) , she is more popular than Lili and yet she fails notability. GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 21:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't agree that these are trivial. Lili is a major focus in the GamesRadar source, and that source on her controversy is specifically about her. What made you conclude that The Paradise is situational? How about these cosplay sources? https://www.egames.news/entretenimiento/Tekken-Nelly-Laufeyson-presume-su-poderoso-cosplay-de-Emilie-De-Rochefort-20220321-0038.html https://www.gry-online.pl/newsroom/najlepsze-cosplaye-lili-rochefort-z-serii-tekken/z8110ae (reliable per WP:VG/RS ) MoonJet ( talk ) 09:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not gonna explain further details. Trivia and still doesn't count as WP:SIGCOV . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 10:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Tekken characters . Sorry, but, no - all those sources seem super trivial and this is an obvious failure of GNG. This is an article made to promote a character and desperately seeking sources, not an article made in response to sources existing about a well-known character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Tekken characters - The sources currently in the article and presented in this AFD are a mess of listicles, unreliable sources, and routine reporting on game/product announcements (i.e. character reveals). And, obviously pictures of someone cosplaying as the character is not valid coverage. The closest that comes to genuine coverage is the minor controversary the character caused in Australia, and I'm not finding much about that outside of that one article. Rorshacma ( talk ) 01:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge found many sources about her being in Tekken 8 but these sources also shift it's focus on other Tekken characters as well. Kazama16 ( talk ) 02:46, 7 May 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. | merge |
Softcoding: Nearly unsourced neologism. Fails WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions . UtherSRG (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge to hard coding . This is a real topic likely notable, as evidenced by RS articles [4] and [5] and a chapter in an O'Reilly book [6] . hard coding is an obvious merge/redirect target. I don't see why this was posted to AfD; there is no solid rationale for deletion. -- {{u| Mark viking }} { Talk } 17:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Hard coding . That is the actual notable concept, softcoding is a little-known neologism always defined in opposition to hardcoding. Tercer ( talk ) 12:43, 24 August 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. | merge |
Blockade of Azovstal: This has even less material in it, and isn’t any more notable than it was a year ago. It makes more sense to cover it in the larger article. HappyWith ( talk ) 02:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , Russia , and Ukraine . HappyWith ( talk ) 02:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Siege of Mariupol as per the nomination. I'm surprised this article was missed after all this time. IncompA 03:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Siege of Mariupol as per the nomination. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect we already discussed this. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 10:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom - Too much good info for a simple Redir, but no SIGCOV or GNG as a standalone article. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 03:16, 22 August 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. | merge |
Warsaw bid for the 2036 Summer Olympics: In general, cities that have official bids for the 2036 Summer Olympics should get articles, and none of the 3 officially bidding cities currently do. Georgia guy ( talk ) 14:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Poland . Shellwood ( talk ) 15:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or redirect to Bids for the 2036 Summer Olympics § Europe as WP:ATD . — siro χ o 02:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . I don't see what confirmed status would change given this is effectively a reprint of a press release. GNG fail. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : This was draftified during this AfD. I have reverted. C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE 12:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Carreg yr Halen: While its location is sourced, that doesn't make it notable, and the rest of the information in the article is unsourced and I can't find it anywhere else, so is probably original research . Suntooooth , it/he ( talk / contribs ) 18:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wales and Islands . Suntooooth , it/he ( talk / contribs ) 18:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep a number of local sources exist and are quoted. The island marked one of the important ferry crossimg location of the Menai Strait before the suspension bridge was constructed. Meets the standard of WP:GEONATURAL . Velella Velella Talk 18:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per WP:NATFEAT . - Altenmann >talk 19:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Menai Strait : seems to be the best idea... For the dozen or so lines of text now in the article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Menai Bridge . This little outcrop of rock clearly has more significance to the town than to the body of water, but that significance doesn't become notability because of WP:INHERITED . Claims of being an important crossing point would meet the mark if there was any verifiable sigcov of this fact, but I don't believe there has been. Doesn't meet GEOLAND, is a tiny tidal island in the middle of nowhere, insufficient content to be its own article. BrigadierG ( talk ) 20:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] leaning delete It's not clear that the claims of the article are true. The cite for the ferry fails verification, and really I have to doubt the utility of a tiny, bare island in such a service. If we have to have something I would to go with the strait, but don't see a merger of a likely inaccurate article. Mangoe ( talk ) 22:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No consensus yet and two different Merge target articles suggested. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I still think deleting would be best considering most claims from keep votes and from the article are unverified, but if merging ends up being the outcome, I think Menai Bridge is the best target - like BrigadierG said, it has more significance to the town than the body of water. Suntooooth , it/he ( talk / contribs ) 13:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - a second source for Carreg yr Halen as the site of a ferry across the Menai Strait has been added confirming the importance of this location as a crossing of the strait before the susepnsion bridge was completed in 1826. The original source marked as "failed verification" has also been updated to a version that explicitly identifies Carreg yr Halen as the terminus of one of the Menai Bruidge (Porthaethwy) ferries. Velella Velella Talk 11:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Five Nights at Freddy's: Special Delivery: So, though there are sources technically, the game has zero critic reviews on Metacritic, and none of the sources that exist give any sort of opinion on the game. Due to this, this game basically can not have a Reception section, and this is why I am bringing it here. I feel that the information for this game is better off summarized in a different article (such as the series article) as it, in my opinion, simply doesn't have the critical commentary to stand on its own. Negative MP1 17:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Negative MP1 17:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep My gut reaction upon reading this was "keep," but let's take a look. The article seems well written. I'm figuring the issue is notability. Bloody Disgusting! and Touch Arcade could establish notability, but they discuss the game before its release. I'm feeling better about Android Police . CBR could be okay. I will add it to the article now. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 21:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Android Police is considered unreliable at WP:VG/S and CBR is considered situational, and both are from Valnet, which can't be used to demonstrate notability. Also, that isn't the complete problem here, the problem is the complete lack of critic reviews, which basically makes the whole article fall apart. Negative MP1 21:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My biggest concern here is that this game has been out for over three years. There has been plenty of time for there to be a review or two. The CBR source is an interview. It's my understanding that interviews are good for some details but not notability. While I disagree that this makes the whole article fall apart, perhaps it is worth removing Android Police . Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 21:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Five Nights at Freddy's#Five Nights at Freddy's: Special Delivery (2019) . Doesn't seem independently notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 23:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Five Nights at Freddy's#Five Nights at Freddy's: Special Delivery (2019) . No significant secondary coverage. To address the nominator and above discussion, I think reliable review sources are generally necessary to establish notability for games. Reviews are secondary coverage that evidence independent perspectives on the content of the game. This is opposed to primary sources, which include announcements or updates which are generally echoed by sources from publisher press releases: i.e [5] [6] [7] [8] or interviews that are very helpful for article content but again are taken from the word of the developer. There are probably some cases where sourcing and commentary is so good that a non-reviewed title is still notable, maybe an upcoming or cancelled game with immense speculation and commentary over its development. But generally I think without reviews, these articles tend to fail. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 22:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above. The article simply can't stand on its own without reviews, and the essay WP:NVIDEOGAMES says that games with articles typically have significant and critical commentary. When there is only enough coverage to say "this game exists" and a primary source that gives a bit more about the development philosophy from CBR (which is a part of Valnet which doesn't even provide notability per WP:VG/S ), this article clearly is not notable enough but could at least have its material salvaged through a merger. The Night Watch (talk) 00:43, 29 December 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. | merge |
Burma National Revolutionary Army: If this rename becomes the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC , can move the other page title accordingly- no RS showing any significant differences. EmeraldRange ( talk / contribs ) 12:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions . EmeraldRange ( talk / contribs ) 12:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 13:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Pinging @ Espresso Addict as someone involved in prior WP:PROD for thoughts. Additional comment: it is a direct fork (i.e. someone created this article by copying content from the other) so content should already be in the other article. EmeraldRange ( talk / contribs ) 15:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Myanmar Royal Dragon Army - there's no rationale for the two articles. Probably it should go under the current name. Llajwa ( talk ) 21:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Xoroshiro128+: Owen× ☎ 20:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I've used Google Scholar to find multiple sources covering the subject, including: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp? tp=&arnumber=9132873 , https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377042718306265 , https://caislab.kaist.ac.kr/publication/paper_files/2019/SCIS%202019_NJ_JU%20final.pdf Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 15:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Google Scholar searches reveal multiple notable sources, such as IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, and a publication from KAIST, covering the subject in depth. These sources, including https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp? tp=&arnumber=9132873 , https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377042718306265 , and https://caislab.kaist.ac.kr/publication/paper_files/2019/SCIS%202019_NJ_JU%20final.pdf , provide substantial coverage and analysis, establishing the notability of the subject. As these reliable third-party sources contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the topic, the article merits retention. " KarKuZoNga ( talk ) 05:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Sock strike [ reply ] This feels a lot like an AI generated response. You've just summarised the comment above using the exact same sources that @ Deltaspace42 provided. Why a set of quotation marks floating at the end of your comment too? GraziePrego ( talk ) 05:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Summarizing comment doesn't make it ai. Not sure about your point. If you have issue with my Keep vote and its justification please give proper argument to oppose that. KarKuZoNga ( talk ) 10:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to or merge with Sebastiano Vigna Xorshift . I'm not very familiar with RNGs as a research topic, but this one does seem to be awfully niche. Of the 11 Google scholar hits, one is a primary source, one is a duplicate and another four are preprints or Github pages. -- Tserton ( talk ) 14:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Xorshift or else just redirect there. Xoroshiro128+ is an algorithm in a class of PRNG Xorshift algorithms. The propposed target page is generic, describing both the issue, for the interested reader, and containing some detail on the algorithms. Xoroshiro gets a mention but this specific algorithm doesn't, except in saying it is equivalent to another. Whether it needs further mention is debatable, but a paragraph about this algorithm would fit on that page. In this paper, [45] we see that this algorithm is in the class of xorshift PRNG algorithms and not distinct from it. Tserton's proposed redirect target is valid too, but I would suggest that any reader searching for this algorithm is less interested in the creator, and more interested in xorshift PRNGs, and that Xorshift is thus the better target. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed, that's a useful suggestion. Tserton ( talk ) 21:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
List of Wipeout obstacles: Magitroopa ( talk ) 03:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Games , Lists , and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and massively, massively shorten into Wipeout (2008 game show) and Wipeout (2021 game show) BrigadierG ( talk ) 04:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Partial merge to Wipeout (2008 game show) , with any reboot specific stuff being ok to go to Wipeout (2021 game show) . Most of this is verifiable to primary sources so such a merge is fine. ATD seems important here because a future transwiki is possible. — siro χ o 04:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per other's. This list will never fulfill WP:NLIST , but the show(s) should already cover it quite well. Conyo14 ( talk ) 06:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Selective merge to Wipeout (2008 game show) and Wipeout (2021 game show) . This list itself is WP:INDISCRIMINATE and thus not needed, but some text in sections in the parent articles about some of the major/most common obstacles would be fine. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 09:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
List of Bahraini films of 2014: Standard practice of WikiProject Film is that a country gets one base list of its films first, with individual by-year lists spun off only once the base list has become large enough to need that for size management purposes -- but specifically in 2014, one user went around indiscriminately creating "List of [Country] films of 2014" for every single country where they could find even one film to list, which isn't the established practice and has not been continued for any other year in the past decade. Bahrain, however, doesn't even have its own standalone list at all yet, and instead List of Bahraini films just exists as a redirect to Bahrain's subsection in the continent-wide List of Asian films , where there are just eight films listed including both of these, and I had to add four of those eight to that list myself just now. So no prejudice against the creation of one base list of Bahraini films if somebody wants to take on the job of looking for additional films that are still missing from that section, but there would need to be a hell of a lot more than just eight Bahraini films to list before spinning out separate by-year lists would be necessary. Bearcat ( talk ) 17:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Lists , and Bahrain . Bearcat ( talk ) 17:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per nom (I suppose this is technically a merge but...) don't see any need for this list as of right now. Geardona ( talk to me? ) 18:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or merge as suggested. A list of only 2 films, when we're now 10 years out, shows me there aren't likely going to be more added, so the list isn't needed. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge These two films should be listed at Cinema of Bahrain and List of Asian films . D r e a m Focus 02:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Łążyn, Gmina Rojewo: The location given in the article is empty fields. Checking the Polish regulation on the names of towns and parts of towns , it is described as "część wsi Wybranowo" (i.e., part of Wybranowo ) - see p.1166. This location is not a legally-recognised populated place, but instead just a part of one. No need to merge as there is no reliably-sourced content in the article. The location isn't even a hamlet (which would be described as a przysiółek in the Polish regulation) so the article is incorrect. It is not likely that anyone would search the name of a part of Wybranowo that isn't even used in addresses in the area, so no need to redirect. TL;DR - fails WP:GEOLAND , WP:GNG , WP:NOPAGE FOARP ( talk ) 14:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland . FOARP ( talk ) 14:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's a populated place but part of another populated place and there is not much information available. It can be redirected as it's in the place name register (at 52°52′27″N 18°12′53″E / 52.87417°N 18.21472°E / 52.87417; 18.21472 ; the coordinates in the article are not very precise or even within Gmina Rojewo). Peter James ( talk ) 22:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Wybranowo . Per TERYT , it is a part of that village. No need for a stand-alone article. No pl wiki interwiki or article there I can locate. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Proposed Merge targe is a Redirect page, would you support Wybranowo, Inowrocław County as an alternative target article? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Found This listed in the Polish Wiki: Łążyn – a village in the Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship , Toruń County , Obrowo Commune Łążyn – a village in the Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship , Toruń County , Zławieś Wielka Commune PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 00:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and this in the ar.wiki5.ru Wikipedia: Łążyn [ˈwɔ̃ʐɨn] ( German : Lonzyn) is a small village in the administrative district of Gmina Rojewo , within Inowrocław County , Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship , in north-central Poland. It is located about 2 kilometers (1 mi) northeast of Jaxes . Wikipedia site:ar.wiki5.ru PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 00:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just to be clear on this, Wikipedia is not a source. If this really were a village, a source would say so. FOARP ( talk ) 12:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I never said it was a source, I was just providing what it says in the other languages' wikipedias. PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 13:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect per Piotrus . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Wybranowo, Inowrocław County per the above. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 00:13, 25 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. | merge |
April 2012 Idlib bombings: No retrospective coverage or major societal effects to meet WP:NEVENT . Too short to warrant a merge. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 02:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events , Terrorism , and Syria . The big ugly alien ( talk ) 02:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Timeline of the Syrian Civil War per WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS . No WP:SIGCOV either. Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs ) 04:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge: I agree with @ Aydoh8 's suggestion. Article was created just a few days after the event it covers happened, and only includes one source and is a WP:STUB . This article doesn't include any information that would be negatively affected by merging. Mjks28 ( talk ) 05:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above. Tiny event in a big war. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 12:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Dominion (Star Trek): No reception, analysis, etc. BEFORE shows many passing mentions in sources but nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV . What little serious coverage I see is about the Dominion War , a related but different topic (story arc/fictional event), and that article is better (it even has a reception section). I suggest, per WP:ATD , to redirect this entry there, unless someone can find reliable, non-trivial sources discussing the Dominion itself as an entity (I failed). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , Television , and Politics . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm pretty confident this will meet GNG, but given that the vast bulk of the subject is directly related to the Dominion War article subject, I think a merge by WP:NOPAGE is probably best. I think a few paragraphs in a new section titled § The Dominion might suffice. Probably after § Development so as not to need to repeat too much from that section. — siro χ o 06:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Rewrite and expand as needed. As a long time Star Trek fan, I can say that the Dominion and the Dominion War was a major storyline in multiple series -- Star Trek:Deep Space Nine, Picard, Star Trek:Lower Decks, etc., and assorted noncanon tie-in novels. It meets general notability guidelines and there are sources, which I do not have time to hunt down. However, this is not the place for any cleanup that needs to be done and this is not an article that should have been nominated for deletion. Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 10:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So your argument is you're a fan and WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES . -- Mika1h ( talk ) 13:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’ve seen mainstream news coverage explaining what the Dominion was in reviews of the recent TV show Picard. I’m not inclined to spend the time required to find and cite them all. Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 14:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've found a few sources and added them to the article's talk page under a {{ refideas }} . — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you think there's enough that's not related to Dominion War to have an article that isn't primarily overlap/summary? — siro χ o 19:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This. Plus some of those "reference ideas" are unreliable or obvious plot sumamries - "The Birth of the Dominion and Beyond – via Star Trek: Deep Space Nine season 3 DVD special features" or episode guides/reviews. And Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion is "A lavishly illustrated episode-by-episode guide to the popular series offers fans plot summaries, complete credits and casting anecdotes"... sorry, no, this stuff might be good for Fandom but not Wikipedia. These days we have some standards such as WP:GNG ... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect To Star Trek: Deep Space Nine#The Dominion War . This is pure Memory Alpha content, and is too much of a plot summary to justify a separate page. I have no prejudice towards recreation if WP:INDISCRIMINATE can be passed by demonstrating the importance of the subject. I also have no objection to draftification until it can be improved further. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 23:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reverse merge with Dominion War . Somewhere between those two related topics there might be an article that meets WP:SIGCOV . And it can be re-evaluated after the information has been re-organized. As is, this article doesn't have enough coverage to justify a separate article. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 00:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Every editor participating in this discussion has a different idea of what should happen with this article so at least one relisting is an inevitability. And we have different Redirect target articles proposed so that needs sorting out. As for a "reverse merge", if there is a consensus for that, it will have to be handled by another closer as that is not one of the options that XFDcloser allows us to do. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/redirect to Dominion War . One article is sufficient at this time, and the other article is more developed. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 09:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep This article is important as is part of Deep Space Nine 's plot. As well, the Dominion is a featured antagonist faction almost all the series. Capaitan Kirter7007 ( talk ) 23:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:ITSIMPORTANT is not a very strong argument. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The Dominion was a major race in Deep Space Nine, featuring from season two and becoming prominent in later seasons and it is therefore appropriate to have its own article. Rillington ( talk ) 05:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] agree Alivaditis ( talk ) 15:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC) — Alivaditis ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] Redirect to Star Trek: Deep Space Nine#The Dominion War : Honestly, all of the discussions of the Dominion revolve around the storyline that features them. Meanwhile, the article itself has no independent sourcing whatsoever. There is nothing worth preserving here. ― Susmuffin Talk 02:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Dominion War . Unlike other major Star Trek races (Klingons, Romulans, even the Gorn and the Borg), the Dominion serves no other narrative purpose in the series to date than to be at war with the Federation. BD2412 T 20:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Dominion War . Unlike other important Star Trek races they are only really featured in one property, DS9, and in one relationship to the Federation, war. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 05:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I prefer Dominion War to Star Trek: Deep Space Nine#The Dominion War as the merge target because it is longer and it potentially has room for some of this sourced content. The main DS9 page is well served by the short section currently there, but as User:Piotrus says above there are certainly enough sources to justify a spin out on the story arc, even if not the antagonists separately. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 05:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still no consensus or even an agreement on a Merge/Redirect target article if this article isn't Kept. The only consensus I do see is that this page should exist in some form and not be deleted. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! User talk:Liz 07:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Liz SOFTDELETION with redirecting should solve most issues, IMHO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : As L iz rightly notes, there seems to be a divide in the opinion as to whether to merge this article about a very significant protagonist in DS9 into a wider article about a story arc, and this could see the information contained about such a notable Star Trek species lost to Wikipedia. This is why I voted to keep this article. Rillington ( talk ) 10:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Losing information is not an issue here. If the article doesn't pass WP:GNG , or any other notability guideline, it should not exist. Also, Memory Alpha exists. Industrial Insect (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do feel that the article easily passes any notability threshold due to this species being probably the most prominent species regarding story arcs during the second half of DS9. And thank you for mentioning Memory Alpha - I hadn't previously heard of that site. Rillington ( talk ) 07:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as one of the most prominent Star Trek civilizations -- if we have articles on Ferengi and Borg , then we should have one on the Dominion. AFD should not be used for cleanup . — Lowellian ( reply ) 00:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed. Rillington ( talk ) 07:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] More WP:ITSIMPORTANT? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Still Keep My vote will be not in vain, I'll do my best for the article to be keep. Resitance is not futile yet! Capaitan Kirter7007 ( talk ) 21:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Struck double-! vote. Daniel ( talk ) 22:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Looks as too specific fiction concept for separate article on Wikipedia and has just two references. Dawid2009 ( talk ) 08:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge(?) Rather than delete, merge article into Star Trek: Deep Space Nine as a section olef641 ( talk ) Merge with Dominion War : or the other way around, as long as attributions are kept via WP:HISTMERGE. Owen× ☎ 13:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Joel Segal: No WP:SIGCOV by independent RS that justify an article in the 15 years that this article has existed. Per a WP:BEFORE , the only thing resembling any sort of coverage is this profile on an activist group's website. Longhornsg ( talk ) 22:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America . Longhornsg ( talk ) 22:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Progressive Democrats of America . Florificapis ( talk ) 02:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not finding any useful secondary sources. Nothing to merge that I can see. If article is deleted Joel Segal (sports agent) can be moved to remove the disambiguator. AusLondonder ( talk ) 20:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Progressive Democrats of America#History , where he is presently mentioned. Per Longhornsg and AusLondonder, not notable enough to warrant a standalone page. Fails WP:GNG . Sal2100 ( talk ) 17:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Hitomi (Dead or Alive): No signs of SIGCOV, and no real commentary about her as a character. Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 01:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 01:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 01:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Dead or Alive characters . There are quite a few video game articles like this, fairly indepth WP:FANCRUFT with questionable sourcing (some highlights in this one include Top 10 Sexiest Female Video Game Characters and Top 10 Babes in Games ). Decently written, but just no real WP:SIGCOV . ULPS ( talk ) 03:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Dead or Alive characters . Niemti created numerous articles solely due to sex appeal of characters and this one is no exception, there's no evidence is notable or passes WP:INDISCRIMINATE . Stuff like "sexiest character" should not indicate importance without a really good justification like it being integral to their character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 04:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - No SIGCOV, just a ton of vapid, cherry-picked cruft about sex appeal. Sergecross73 msg me 12:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom. GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 12:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Another character that pretends to have reception. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 13:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I stand by my statement that boobs are not notable. All the women in DoA are hot, okay? Nobody cares. This is practically WP:ROUTINE coverage of the franchise. Dronebogus ( talk ) 22:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even calling it ROUTINE is generous. It reads more like someone just searched for every passing mention on the internet and forced it into the article without regard for importance or significance... Sergecross73 msg me 01:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . The reception is mainly one-off comments about the character without any depth. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 03:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Passing comments about the character… ‘s breasts . Dronebogus ( talk ) 06:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . Lacking sigcov. Too bad, I like her design. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 18:48, 14 June 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. | merge |
Bloodshed (character): Industrial Insect (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation . Industrial Insect (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to appropriate list of characters, plot summary and nothing else, fails GNG. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 11:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: B in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 19:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: B in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 20:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two different Merge target articles proposed. We have to get that down to one. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: B per WP:PRESERVE . BOZ ( talk ) 03:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - @ User:Liz , I think the M is a typo by @ User:Rtkat3 rather than a different merge target as as far as I can tell the character has no aliases that begin with M BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 17:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The typo has been taken care of. -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 17:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - This appears to be one of those characters that are just so minor and non-notable, that I don't believe are even notable enough to include in one of the character lists. There are no sources currently in the article that are not just issues of comics, and I have not actually found any sources at all that discuss the character outside of an official Marvel page and fanwikis. And if I am understanding those fan wikis correctly, this character has only had a grand total of nine appearances. For all of the "Keep or Merge" votes above, I would honestly like to know what possible rationale is being used for the "Keep" portion of the vote. Rorshacma ( talk ) 22:44, 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. | merge |
Impact of Falsettos on the United States: The article itself seems to be largely an essay, and doesn't appear to be particularly necessary to exist in its own right DeputyBeagle ( talk ) 13:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre , Sexuality and gender , and Judaism . DeputyBeagle ( talk ) 13:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with the Falsettos article. -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 17:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Ssilvers. A lot of the information in this article already appears in the main article about the musical, so not that much would need to be added in case of a merge. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - I see no valid reason to have two articles on this topic. Rogermx ( talk ) 01:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note - The article was created by Meghane2 as one of the Wiki Education student editors of Brighan Young University for the Fall of 2020. They have not edited Wikipedia since. — Maile ( talk ) 23:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge yet more student essay cruft. We really need to somehow find a way to both get student editors to write properly and speedy-cull essay hosting. Dronebogus ( talk ) 11:50, 31 May 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. | merge |
2007 attack on Emmanuel Mwambulukutu: BrigadierG ( talk ) 23:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events , and South Africa . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment an attack on an ambassador is more notable than a random attack, but unless there was some lasting impact, I'd probably agree with Nom. 08:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Delete the diplomat may well be notable to have his own article, but not this event in particular I would say. Uhooep ( talk ) 14:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Emmanuel Mwambulukutu used to be an article on the diplomat before it was redirected to this newly-created page on the 2007 attack. It wasn't in great shape, but with most of the sources dead, I can't say much definitively on his personal notability other than it's probably borderline. The attack probably isn't notable enough on its own, but I didn't do any real research into it, so I'm not placing an actual ! vote. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 16:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment if Mwambulukutu was a Member of Parliament from 1985-2000 then why was the article binned in the first place. That would make him notable. Even if the article was a mess it could still be improved. Uhooep ( talk ) 06:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I have restored his bio. He is clearly a notable politician having been an MP in the Tanzanian Parliament. Perhaps any non-duplicated prose from this afd can be transcribed there where appropriate. Uhooep ( talk ) 14:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Emmanuel Mwambulukutu , not enough content to stand on its own. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 23:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Emmanuel Mwambulukutu . This is something that happened in his life and should be part of his biography. We don't split random events in someone's biography off to their own articles unless there's so much to write about that it's impractical to keep it in the bio. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 17:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . There is no point in merging. All the content is present in the main article. XabqEfdg ( talk ) 00:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Doesn't need a separate article and all info is already in the Emmanuel Mwambulukutu article. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Francis Drake Hall of Residence: Would recommend a redirect to University_of_Plymouth#Student_accommodation . pinktoebeans (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and United Kingdom . pinktoebeans (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to University of Plymouth § Student accommodation (as suggested by nom). In the absence of overwhelming SIGCOV, I would point to WP:NOPAGE —specifically, more information (about the university in general) is required for context and thus this content is best placed in a broader article (with a redirect, of course). House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 21:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - no notable coverage in depth - Altenmann >talk 21:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 16:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 16:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 16:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or selectively merge content to University of Plymouth#Student accommodation . The newspaper reports on the arson attack do not make the building notable, nor the rating on Student Crowd, planning documents and company reports. Rupples ( talk ) 22:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge a properly sourced summary to University of Plymouth § Student accommodation as suggested above. Fails GNG, but material can find a home in the target. // Timothy :: talk 18:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Ports of the United States: Article overlaps with and isn't distinct enough from the other two. मल्ल ( talk ) 14:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . If you're proposing a merge, rather than a deletion, that's typically handled either by just WP:BOLDly executing the merge, or starting a discussion on the talk page. It needn't be brought to AFD. Jfire ( talk ) 15:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with Jfire, just redirect it to List of ports in the United States . This is so outdated with so little info, it's hardly worth keeping, but a bold merge of what's relevant seems appropriate. Reywas92 Talk 20:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] redirect to List of ports in the United States as above. We don't need two of these. Mangoe ( talk ) 02:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or redirect to List of ports in the United States . Ships & Space ( Edits ) 20:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Myanmar Historical Research Journal: Article dePRODed by creator with reason posted on article's talk page, arguing that the journal meets NJournals. No support in any reliable sources that their reasoning is correct. For example, 23-something libraries in WorldCat is really very paltry. A smattering of citations on GScholar is too be expected and nothing above normal (instead rather below...) In short, PROD reason stands, hence: delete . Randykitty ( talk ) 21:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Myanmar . Randykitty ( talk ) 21:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep . Myanmar Historical Research Journal (MHRJ) is one of the few reliable academic research sources from Myanmar that is frequently cited by both English-speaking (e.g., Michael Aung-Thwin and Jacques Leider ) and Burmese-speaking scholars. This paper for instance, notes: "Besides, the new Myanmar Historical Research Journal has provided a platform for several studies of individual inscriptions," after a long period of academic stasis in the country, following the 1962 Burmese coup d'état . Another journal paper acknowledges MHRJ as the only journal published within the country for Burma/Myanmar studies. Below is my detailed response to Randykitty's assertions: "Article has a single referenced brief article that may or may not be about this journal (as the text is given as an image, it cannot be pasted into Google Translate)." This assertion seems to imply that I have somehow mischaracterised the source used in the article (see WP:GOODFAITH ). Others who can read Burmese, please feel free to vouch for whether the source ( available here ) supports the referenced content in the article. "Searching for the English and the Burmese title does not give any results, apart from a few booksellers and a few references to articles on the CVs of a few academics. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG ." MHRJ has been cited as a source by seminal publications, including The Mists of Ramanna . Frontier Myanmar also references some archaeological findings published in a 1998 issue of the journal ( source ). Due to MHRJ' s importance in Myanmar's domestic scholarship, all publications of new journal issues are announced and summarised on government-published newspapers. For instance, I found references to MHRJ in this 2011 issue of Kyemon (see page 2 of PDF , bottom right hand column) or more recently, this 2022 issue of Myanma Alin (see page 11 of PDF , top column). I also want to note that Google is not a reliable means of locating Burmese language sources (nor is it a good proxy for establishing notability for Burmese subjects), because Burmese language content online is not comprehensively indexed by search engines, due to encoding compatibility issues. For instance, those PDFs mentioned above are not encoded in Unicode, meaning that a standard keyword search of the journal's Burmese name "မြန်မာသမိုင်းသုတေသနစာစောင်" within the PDF would not yield any inline results. WP:N also notes: "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." MHRJ is largely a Burmese-language journal that is physically printed, meaning the majority of scholars rely on physical prints (or scans) of this journal or on library holdings. Australian National University mentions MHRJ as a "key journal" for Burma/Myanmar studies ( here ). The broader note I want to make is this: just because it is not extensively referenced online, or is not written in English does not automatically preclude the subject from notability. I'm reminded of WP:WORLDVIEW 's section, "Availability of sources may cause bias" and the broader challenge that Wikipedia editors from the Global South face. If anything, the paucity of English language sources re: this journal speaks more to the decades-long isolation of Myanmar's academic community, coupled with the lack of Western interest in Burma/Myanmar studies. -- Hintha 💬 04:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm sorry, but nothing that you write above convinces me. All the articles that you list have only in-passing mentions, none are in-depth. As for the image/text issue, I should have been clearer as I never doubted your good faith. What I meant was that this one paragraph "article" might be about the journal or might be about, for example, an article in the journal, which is not the same thing. In any case, whatever it translates to, that one paragraph cannot be an in-depth analysis of the journal. As for being reliable, the article by Andrew Selth ( Modern Burma Studies: A Survey of the Field ) in one of just two sentences mentioning this journal notes that it is "subject to censorship by the regime". As for possible bias, there is none. This journal is just held up to our normal criteria and Burmese-language sources are acceptable, but they have to be in-depth and independent in order to prove notability. -- Randykitty ( talk ) 07:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The journal is not notable, but merging to Ministry of Religious Affairs and Culture (Myanmar) seems a better solution than deletion. Headbomb { t · c · p · b } 08:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Being only a very minor activity of this ministry, wouldn't that be WP:UNDUE ? -- Randykitty ( talk ) 08:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nevertheless, it's a solution I could live with per WP:ATD . -- Randykitty ( talk ) 13:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm pretty sure google translate can process images. Either way it's questionable to attack notability on the basis that you don't personally have access to the cited sources, otherwise people would be able to disregard everything paywalled too. (Though maybe that's where we're headed with the LLM situation anyway.) small jars t c 10:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps you can tell us what translation Google Translate gives, because I can't get it to work with an image. In any case, as I said above, a small single paragraph cannot be an in-depth analysis of the journal, so this source doesn't count towards notability. And I have searched using both the English and the Burmese title, but cannot find any sources, behind a paywall or not. I don't know what the "LLM situation" is... Finally, far as I can see, I have not complained about not having access to any sources, I have complained about not finding any sources... -- Randykitty ( talk ) 14:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Apparrantly you need to use "google lens", not translate, but here it is: Myanmar History Research Bulletin No. (36) (37) (38) Union of Myanmar - No. (18) 2019 Myanmar Historical Research Journal Nurbr135) 2015 The Department of Historical Research and National Library has been publishing Burmese history research bulletins since 1995, and now in 2019, research bulletins No. (36) (37) (38) have been published. Burmese History Research Journal contains the research papers of great scholars of Burmese history. Research papers of teachers from history departments and archeology departments in universities from all over Burma. Historical Research Department's research staff and external researchers from the research of various eras, politics, economy It will be found that research papers related to social issues have been compiled and published. Myanmar History Research Mountain The book is available at the Department of Historical Research and National Library, Nay Pyi Taw Phone: 067-408384, National Library (Nay Pyi Taw) Phone: 067-418426 and Pyay Road National Museum, Yangon Phone: 01-395190. You can contact 01-395192 to purchase small jars t c 23:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks!! I must admit that this is the first time I hear about "Google lens"... In any case, it is as I suspected: this is more an ad than a discussion of the journal and does not contribute to notability. -- Randykitty ( talk ) 08:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : Of course the journal is unavailable online, for many works published by the ministry have not yet been digitalized. But it indeed is prestigious and notable among the Burmese scholars in the fields of Burmese language and history, most of whose works are also—unfortunately—in printed version only. Htanaungg ( talk ) 16:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That may be true, but on what should we build our article if there are no (available) sources? And do you have any proof for the assertion that this journal is "prestigious and notable"? -- Randykitty ( talk ) 17:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Randykitty , Hay, Myanmar is a developing country and may not have all resources available online, as it is not as technologically advanced as countries like the United States. 49.237.13.44 ( talk ) 20:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't believe that the lack of online sources is specifically an strike against notability in AfD. Sources just need to be reliable, whether accessible to a random internet user or not. EmeraldRange ( talk / contribs ) 19:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The Myanmar Historical Research Journal is an important research paper on Burmese history that is published by the government. It is cited for several historical events and serves as a main source for the "History" subject in Myanmar's higher education curriculum. The journal is also used for state-level education studies. As mentioned above by respected Burmese editor User:Hintha stated " Australian National University mentions MHRJ as a "key journal" for Burma/Myanmar studies. It appears that the Myanmar Historical Research Journal is also utilized as a source for history studies outside of Myanmar. It is questionable to judge the importance of this journal for Myanmar, particularly when Burmese editors are underrepresented on the English-language Wikipedia platform. Clearly a WP:IDONTLIKE on Myanmar. I am shocked that the nominator is rejecting all comments, even though the Myanmar Historical Research Journal is an invaluable source on the History of Myanmar . 49.237.13.44 ( talk ) 19:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is important to note that since you are not Burmese, you may not have a complete understanding of the intricacies of writing in the Burmese language. However, there are a few Burmese editors who are better positioned to determine the notability of subjects related to our country. It is important to acknowledge that we always act with integrity and honesty. 49.237.13.44 ( talk ) 20:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I resent your suggestion that I have something against Myanmar and the aspersions you throw on my "integrity and honesty". Please comment on the issues, not the persons. See WP:AGF . -- Randykitty ( talk ) 08:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] [108] - "The State History, Myanmar Chronicles and Historical Values" research symposium was organized in preparation for the release of the latest issue of the Myanmar Historical Research Journal. The event was attended by Burmese culture ministers, prominent historians, members of the Myanmar Historical Commission, and officials from the National Literary sector. The participants discussed their respective research works. Moreover, [109] The Myanmar Historical Research Journal (MHRJ) serves as a reference for the Burmese Encyclopedia , highlighting its importance as a source of information for Burmese history. 49.237.13.44 ( talk ) 20:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I just found the book review by Naypyidaw National Library that highlights the significance of the Myanmar Historical Research Journal (MHRJ) in the field of Burmese history. The Department of Historical Research and National Library has been publishing Burmese historical research bulletins since 1995, and the MHRJ is featured in the bulletins numbered 36, 37, and 38. These bulletins contain research papers by prominent Myanmar historians as well as teachers and researchers from history and archeology departments across the country. The papers cover various eras, politics, and the economy, making the MHRJ an important legacy resource for scholars of Burmese history. See source by Myanmar Digital Newspaper. In the source, The Naypyidaw National Library provides book reviews for numerous legacy Burmese books. 49.237.13.44 ( talk ) 21:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry, but none of those sources is about the journal and they don't show notability. -- Randykitty ( talk ) 08:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ummm! What the hell? The sources I posted above, are they not valid? Pls tell me what is your problem?? 49.237.43.169 ( talk ) 12:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep per Hintha 's detailed, well-documented reasons. Just because something is not easily searchable on Google doesn't mean it's not noteworthy. Likewise with ISBN or ISSNs or being included in WorldCat. But this isn't the first time and won't be the last. Someone challenged the Rakhine Razawin Thit article back in 2014 -- see the Talk page . Hybernator ( talk ) 03:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I absolutely disagree with the last two "keep" !votes. Yes, "just because it is not extensively referenced online, or is not written in English does not automatically preclude the subject from notability". And, yes, "Just because something is not easily searchable on Google doesn't mean it's not noteworthy". However, even in those cases, we need sources . Without sources, these assertions are just that: assertions. Just saying that something is notable/respected/noteworthy/etc does not make it so. -- Randykitty ( talk ) 08:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can die with this comment 🫡😂. Burmese editors have provided sources above. So how much do you need? 49.237.43.169 ( talk ) 12:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You actually have to look at the sources. They're not independent, not about the journal, or just minor mentions. The rest is hand waving.-- Randykitty ( talk ) 13:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I share Randy's concerns. At the same time, so many of our other journal articles have the same problems (of course, WP:OTHERSTUFF ...). Which is why we have WP:NJOURNAL , but it hard to see how this is met. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . I don't think this journal is notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article, but I think it could be merged. The quesiton is - where? It has three publishers, according to the article: the Ministry of Religious Affairs and Culture's department of historical research and the National Library of Myanmar and the Myanmar Historical Commission . Although the infobox just lists the Ministry, so if I had to choose, I'd go with that one? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:25, 18 April 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. | merge |
Ringer (comics): Industrial Insect (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: R in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 20:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: R in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 20:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: R - There are no non-primary sources in the article, I was unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources in searches, and neither of the above votes provided any sources that would actually justify keeping this article. Merging to one of the overstuffed character lists is about the best that could be done with this character, and that is being extremely generous. Rorshacma ( talk ) 19:54, 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. | merge |
Santoshi Maa – Sunayein Vrat Kathayein: Owen× ☎ 22:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Santoshi Maa (TV series) : if existing sources are indeed judged insufficient for a standalone page. Opposed to D. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge to Santoshi Maa (TV series) . RangersRus ( talk ) 12:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Santoshi Maa (TV series) : as after research I have come across references indicating notability which i have added in the article, so merging is best option imo. Imsaneikigai ( talk ) 17:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Subsets and Splits