text
stringlengths 40
160k
| label
stringclasses 8
values |
|---|---|
2005 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit: Appears to fail WP:NEVENT . Could be redirected to Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix . ( t · c ) buidhe 21:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, it is a somewhat niche sport, but this competition is widely regarded as one of the most important ones in this sport. As a side note, I am starting to believe you are on a journey to spread misinformation about this sport and delete other people's hard work because of your lack of familiarity with this topic. -- ThiagoSimoes ( talk ) 21:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All wikipedia articles have to follow the notability guidelines. ( t · c ) buidhe 21:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I still don't understand your point. The notability of the Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix has never been challenged before, so why are the results with documented sources challenged now? How are the sources in this article not good enough when this article provides even less sources for a similar event in a different sport and has not been proposed for deletion? -- ThiagoSimoes ( talk ) 21:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:OSE . Where are the sources that show WP:NEVENT is met for this event ? Find them and I'll immediately withdraw the AfD. ( t · c ) buidhe 22:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The point is not WP:NEVENT, but WP:NGYMNASTICS and WP:GNG. As per WP:NGYMNASTICS, the event meets the criteria. As per WP:GNG, the sources are independent from the subject, once they are not taken from an official website from the Grand Prix organization. -- ThiagoSimoes ( talk ) 00:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NGYMNASTICS does not cover notability of events. Simple database sources with start lists and/or scores do not count towards GNG. ( t · c ) buidhe 00:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NGYMNASTICS clearly states what an elite event is. WP:GNG states that scores are not enough to establish the notability of events, however the notability of the Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit has been established before. Proving the relevance of each event in a circuit with 100+ tournaments, especially for competitions which happened 20 or 30 years ago, is extremely difficult. Would creating a single list with all medalists in these 100+ tournaments, from 1994 to 2023, meet your criteria for notability, instead of lists for every year? Do you have any other suggestion to keep the results in a separate article so that the original article about the circuit does not become too big? -- ThiagoSimoes ( talk ) 07:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If the individual competitions and circuits are not notable, then the complete list of medalists and scores is information that is not suitable for Wikipedia (unless it's relevant to an individual's biographical article). This is meant as an encyclopedia, not a complete database of sports scores. There are other websites where this type of information is more suitable. ( t · c ) buidhe 08:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The notability of the circuit has never been challenged, similar events exist in different sports and lists of medalists exist as different articles. The point of the lists is to inform the medalists, not the scores. Besides, almost all of the medalists each year have their own articles on Wikipedia, and you can check some biographies to see that the medals earned in Grand Prix events are mentioned in different biographies. -- ThiagoSimoes ( talk ) 09:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sports . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel , Belarus , Bulgaria , France , Germany , Netherlands , Russia , and Ukraine . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix as an WP:ATD . Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 16:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix as an WP:ATD . // Timothy :: talk 14:20, 26 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 |
North American Competitiveness Council: Non-notable sub-working group of a larger multi-lateral forum that met a couple times between 2006 and 2009. No WP:SIGCOV that would help the article qualify for WP:ORG . Longhornsg ( talk ) 07:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge seems ok, it's a subgroup of the larger group. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Canada , Mexico , and United States of America . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into parent article; someone put a lot of work into this, will take some effort to update. - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:03, 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 |
Beetle (comics): Also mostly a plot summary. Industrial Insect (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Comics and animation . Industrial Insect (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: B in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 20:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: B in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 20:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on improvements made to sourcing in this article. BOZ ( talk ) 13:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep or merge? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . What improvements (BOZ?). This is just a plot summary and list of appearances. Fails GNG. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you want to know the improvements, @ BOZ : can explain it to you? -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 18:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Piotrus. Fails WP:GNG without any real world analysis in reliable sources. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 17:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I copied content from Abner Jenkins and Janice Lincoln . What do you think about merging these articles with this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higher Further Faster ( talk • contribs ) Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: B#Beetle , fails WP:GNG : no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Mika1h ( talk ) 16:38, 26 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 |
EMR Regional: The only additional content that exists here is a WP:DIRECTORY of every route this provider operates on. BrigadierG ( talk ) 10:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Transportation , and United Kingdom . BrigadierG ( talk ) 10:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The coverage of EMR Regional relates to its plans to refurbish its rolling stock, which seems to be smaller and older than that used by EMR Intercity. I found several references for refurbishment and added them to the article. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 11:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually, the main scope of the page is to describe the routes its operating on. Because An article that is only about refurbishments of something is almost never allowed and can be placed on the relevant part of the article instead. Plus it is not titled refurbishment of the EMR fleet. It seems as though EMR are either brand new trains (class 810, due to enter within 12 months), sourcing newer trains (class 170, built 1998-2005) or in the process of refurbishment after it withdrew its HSTs, 153s, 156s and even the 180s. JuniperChill ( talk ) 15:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] not only that, but please also note WP:REFBOMB . No more than three sources per sentence, plus I am not sure about the reliability of these sources. JuniperChill ( talk ) 15:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] > Actually, the main scope of the page is to describe the routes its operating on. Have you been familiar with the discourse surrounding similar subjects such as lists of airline destinations? I'm really loathe to have more of these kinds of big piles of information on Wikipedia without further context? There's moderate consensus (albeit several years old) that these things are generally not good bases for articles. BrigadierG ( talk ) 19:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] These are just reprints of press releases - replacing some of your trains is just a normal run-of-the-mill activity when you operate a train line. I'm not contesting that the operator itself is notable, just the idea that its two train services need separate articles of their own. See WP:ROTM BrigadierG ( talk ) 16:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or Selective merge to East Midlands Railway . This article is little more than a timetable at present without any justification for being split from the East Midlands Railway article. Eastmain refbombing with press releases actually makes me more convinced this isn't a notable topic. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 01:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or Selective merge with East Midlands Railway , this article seems to be copied/duplicated from that article. Any changes of rolling stock can easily be under headings in the table on the main article. Should the EMR article get long in the future, a split can be raised then. The refurbishment of trains is not exactly a notable reason for a separate article, if it were more than just a sub-brand, like a division or another company, then maybe the situation would be different. Otherwise the refurbishment of some trains can be largely just one sentence at EMR, as it is largely a minor routine event for train operators. Dank Jae 19:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or Selective merge with East Midlands Railway - as already mentioned above, the article as it is is nothing more than a list of routes with little additional content; nothing that would be out of place in the main EMR article. Danners430 ( talk ) 11:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - EMR Connect has also been created, are they both in a similar situation? As they're both sub-brands, seems odd to delete one and allow another. Dank Jae 21:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I totally forgot I created that, having been sat around for ~10 weeks waiting to be accepted/declined. The reviewer (please do not tag) seems not to understand that EMR Connect is a subbrand of East Midlands Railway and the fact that EMR Regional is under discussion. I would have expected a decline stating that this should be placed in the main EMR article instead for these two reasons. Also, not sure why Great Northern ended up, along with Island Line (brand) , being the subbrands of Govia Thameslink Railway and South Western Railway respectively. (This may not be an example of WP:OTHERSTUFF but hey). JuniperChill ( talk ) 21:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JuniperChill , the Island Line and GN have more history of its own to be separate, should these EMR brands have more developments distinct from EMR then they can have articles in the future. But right now they're just service timetables. The EMR brands are very recent, and their articles aren't developed enough to prove they're independently notable right now. Of course, you or another editor could have another go should there be more information in the future if these brands become more distinct and/or the EMR article gets too long. Dank Jae 21:56, 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 |
Nattriss Point: Land features on maps are not inherently significant. It is highly unlikely that there will be sufficient RS talking in depth about geographical features in Antarctica and the region - which to be clear, is almost entirely uninhabited - to show how they meet the notability criteria for en.wiki JMWt ( talk ) 08:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Antarctica . JMWt ( talk ) 08:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Saunders Island, South Sandwich Islands where it is mentioned but that article doesn't spell out what this geographical feature is. Either merge within the "Local" heading where Natriss Point is first named or alternatively put in a new "Named features" heading and place the info. under that. Rupples ( talk ) 02:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Saunders Island, South Sandwich Islands#Local . Nattriss Point is part of that island; the "Local" section describes major features of the island. By the way, this is a truly terrible place: "barren of vegetation apart from lichens and some moss-covered patches. Most of the island is covered in ice." "The volcano emits at least 145±59 tons per day of sulfur dioxide" "chinstrap penguins form a breeding population of more than 100,000 couples" (in a very small area) " lava lake in its summit crater, which is fumarolically active, and there is widespread evidence of recent eruptions across the island." -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 02:47, 26 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 |
Death's Domain: Could probably be redirected to another Discworld article. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 11:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature . PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 11:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge : Discworld and the Disciplines , p. 63 (and a bit on 59) has almost a page of coverage, The Magic of Terry Pratchett has brief commentary on how it did not sell so well, Reactor Magazine has a sentence of commentary on the fictional location of Death's Domain. So with The Canberra Times that may just be enough to write a non-stubby article, fullfilling WP:WHYN . It might also be little enough to merge, and the obvious target would be Discworld#"Mapps" , for the time being. For something as weighty as the Discworld series this individual commentary might be a bit much, though. A good solution could be to spin that section out into an article covering all the Discworld Mapps ( Discworld and the Disciplines also has more to say on the other Mapps , and I am sure there is more commentary out there), but such an article does not yet exist. Daranios ( talk ) 15:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Daranios. Sources exist that can verify that the books also exist but still no SIGCOV. There are multiple Discworld map articles that could be merged together into a single article but Discworld#"Mapps" is a preferred choice. Jontesta ( talk ) 21:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per the above. I don't see that a merger has been attempted and contested, and suggest that would likely not have been contested. This may be a candidate for a SNOW merge if others agree. Jclemens ( talk ) 23:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jclemens The reason I send things to AfD instead of PROD or merging them myself is the hope that people will find sources. Sure it probably wouldn't have been contested but I find you get a more fair result with AfD. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 00:32, 15 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 |
June 2024 United States presidential debate: The argument is about whether or not this is a duplicate of the content on that page, especially the section about the CNN debate last night; or, in other words, could a separate article be sustained on the debate? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To add, I hold that there is enough background information that should be considered. The specifics of this debate—sidestepping the Commission on Presidential Debates, Kennedy's Federal Election Commission complaint, Biden's performance and calls to withdraw that will not be entertained, critical reception such as "This Debate, We Could Hear Biden Speak. There His Troubles Began." , and a misguided Twenty-Fifth Amendment invocation proposal —suggest a debate that is unique and would not be sufficiently covered in an article about the debates in general, including the CPD's canceled debates and the forthcoming debate on ABC News on September 10. This situation occurred twelve years ago with Obama, some may add, but the consequences of this debate are much grander. To that end, there is paranoia surrounding this topic and many an unwarranted fear that should not be conflated with legitimate fallout. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America . Shellwood ( talk ) 20:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy merge 2020 United States presidential debates was perfectly able to cover all of that year's debates in one article, and 2024 United States presidential debates can do the same. All of this coverage can and should go in the main article, where 2024 United States presidential debates#June 27 presidential debate (Atlanta) covers it quite well already. This page has far too much duplication of the main article. I must YET AGAIN ask Elijahpepe not to create articles on current events when there is an existing article that covers it perfectly well already and to propose a WP:SPLIT on the talk page to get some input first. Yes, there was a lot of next-day media coverage, as will every debate, but that even if you could write a ridiculous amount of detail about everything that was said and every response, that still does not mean there should be a separate article with such a level detail and duplication. There will be more debates this year, which will also receive a flurry of media coverage, but they just don't need standalone pages. I vehemently disagree with the idea that that this debate's specifics cannot be covered in the main article. If you do want individual pages, then the main 2024 debates page should be deleted and 2024_United_States_presidential_election#2024_presidential_debates be the parent. Reywas92 Talk 20:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Television , Events , and Georgia (U.S. state) . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy merge to 2024 United States presidential debates ; I correctly merged and redirected this article before when elijahpepe created it the first time due to a lack of reasoning on his side why this split is necessary, as we are nowhere close to having size concerns on the main article. As it was before and is now, two reports of roughly the same length are being collaborated on and with different information, which is not great. We should adhere to guidelines on splitting and breaking or very highly reported news such that we should initially develop it in a section (and as Reywas92 said, was done for every other presidential debate article and never split) and after a few days should then discuss on the talk page to gain consensus on if a split is necessary, which I don't foresee it to be. Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk ) 02:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/Redirect/Speedy merge to 2024 United States presidential debates . We don't need a standalone article for this debate; everything in this article can be easily be covered in the 2024 United States presidential debates#June 27 presidential debate (Atlanta) section. Some1 ( talk ) 02:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Noting here that the June 2024 United States presidential debate is being covered in-depth at 2024 United States presidential debates#June 27 presidential debate (Atlanta) . The article that's up for deletion right now is a redundant content fork that is not as comprehensive as the parent article. Some1 ( talk ) 01:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to 2024 United States presidential debates . There is no precedent for splitting up general election debates into separate articles. I looked at the United States presidential debates template (apologies, I'm not sure how to add a link here without linking the actual template) and every single debate year just has one article; there are no separate articles for each debate held (aside from this one). David O. Johnson ( talk ) 05:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy merge There is no precedent for debates to have their own pages. No size concerns exist on the main page. Some existing content can be easily moved over to the main page. BootsED ( talk ) 05:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment — The comments stating there is no precedent have not addressed any substance about this article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] They don't have to address the substance. Whatever substance the article has can go on the main page just fine. Even if there are GNG sources, per WP:NOPAGE we can still consolidate them in a larger contextual article. You need to propose a properly-performed split when warranted, not just create a duplicative/overlapping page. Reywas92 Talk 23:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and delete this . This should never have been created. The clear message from the previous AfD should have been accepted and respected. -- Valjean ( talk ) ( PING me ) 05:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . While the suggestion to merge to 2024 United States presidential debates is reasonable, this particular debate really stands out and has a very significant coverage; I think it certainly passes WP:GNG. It is quite possible (and I hope) that Joe Biden will withdraw from the elections after such debates in favor of a younger colleague. Otherwise, he will lose these elections, and the consequences for the world will be enormous. My very best wishes ( talk ) 21:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To correct the record, there is no indication Biden will not withdraw. This occurred twelve years ago when Biden was vice president. There is no replacement for Biden, and his withdrawal would alter the chances of Democrats winning from where they are now to zero. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, there is no such indications at the moment. Speaking on the rest, many politicians and experts say the opposite [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] , which creates the controversy and makes this page worthy of the existence. My very best wishes ( talk ) 23:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, whether or not this page passes the GNG does not necessarily determine if it should stay or not; this page was mostly split from the 2024 United States presidential debates article without good reason; there were and are no size concerns for the main article so there was no need for a split, even if the new article happens to be notable enough to stand alone; both articles on this topic (the section of the 2024 debates article and this article) are roughly the same length, and as most collaboration is happening now on the main article, we shouldn't have two different reports on this debate be developing. To centralize work on this and to adhere to WP:NOPAGE , we should have it all be in this one section for now and then see, if size concerns arise, if it should be its own article through a proper discussion. Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk ) 23:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The guidance at WP:SIZERULE is not an end all for pages. For example, Criminal law in the Taney Court is 2,452 words, yet I doubt you would be able to raise an AfD against it. The concerns about converging articles are legitimate, but not a reason to delete; this was the subject of a lengthy discussion on The New York Times , where the Online platforms section was split into Online platforms of The New York Times at 2,514 words even as I said that the content there needed to be expanded more before a split. The solution seems to be to condense information about the debate in the article with the larger scope and expand this one. At 1,422 words, this article is not there yet, but as I said above, a significant amount of coverage has been ignored to create an article skeleton that works to gather information. Debates have garnered coverage before, but this is an unprecedented circumstance where there is now a consequence of a debate: discussions of Biden's withdrawal that do not appear to be in jest. I do not see how that does not warrant an article in some form. The article about the 2024 presidential debates has its scope; it is not an article about this event, which including the volume of information that is out there about this debate would create. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't say the sizerule is the solution every single time, but with this case it certainly is. You don't get to own the article and create a separate one all by yourself just because you think there should be one, we should have actual consensus on the talk page first and a good reason to do so (usually size concerns but not always), which we don't have. We also have never made a separate article for any other presidential debate, so you have to give a good reason why this one should break precedent and be so more special than any other debate. I'm aware of the past ownership problems and premature separate article creations in the past you've had, and I think for now it would be best for you and all of us if you just let this topic develop in the section like it has been doing. We can see later on if you get to claim creation of a separate article; please read WP:NOPAGE and WP:DELAY . I'm not saying every short article that is somewhat related to a more broad article should be merged there, of course not, but rather that splits should not be made without good reason and size concerns just "because I think there should be a separate article". Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk ) 00:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I provided reasoning above. The calls to withdraw themselves already make this a unique debate, but we don't have an article on Obama's first debate in 2012. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So because there are some "calls to withdrawal" (which are already covered in the main article ), you believe that warrants a separate article for the debate? Some1 ( talk ) 00:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As currently written, this is just a content fork. But perhaps it should be only briefly summarized on page 2024 United States presidential debates , and this page be kept as a valid sub-page. Note that the issue has become the matter of poling already, showing that possible replacements would do only 1% worse than Biden, but they may have a higher potential among undecided voters [13] . Some discuss if Joe Biden has a serious mental/health problem [14] , [15] . My very best wishes ( talk ) 21:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Whether Biden will withdraw or not is WP:CRYSTAL , but the calls to withdrawal themselves, and more generally the impact of the debate, makes it more than pass WP:GNG on its own. While precedent is good, it isn't necessarily an argument if there wasn't a higher level of consensus, and individual debates might not all have the same level of coverage and notability. Furthermore, even if the page isn't yet large enough for WP:SIZERULE to be an issue, it might make it harder to have an in-depth coverage of all debates at once. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs ) 00:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy merge to 2020 United States presidential debates per above arguments/comments, particularly those of Reywas92, Flemmish Nietzsche, and David O. Johnson. A. Randomdude0000 ( talk ) 01:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The reaction to the first debate is notable and clearly more notable than other debates. Several editorial boards have called for President Biden to end his campaign as a result of the debate, which certainly passes WP:GNG . Existing coverage on 2024 United States presidential debates is long enough for its own article. Esolo5002 ( talk ) 03:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or redirect to 2024 United States presidential debates , depending on whether there's anything of value that isn't duplicated. This is not a discussion about whether the subject is notable or passes GNG, it's about whether it should exist independently of the target article. There's hardly any useful information in this article that isn't in the target. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 04:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep at this point its section in 2024 United States presidential debates is getting very long, and this debate is exceptionally newsworthy compared to other presidential debates, so precedent arguments don't apply. — Ashley Y 09:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The answer to that is to delete the WP:RECENTISM . Not to create a content fork. – Muboshgu ( talk ) 23:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, the content fork should be fixed. But it can be fixed by moving some content from page 2024 United States presidential debates to this page, and by leaving only a brief summary on page 2024 United States presidential debates. That would be optimal for readability. That's why we have sub-pages. This is the argument. My very best wishes ( talk ) 16:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Exactly this. Leaving aside the present content, this page should exist, given the salience of the event. — Ashley Y 21:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, sure. This is now a HUGE story, basically a crisis [16] , with enormous political consequences. My very best wishes ( talk ) 15:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, it's a "HUGE" story, but that doesn't change the fact that we don't need a separate article. There still are not any size concerns or any good reason for a content fork, which may change if Biden does indeed cancel his reelection bid, but for now there is not as it is still just calls for him to step down and reactions to the debate, which do not warrant a separate article even if you think it is a "crisis". Even if there should be a separate article at some point due to the notability of this debate, this article creation and content fork was premature and has unsuccessfully tried to put the majority of content on the debate in this article, while currently most is in the main article, which most people seem to be fine with. Simply closing this debate as keep would actually be worse if it was clear it should be its own article, as the AfD result being a keep doesn't automatically mean we have consensus to move all the content over to this page and summarize it in the main article, and having the share of content between the two pages in limbo as it is now would probably be the worst outcome. if you really think we should have a separate article, we should discuss it on the talk page of the 2024 debates article after this debate is closed and all content here is merged to the main article, which is what should have been done originally. Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk ) 15:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It does not matter if he withdraws from the race or not. This is simply a highly notable political event that goes far beyond just a presidential debate ! It therefore deserves a separate page. My very best wishes ( talk ) 16:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Once again, I agree this is a content fork right now. I just think a split would be reasonable in this case to eliminate the content fork. My very best wishes ( talk ) 17:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unnecessary content fork created due to WP:RECENTISM . This debate will fade from memory in 10 days, let alone ten years . – Muboshgu ( talk ) 23:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above votes. This really should have been put on the talk page first, otherwise I would be more neutral. WP:BOLD has it's limits and consensus should be respected with past AfD decisions. Swordman97 talk to me 03:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge ; the 2020 United States presidential debates page manages to successfully cover all three debates that occurred that year. I don’t see any reason why as to why this can’t be done for the 2024 debates. -- WellThisIs TheReaper Grim 09:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and merge into main debate article. If Something Happens (like Biden dropping out) it might be worth spinning this off into its own article. Right now it's just unnecessary, and it seems like we're getting into some recentism with an additional article. Carlp941 ( talk ) 17:29, 4 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 |
Giant Squid (company): After a BEFORE, I am still not seeing the notability here, with the most major article about Matt Nava specifically rather than the company itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect to Abzû , their most successful game. As it is, the sources don't meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the company. HighKing ++ 15:30, 26 June 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! 21:09, 27 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 |
Robert Haimer: Known almost exclusively for a single song, so WP:BIO1E perhaps applies. Otherwise fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , United States of America , and California . UtherSRG (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Barnes & Barnes - I see no harm in moving the content to the band article under a new section or paragraph, but agree that the individual's notability isn't sufficient to warrant a standalone article. Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 11:12, 14 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! 16:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect There is a couple of obits but they look more like profiles. The duo is notable, so a simple redirect. Fails WP:SIGCOV , WP:BIO . scope_creep Talk 08:08, 18 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 |
NBC Sports on CNBC: Let'srun ( talk ) 22:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America . Let'srun ( talk ) 22:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This simply isn't any kind of specific brand; CNBC is used by NBC solely to burn off low-tier sports rights post- NBCSN and avoid the Weekend Infomercial Festival that is the channel's common weekend programming strategy, and other rights are just mere network overflows. Nate • ( chatter ) 23:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: As the creator of this article I agree that it’s probably best to be merged into CNBC#Sports . I think there is room for an article here but it would have to re-written from its current form. Esolo5002 ( talk ) 23:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge any useful content to CNBC#Programming , which does currently list a (very) small amount of former CNBC sports rights, but not entirely opposed to outright deletion in its current form. There definitely should be some mention somewhere that there are sports telecasts on CNBC (if not necessarily as quasi-detailed as they are here), but a separate article using a nonexistent "brand" is not the way to go. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think this article is likely mistitled. It should probably be something like List of sporting events broadcast on CNBC . I'm not sure if this meets NLIST, so I think a merge to CNBC § Programming or a new § Sports subsection thereof is probably best for now. — siro χ o 00:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into CNBC's article as part of its programming section with content possibly alao included within the main NBC Sports article. Rillington ( talk ) 09:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to CNBC#Programming per WCQuidditch, Siroxo, and Rillington. Sal2100 ( talk ) 21:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to CNBC#Programming per above. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 14:54, 23 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 |
Li Long: I know it is GA, but that is irrelevant. All the sources are primary or trivial. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 22:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Video games , and Japan . QuicoleJR ( talk ) 22:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Soulcalibur characters#Li Long . Another 2009 Good Article with very little in the way of scrutiny at the time. It fails WP:GNG in the modern day with only trivial mentions of the character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It's smaller but it does have published sources examining the impact of the character in terms of representation. Also an aside voicing my frustration with the nominator going about things this way. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 22:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What frustration? Notability discussions are done at AfD, that is what AfD is for. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 22:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Between the multiple AfDs in one day, in particular the nomination, withdrawal and re-nomination of one, and the tone of the nomination itself yes I feel it's suitable for the record to voice frustration. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 23:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I share your concern. I haven't dug around enough to give an ! vote yet, but these nominations are lazy and insufficient for articles of these size/detail/sourcing. And rather than rectify it, the nominator is doubling down and doing more of them. Sergecross73 msg me 23:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm in complete agreement with Kung Fu Man and Sergecross73 . Just because you find an article you don't think is notable, doesn't mean you need to nominate it to AFD right away. There's no deadline here. It was bad enough already when the AFDs were flooded with Mortal Kombat characters. MoonJet ( talk ) 04:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I looked through the reflist. The appearance of Namco Bandai as the source for more than half of the references was certainly concerning. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 23:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then you've demonstrated you don't understand notability. Jclemens ( talk ) 02:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep refs 5, 20, 28, and 35 appear RS. Jclemens ( talk ) 02:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source analysis Source Reliable? Significant coverage? Counts towards GNG? Ref 5 Yes No (Mostly plot summary and game guide to his attacks. Has a couple sentences about his effectiveness as a character.) No (no SIGCOV) Ref 20 (Soul Edge Official Guide) Yes Maybe No (Official guide; not secondary) Ref 28 Yes No (single namedrop) No (no SIGCOV) Ref 35 Yes Maybe (Most is a visual description - the paragraph merely states he is a Chinese stereotype) Maybe (Leaning no since the reference discusses the Asian characters in the game as a whole.) As can be seen, when the sources are checked in more depth, most if not all don't show evidence towards proving notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 04:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per analysis of sources above. I cannot access ref 35 except snippet view and in the text it is sadly used for a single sentnece only, but it certainly looks like academic analysis and it should be properly merged (not just redirected and forgotten about). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Piotrus : Try searching "Li Long" and "Transnational" in Google Books and it may give a full page view. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 04:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There’s a search feature as well in the link provided above. The character’s full name yielded four results, including page numbers. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 03:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per Kung Fu Man and Jclemens . Ref 5, which has a full page on him, has several important details. Then we have ref 35 discussing him in-depth as well. MoonJet ( talk ) 04:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd struggle to call Ref 35 indepth. It has a paragraph only, with maybe a sentence of actual commentary. The sole "commentary" is that he represents an ethnic stereotype. This is a relatively common thing with fighting game characters and in fact the book gives several examples of the same thing, in the same chapter. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Sources seem fine, reception isn't shitty. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 09:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Merge It seems the article looks fine, though I think it should be worked on and get the same treatment as Necrid . The article barely passes, I think. Update:Author has chimed in, hence, changing my vote. GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 01:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge While this ongoing spate of fighting game nominations is indeed starting to get out of hand, after thinking this over I'm leaning toward the sentiment that the overall sourcing is weak in the article. Maximum is the only source that goes into any serious depth about the character and the Google Books citation is notable, but that's it. GameDaily and the Retronauts podcast are permanent dead links. VideoGames is literally a quick mention, as is 1UP.com; is a comment tacked on at the end about Long kicking Maxi's ass really viable reception? Attempts to find any other kind of sourcing have come up empty. That being said, if the article is kept, it won't be the end of the world but it definitely needs its GA status reassessed. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 07:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge After careful thought, and the fact two of the sources are now permanently dead I'm changing my stance to merging, though still protesting the idea of using AfD to force this. Standards have changed and what's said in the article can fit inside a character list just fine. I think most here wouldn't be opposed to trying to revive it later if enough reception resurfaces at a later date. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 23:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I mean, does coverage being cited dead links really invalidate it to the point of merging? In fact, it's advised not to remove dead links. It's also possible that dead links can be brought back . In fact, there's tons of sources innaccessible to most people, but this has never had any bearing on notability. Also, Li Long seems to be discussed in this document , though I can't access the whole thing. I wonder if anyone else has access? MoonJet ( talk ) 02:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The issue is that someone, for example, could claim that Li Long became the President of the United States and claim a dead link as evidence, knowing there’s no way to verify it. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 03:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've cited what I could from that paper Moon, it goes into details on quite a bit of the cast and gives adequate thoughts. The thing is it's also just a standalone among the others, and I actively struggled to find any more. If he appears in a later game we might get more reception we can use, but for the time being I'm fine with a merge simply because I know if that happens it can be brought back. Right now it's just obviously crickets.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 05:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It can be brought back, sure, but the problem is, some editors feel that once an article is merged per an AFD result, that's it. I know you yourself have talked about this issue. This is one reason I tend to be against AFD for merge discussions. MoonJet ( talk ) 03:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, quite honestly I feel a task force would be much better for these. Like I can get it if an article gets hard resistance and there's absolutely nothing, but now we're in a situation where even I'm saying "let's merge this" and we're stuck with this whole fiasco. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 03:33, 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 |
Lucky Chloe: Except for the Eurogamer piece, the half of that number that composes the reception section contains nothing of any substance. No notable results found in a new search, just a bunch of tier rankings and listicle content from nonviable VG sources. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 20:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Lucky Chloe has at least three sources discussing her in a non-trivial way, all of which are already cited in the article. The Eurogamer pieces, as you mention, plus the Den of Geek and IGN pieces also noting the divisiveness of the character. And there's also this from ToonZone (now known as AnimeSuperhero ), but was removed on the claims of unreliability. It has been discussed before, but discussion appear to be inconclusive. I think another discussion of that site is in order. Upon some Google searching, I also found this piece from Kotaku , which wasn't cited in the article, for some reason. Overall, she fulfills the main purpose for notability , more so than the average Tekken character. MoonJet ( talk ) 22:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ToonZone (AnimeSuperHero) is a fan-run unreliable source. Trivial soundbites like "God I hate her already" and "Seems a little lazy" were taken from an unreliable source — a forum — to make a mountain out of a molehill; we're not exactly talking Jax's MK11 ending here. Den of Geek is promoting a trailer and using YouTube comments to stir up "controversy" where there isn't any. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 03:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I or we know that Lucky Chloe have been discussed at bunch of reliable sources per WP:BEFORE and some of it were mentioned above, but most were just only one time event and people moved on. There are no discussion about her since her reveal sadly. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 02:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:NOTTEMPORARY . The fact she's had little coverage after the initial hoopla has no bearing on her notability. MoonJet ( talk ) 08:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] *:: Weak Keep Changed my vote, due to additional sources that KFM provided below. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 13:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] CommentKeep Digitally Downloaded.net has two articles that offer some discussion, and while it's not much on its own, it does offer some thoughts when combined as they're by the same author. Polygon mentioned the same thing Kotaku did, but brought it up again to segue into a discussion about sexist design in the franchise and Harada's approach to criticism. Now you're probably wondering why I'm not voting Keep or even Weak Keep then. Well...the problem is that after this things run out of steam, and whats in the above isn't much either. There are some bits here and there (I particularly like this bit from Maddy Myers for The Mary Sue), but boiled down it's hard to feel there'd be a proper reception section to explain why she's important/notable enough for an article, especially when some of this overlaps. There's a start, but I feel without more it's not enough to reach the finish line. Based on the opinions of the other editors after I posted this, I feel more comfortable with a keep vote. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 07:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The first DD article is a brief mention of the fan reaction, while the second is a generic listicle offering no original insight about the character. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 08:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not think this is true; the first source, while it covers the fan reaction, is also the author's reaction, and commentary about said reaction. The second, while indeed in a list format, I would disagree, as it comments on her design being a better fit for Dead or Alive. Not the most mindblowing stuff, but it's not nothing. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 00:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per the sources provided by Moonjet and Kung Fu Man. Her divisive design elicited a lot of commentary from third parties. There's enough content to warrant not merging. Sergecross73 msg me 13:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I tried to come in with an open mind and read all the sources. But even in the most lenient interpretation of notable, a few people complaining on NeoGAF does not indicate anything. A single now-defunct message board does not represent the feelings of fans at large, putting the idea that there is a "controversy" in doubt. Harada's views on critics belong in Harada's article or that of Tekken, perhaps in a "controversy" or "criticism" section. I typically look for indepth character analysis, either of their gameplay or story relevance, rather than a flash-in-the-pan burst of backlash from a vocal minority. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . The coverage in the article appears to be trivial at best. There's barely anything in terms of controversy or reception on her design beyond one or two articles, and overall appears to be a rather minor character. That being said, there is some good stuff in here worth keeping, so a merge is warranted, in this case. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 17:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I feel as though it's on the weaker end; however, it has enough meat for me to say keep . The negative reaction was strong enough to get an official response that was covered, which is not the most common. I'd like to see more commentary that's divorced from the controversy, but I feel this has shown sustained notability at the end of the day. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 00:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge To clarify, looking at the article I thought there was more "meat" to it reception wise. However, after cleaning it up, it's definitely less than bare bones. While I'm all for a lower end of notability and discovering what that is, even with the sources I mentioned above you'd only get two more sentences, and with what's there it's just not enough. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 05:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I added a couple more sources that were brought up in here, and found one from Christian Today and Game Rant (before being purchased by Valnet, no less). I think there's more than enough here, especially when you consider that most Tekken characters don't get this kind of attention. MoonJet ( talk ) 07:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Moonjet, a lot of these are just saying the same thing and are primarily reactions to the initial event. The Kotaku ref isn't even being cited for that author's reception but the people online? And there is no way Christian Today is a reliable source from their About Us page alone...-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 08:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I could have sworn I've seen Christian Today somewhere in a reliable source list. Maybe I was thinking of a different Christian site. The Kotaku source also gives reactions to what people say online, and goes beyond just simple recitings, so it's usable. MoonJet ( talk ) 14:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge My original vote shall stay per above. The article is already in weak state after it was cleaned up by another editor. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 07:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge The game is notable, Rjj iii ( talk ) 03:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What? This AFD is not about a game, but a character. And if you think they are notable, then why a merge? MoonJet ( talk ) 13:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Rjjiii - Are there some typos in your comment or something? The subject isn't a game, and even if it was, that rationale doesn't make any sense for a merge stance. I assume you meant to say something else? Sergecross73 msg me 21:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The game Tekken 7 is notable, and the Tekken video game franchise is notable. The character Lucky Chloe is not notable. The reliable sources being used in the article are primarily about Tekken 7 and Tekken . The content in the Lucky Chloe article is cited and should be preserved by merging it into articles where it can be presented in context. [26] [27] @ MoonJet , Sergecross73 , and Beemer69 : hopefully that is more clear. Regards, Rjj iii ( talk ) 03:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Kotaku source is more about Lucky Chloe than Tekken. So is the Eurogamer source. So is the Game Rant source I posted above. Even most of the remaining sources still give a notable focus on the character. Remember that GNG doesn't require the subject (in this case, Lucky Chloe) to be the main focus of the article, necessarily. MoonJet ( talk ) 04:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Only Kotaku and EG actually go into depth about this issue. Game Rant digs up the same weak message board quotes ("One user described it as 'a little lazy', while another asked 'what is that abomination'.") That's not controversial as gamers are notoriously impossible to please, but Harada knew that any publicity helps and he ran with it. But in the end, it hasn't made her an A-lister in the Tekken franchise. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 06:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Even just those two sources are arguably enough, at least with the other sources supplemented. The other sources listed, while maybe not as good as those two, I wouldn't call them "trivial mentions" either. MoonJet ( talk ) 08:26, 7 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 |
Ecuadorian security crisis: The current version of the article is heavily based in the Spanish version , which at the same time is a compilation of prison riots and gang conflicts. Said term is barely used in the sources, not to mention experts or academics, which in turn suggests that it is also simply WP:TOOSOON to use this name. NoonIcarus ( talk ) 15:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Politics , and Ecuador . NoonIcarus ( talk ) 15:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Any relevant information can be covered in related articles, such as Crime in Ecuador . -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 15:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . • Gene93k ( talk ) 16:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment What terms are used to refer to this by academics, news sources and other reliable sources? Can you please provide direct links/URLs as well? If this has been going on since 2018, then perhaps the article just needs to be improved? I'm not familiar with the South American region, so I can't comment on the topic's notability. However, from the article, it seems ok. It would also be helpful if anything in Spanish here such as words to refer to the article's title is translated into English for editors who don't speak Spanish. Fork99 ( talk ) 11:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Fork99 : Academics and news outlets don't really use the term of "security crisis", which is part of my rationale for the nomination. References here and articles elsewhere refer to the events as prison riots and gang conflicts, which fall under the scope of Crime in Ecuador or another potential article, such as Prision riots in Ecuador . -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 13:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose Ecuadorian security situation and Ecuadorian security crisis are some of the most searched terms in Internet searches regarding Ecuador, and this is a perfectly valid article. I would suggest adding the years to the title (2018-2023). Abcmaxx ( talk ) 14:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe you need to be more specific. In my case, Google turns over 888,000 results for "Ecuadorian security crisis", contrasted with 3,870,000 for "Gang violence in Ecuador", 4,430,000 for "Prison riots in Ecuador" and 53,700,000 for "Crime in Ecuador". Please also be mindful of the content at WP:GOOGLETEST , as the main issue I'm commenting on is WP:SYNTH . -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 13:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose the situation in Ecuador is currently one of the worst security crises in the world. The prison riots have been increasing and several events are intertwined with the crisis, not to mention the high rise in crime and violence within the country. Mainly this is a clear spillover of situations in Colombia and Peru with their conflicts and narcoterrorism problems that have spilled into Ecuador. Joaquinazo ( talk ) 19:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You have to check that assertion. Just in the region, in 2022 , Ecuador's homicide rate was surpassed by Jamaica, Venezuela, Trinidad and Tobago, Honduras and Colombia (sometimes twice), and that's without including gang violence in countries such as Mexico and El Salvador or war zones. Regardless, the issue remains that the article includes personal interpretation and original research: the article doesn't demonstrate that all of these riots are directly linked to Jorge Luis Zambrano's death (whose date was arbitrarily chosen as the start of the crisis), or prove the relation with the Colombian or Peruvian conflicts. More importantly, there's a lack of consensus to call the situation a "security crisis". -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 13:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The spanish article proves it, as well as several other sources within this article. Drug dealers have been bypassing several countries and laws by going into Ecuador from Colombia, plus the increase in gang violence is unprecedented unlike Honduras, which has a high history of gang violence, Venezuela ( which is almost a failed state ), Colombia ( suffers from internal conflict ), Jamaica ( who suffers from a longstanding feud ). Mexico and Peru ( overlapping conflict ) both have suffered deeply for years now and El Salvador is now one of the most peaceful countries after Bukele pacified the country . The Ecuadorian public is also in agreement that there is a security crisis caused by failed government polices within, and the crisis is seen in the media. There can't be denial for such a thing that not only has seen an escalating level of violence but has become a point of contention within elections and has seen several politicians murdered. Joaquinazo ( talk ) 22:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Other topics are more suitable in that case, such as Drug trafficking in Ecuador or Gang violence in Ecuador . -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 10:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So redirect you mean? Joaquinazo ( talk ) 14:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge, redirect, or move. The problem is that there currently is original research in the article that needs to be addressed. -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 22:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: If the nominator wished for a rename, it shouldn't have been brought to AFD and you could have pursued a Merger without a trip here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : If the discussion is relisted to move I support something like Gang Violence in Ecuador or 2021-present Gang Violence in Ecuador . Either seems pretty good to me, because either way there is no denying that such a rise in crime is causing a security crisis within. Joaquinazo ( talk ) 23:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Joaquinazo , before a page move can be considered, there has to be a consensus to Keep this article. That's what a closer is looking for when they bring this discussion to an end. L iz Read! Talk! 00:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:TNT and WP:SYNTH , while Gang violence in Ecuador would be a notable topic this article is literally just a timeline stringing together completely unrelated topics and declaring them part of a single topic in an inappropriate way. Deleting it and starting over would be easier than attempting to wrangle this content into a proper article. Devonian Wombat ( talk ) 00:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose If anything, the primary complaints filed against the article is its title and not really that of the article's actual contents. Given the ample amount of references used including some outright using the term "security crisis", the worst I'd go for is a article title change to something such as for example, Ecuadorian security crisis (2018-2023) . SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk ) 17:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge the prose to Crime in Ecuador . This is not an independently notable topic, but it is part of the subject of crime in Ecuador. Delete the timeline, which is where much of the synth issues come from. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 18:12, 12 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! 23:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Crime in Ecuador . This subject is not notable on its own. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk ) 12:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge properly sourced NPOV material to Crime in Ecuador . // Timothy :: talk 09:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge to Crime in Ecuador . Lightburst ( talk ) 00:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Probably could use more talk pages discussion I think, merging could make sense but Ecuadorian security crisis has far more content than Crime in Ecuador and it could make sense to split part out for a standalone article somehow. - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:53, 22 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 |
Kite (.hack): This article is also mostly build up with trivia articles/sources like passing mentions from games reviews. It has zero WP:SIGCOV . Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 11:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of . hack characters . Trivial mentions and trivial mentions, there needs to be more grist to justify a standalone page. Right now there isn't evidence that Kite is standalaone notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above. The problem, as often, is that this is a very well researched article that is built on zero sources meeting WP:SIGCOV . Dozens of mentions in passing are not sufficient for a topic to have stand-alone article on Wikipedia, unfortunately. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Zxcvbnm. WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs aren't enough to pass WP:SIGCOV , or support a stand alone article. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 00:49, 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 |
I-No: WP:BEFORE shows zero WP:SIGCOV . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 12:56, 29 May 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 ) 13:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Guilty Gear characters . Reception's entirely top-10 lists, there is a serious dearth of significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 22:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 09:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Is there really not enough on I-No? I know (no pun intended) Guilty Gear is a niche franchise and everything, but she's one of those characters known for their sex appeal, much like Ivy from Soulcalibur and Morrigan from Darkstalkers. Anyway, here is one source , but its from Bounding Into Comics, a site whose reliability is questionable at best . Though I can't access the whole thing, this book seems to talk about her too. Maybe they can be used if, by chance, someone finds enough coverage to keep the article, or revive it in the future? MoonJet ( talk ) 03:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, BIC is a hard no. They've got a pretty extreme POV that I feel affects their ability to provide verifiable content. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 03:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll second that hard no and add a hell no to Bounding. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 13:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Third that per my below-mentioned “boobs aren’t notable” comment and also because BiC is a reactionary garbage site promoting non-controversies as news. Dronebogus ( talk ) 02:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’ve always had some skepticism about boobs making a character notable. Drooling over a character’s MAJOR HAWTNESS is not “critical analysis”. Dronebogus ( talk ) 10:58, 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 |
LaserWash: Sources provided include the company's own web site and patent applications in the US and Ausraia. WP:BEFORE searches yields many promo sites, many with near identical copy "...has less moving parts..."(sic) but nothing independent and reliable that discusses the product. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 09:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology , Transportation , and United States of America . Velella Velella Talk 09:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Wisconsin . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:50, 12 November 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! 07:10, 19 November 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! 04:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep : Found a couple of secondary sources, not sure about reliability: [23] , [24] . The article as it currently exists is not very good, with primary and/or promotional sources only. Needs work. If the sources I provided are not reliable, then I would be fine with a delete. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge (highly selective) into Dover Corporation#Pumps and Process Solution . The brand and the company can be mentioned in one sentence at Dover. It is owned by subsidiary OPW. Please also copy usable refs. gidonb ( talk ) 11:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] User:Velella and User:WeirdNAnnoyed : can you both live with this solution? gidonb ( talk ) 16:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That works for me. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 17:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, that would address the current issue. Thanks. Velella Velella Talk 22:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you both!!! User:Liz , you relisted this twice. Can you close it? gidonb ( talk ) 22:38, 1 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 |
Lee Chaolan: Den of Geek ranked him the #1 Tekken character in 2017, but it's not enough to hang on to the article. Suggested merge to List of Tekken characters . sixty nine • whaddya want? • 18:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge There are no reliable sources that taks about him besides listicles and the den of geek per below. GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 21:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge He has WP:SIGCOV in Den of Geek , lest people think I am just skimming over potential sources. In fact, that article is great for a large amount of Tekken characters. I could not, however, find other instances of significant coverage in magazines or otherwise. People are welcome to put them here if they exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Tekken characters . I checked the sources, Den of Geek is good but not much else really helps. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 11:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Tekken characters per above. // Timothy :: talk 03:30, 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 |
First to Fight (novel): Should be redirected to the series, StarFist series , which appears to be notable. No reviews on PW/Kirkus, no relevant hits on newspapers.com. PW does review some of the later books in the series: [24] . asilvering ( talk ) 01:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also nominating the other early entries in the series: School of Fire ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Steel Gauntlet ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) TechnoKill ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Kingdom's Swords ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Kingdom's Fury ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature . asilvering ( talk ) 01:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all and redirect to main series. My search for reviews of the individual books came up absolutely empty. -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 05:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Ouro I hope you mean "redirect", rather than delete and redirect? I don't see any reason to wipe the edit history of these articles. -- asilvering ( talk ) 17:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ User:Asilvering Oh of course! My mistake, forgive me! -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 13:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to StarFist series , preserving the current content in the history for possible future use, and providing a very brief plot summary for the novels not yet present in at that target, as WP:ATD . Thanks to the nominator for providing the details on their WP:BEFORE search, which is very helpful for other participants and far too often missing in deletion discussions. Daranios ( talk ) 11:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The series is notable - the latter books, as the nominator said, are notable and have reviews in PW. The reason the other users cannot find reviews on the earlier books is because of their date of publication, the late 90s and early 2000s, which makes them difficult to find on the internet; this thus only penalizes their earlier date of publication. Nevertheless, they all have notability, and were big sellers: First to Fight can be found in a Top 10 Kindle sales list in 2009 [25] , and has 2k+ user reviews on Goodreads [26] . Excerpts from it can be found in grammar books such as Andrea DeCapua's Grammar for Teachers [27] Interzone reviewed School of Fire in 1998, praising the authors' experience [28] Derek Buker's 2002 Science Fiction Advisory recommends the StarFist series in the Space Operas category - by then the series had only ran up to Kingdom's Swords [29] . If I on a cursory search found these, those with access to sci-fi magazines of the era will surely find more. Cheers, Coeusin ( talk ) 12:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Coeusin I was excited you'd found an Interzone review, which I expected would be good coverage, but alas that's really, really minimal, smaller even than a typical PW review, which is the barest of bare minimums. We don't use "has sold a lot of copies" to define notability, nor do we allow notability to be inherited downwards (eg from a series to an individual book). It's very possible that earlier reviews have fallen into the black hole that is the internet/digitization policies of 1990-2005, but it's also quite possible that the series only picked up steam with reviewers later in its run. Either way, the time to find those hypothetical reviews is now. Otherwise, the better option is to merge/redirect. If in the future someone finds a pile of sources that no one found during this AfD, they can spin the articles back out. -- asilvering ( talk ) 17:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If the articles on the books were kept as articles and not redirects it would be easier to add information to them as we find it. There is information to be found, but, as with any subject in a historical field of study, this tends to be a gradual and slow process. This is harder to me because I don't live in the US, which is the main market of these books. Americans could, I'm almost certain, waltz into any mid-sized library, look into the sci-fi mags of the era and find a good amound of information. These books were published by Del Rey, which was one of the largest publishers for books of this kind, and not for nothing (the series' 17 volumes should also speak for something). But of course, as you said, these are all hypotheticals. Coeusin ( talk ) 17:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Coeusin , it is not more difficult to add information to an article on a series than it is to add information to an article on a book. Not to mention, no information has been found for most of these since their creation nearly two decades ago; if we also find no or minimal information during this AfD, it's unlikely anyone will ever come along and add it. Again, if that hypothetical does happen (no one finds notability-securing sources now, but someone does at some point in the future), there won't be any objection to de-redirecting the articles and expanding them. -- asilvering ( talk ) 17:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to series. Acknowledging the new sources mentioned above, I don't see the bar being met for these individual books. PW is a librarian trade publication, designed to review widely to educate librarians on what to buy, and inclusion wherein does not confer notability. Anything sourced to be said here can be amply put in summary style in the main article. I can sympathize with the fact that some periodicals are hard to find but that's why we have book review indexes. @ Mike Christie , would you happen to know if these received reviews in sci-fi periodicals of the era? I'm less familiar with sci-fi-specific indices. czar 17:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are no reviews listed here ; that doesn't mean there aren't any but if any of the main genre magazines had reviewed it that would probably show up. I can't check Locus till Monday or Tuesday but will have a look then, though I'm doubtful -- Locus lists all books received but generally reviews only the most prominent. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library ) 19:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to series. After posting the reply to Czar, above, I remembered that you can look at the individual issues of Locus in the ISFDB; see here for example. So the reviews for Locus have been indexed, and they would show up on the book pages if those had been reviewed. I checked each book in the series and none have any indexed reviews in the ISFDB. I agree with Czar's comments that one or two sentence reviews amount to no more than acknowledgement of receipt and don't confer notability. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library ) 19:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mike Christie , just to confirm, you checked all the books in the series, not just the ones up for this AfD bundle? The only books I bundled into this AfD are the ones with no outside sources, because I wanted to put up only the most obvious first. But the others don't have enough sources present in the articles for individual notability either, as I recall. -- asilvering ( talk ) 23:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I checked all of them. None had any indexed reviews. ISFDB only indexes genre review sources, but very few publications that are not genre sources are likely to have reviewed these. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library ) 09:29, 24 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 |
Relentless Studios: Could be replaced by a category, redirect to Amazon Games ? IgelRM ( talk ) 21:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games , Companies , and Washington . IgelRM ( talk ) 21:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's the only division under [[Amazon Games#:~:text=33][34]-,Divisions,-[edit]|Amazon Games]] given a distinctive name. It's also the division that released Amazon Games' first major original title and their first foray into Windows gaming, Crucible , which notably had matchmaking ended and all servers taken down only six months after release. Askaqp ( talk ) 02:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just labeling something doesn't give notability for an article. But maybe merging into Crucible (video game) would be better? IgelRM ( talk ) 18:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Amazon Games . Even if enough to meet GNG is found, this appears to be a NOPAGE situation where there's plenty of room to cover this in the main article. Jclemens ( talk ) 03:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Two different merge targets have been proposed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg ( talk ) 23:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : with Amazon Games , since it is one of the divisions. They released games before and after Crucible so it doesn’t seem right to be merged with that single game. Prof.PMarini ( talk ) 07:22, 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 |
2023 WESPA Championship (WESPAC): The rest of the article is just spun off from primary sources. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 21:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Games , and Nevada . Shellwood ( talk ) 22:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - In addition to Slate, coverage from Australian Broadcasting Corporation [15] , The Guardian (Nigeria) [16] , The Forward [17] . ~ A412 talk! 22:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah I saw those, they aren't SIGCOF about the tournament by any means, but the ABC and Forward pieces could certainly add to David Eldar's notability. With all due respect, I think we should be more discerning with what exactly constitutes notability and significant coverage... It was a different story with past events that actually were "World Scrabble Championship"s (TM) ( 2018 for instance), but this one is a far cry from those... KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 23:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hm, we're going to have to disagree on both points here. First, I don't think "officialness" / manufacturer-association of the event, versus those titled "World Scrabble Championship", should make any difference when assessing notability, otherwise we're just introducing editorial bias on what we subjectively find more important. Second, sure, I'll concede that the Forward piece is primarily about Eldar, not the event, but the first two sources discuss structure, standings, context, and specific plays of the event. That sounds like coverage of the event to me. ~ A412 talk! 23:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please do not misunderstand what I meant in the latter half of my statement. I did not mean to imply that being the "official" Worlds automatically makes it notable, but that the previous events that had, in my opinion, much more substantial coverage were incidentally "official" events (but it is easy to see why the BBC and NYT eould be more inclined to run stories about an actual WSC as oppposed to a "WESPAC".) To your second point, I insist that those sources are by no means adequate as far as this event is concerned — you can find similar pieces with such details about other random tournaments, so by your metric we ought to have articles about them too. But, really, SIGCOV is a higher standard than just that. If we had a few more articles like the Slate piece, then fine, but we don't. Cheers, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 10:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just tell me honestly if you feel the benchmark set out in WP:EVENTS is met: "An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time . Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." I think the answer should be fairly obvious... Nuff said, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 10:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I honestly do. There are sources across multiple continents (global scope); before, during, and after the tournament (lasting coverage). While yes, it may not be as notable as the "official" tournament, I think it cleanly passes WP:NEVENT . I don't think we disagree on policy here, we disagree on whether it's met, so I'm going to disengage here and let others comment. ~ A412 talk! 19:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough, guess we have to agree to disagree. I consider myself an "inclusionist" but I just don't see it here, sadly KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - Considering the WP:EVENTS benchmark that Kingoflettuce cited above, I would be inclined to merge this, and all of the other individual event pages, into two articles: the existing one for World Scrabble Championship and one covering all WESPAC events. I'd also like to apologize to Kingoflettuce for conflating the two. I'm new to following the Scrabble tournaments and was trying my best — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElatedCoder ( talk • contribs ) Hey, no worries — it's nothing personal. I'd like to think that we all edit in good faith and I can see the effort you put in (hence I opened this nom with "unfortunately"...). And you certainly don't owe me an apology! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Could the nominator move their Merge comment to be close to their nomination statement? Right now, it looks like a comment from an editor who is new to the discussion. Also, please be specific about what Merge target article you are proposing, the closer shouldn't have to guess what you mean. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Liz The "Merge" comment was not by me.. . I see even you got confused. It was an unsigned comment by the article's creator, and I was merely responding to it. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 14:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ ElatedCoder , question for you above czar 19:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. A merge target is greatly appreciated. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:36, 16 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 |
AS 2805: TarnishedPath talk 11:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia . TarnishedPath talk 11:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete My PROD was removed with no improvement. No indication this generic standard is notable – there's a lot of standards out there and would need sources and explanation beyond statement of existence. Reywas92 Talk 13:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Standards Australia - Follow-on to AS3959 . Even with good sourcing (which this does not have), the subject does not pass WP:GNG . It clearly fails WP:SIGCOV and nothing else points to notability. This is an individual standard that, as important as it may be in specific circumstances, is simply not that notable. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into ISO 8583 as much of the content in that article also applies to AS 2805. Icd ( talk ) 10:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 22:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Two different Merge targets proposed here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 15:53, 12 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! 23:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Slightly prefer the merge to ISO 8583 . ( Redirect ) Suriname0 ( talk ) 04:04, 20 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 |
The Canonical Installation of Dennis Villarojo: I see nothing here to suggest that this cermony is in any way notable, although I suppose there might be a case for merging to Dennis Villarojo is there is actually aything of any real importance in this article. Which I doubt. TheLongTone ( talk ) 14:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC) TheLongTone ( talk ) 14:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Christianity , and Philippines . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge while not ROUTINE coverage, this is clearly a NOPAGE situation, as the topic can be covered (and perhaps should be done so more briefly) at Dennis Villarojo . Note that since this appears verifiable content, I disagree with the nom's suggestion that there might be nothing worth merging. Jclemens ( talk ) 18:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Dennis Villarojo . I think this isn't enough for a standalone article and the target could still be expanded. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge selectively to Dennis Villarojo , not suitable for a standalone article imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] comment Just how much is there worth merging? TheLongTone ( talk ) 13:53, 24 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 |
Johnny Turbo: After Polygon Man was a surprise in terms of reception I figured I may be wrong and look through sources for Johnny Turbo. However: A Internet Archive search turned up nothing outside of a few small statements in two issues of Retro Gamer that are more in passing. A google books search also turned up nothing. The one source that mentions him properly is discussing the GameSpy article already cited. Google News, same boat . The one article that seems to be discussing them, Nintendo Life, instead links to a youtube video we can't cite as a source. Google Scholar to boot . Similar outcomes when trying to do web crawls through Kotaku, Polygon, Siliconera, Destructoid, GamesRadar, etc. There's no discussion about this character. The whole point of this extensive WP:BEFORE is to show that despite belief that due to its notoriety as a bad campaign, it's not notable as a subject on its own. Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 02:24, 22 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 ) 02:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to TurboDuo#Marketing . A minor character who was only used in a single ill-fated ad campaign and had a video game compilation or two named after him (but not actually about him). GNG is not passed in this instance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 03:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Fails WP:GNG . Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 12:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to TurboDuo#Marketing . I came to the same conclusion as those above after a review of the page. Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 17:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to TurboDuo's marketing section, per other commenters. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 22:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge because we HAVE to preserve this ludicrous information. Dronebogus ( talk ) 12:29, 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 |
Yorkshire & Humber Merit League: Fails WP:GNG as no significant coverage exists. J Mo 101 ( talk ) 20:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions . J Mo 101 ( talk ) 20:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The team and league pages linked to and from this article are also poorly sourced so contain no useful citations that could be added here. There is nothing much on web searches, some info might be found by exploring archived versions of the Rugby Conference League website, but this would not provide independent or significant coverage needed to pass GNG. EdwardUK ( talk ) 21:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge relevant information with Rugby League Conference then redirect . Mn1548 ( talk ) 15:24, 1 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 |
Immediately (law): bundled afd: Immediately adjacent Immediately upon arrival lettherebedarklight 晚安 06:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions . lettherebedarklight 晚安 06:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Merge to Glossary of law . More relevant to Wiktionary than here; blatant WP:NOTDICTIONARY violation. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 07:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : this entry documents a contested legal term of art , it does not provide a definition of the term. Definitions are what Wiktionary is for; this article has a fundamentally different basis. Jack4576 ( talk ) 11:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge the relevant content to Reasonable time and Glossary of law without prejudice or keep Immediately (law) . This legal concept satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. There is a very large amount of coverage in books: [23] [24] [25] . This concept is very often the same thing as reasonable time, and is typically the same thing in English law. The content of this article is about case law on statutory interpretation (and the similar interpretation of other legal instruments such as contracts) and is not a lexicographer's dictionary definition. In any event, an article on this legal concept is capable of being expanded far beyond a definition. The article is entirely referenced to encyclopedias and law reports from start to finish. Certain content in the section of the article headed "Compounds" might be merged to the glossary on grounds, in particular, that it appears that it may be glossary material, and include multiple glossary entries for separate terms. James500 ( talk ) 22:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] an article on this legal concept is capable of being expanded far beyond a definition and it hasn't been done since 2009. just delete the junk. start over, if so inclined. lettherebedarklight 晚安 00:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep per the reasons provided by James500 Jack4576 ( talk ) 11:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 05:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Reasonable time by WP:NOTDICT Chaotic Enby ( talk ) 07:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Glossary of law per above. NOTDICT applies. If there is a consensus for a different merge / redirect target, I have no objection; in this case I think a merge into the glossary with related terms wikilinked makes the most sense. // Timothy :: talk 05:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:25, 24 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 |
Ultimate Custom Night: I simply do not think this game is notable enough on its own, and is likely better off merged into the series' article. Negative MP1 01:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Utah . Negative MP1 01:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Five Nights at Freddy's#Ultimate Custom Night (2018) . Admittedly this is on the cusp of notability, with reviews in Kotaku (pre-AI), and Rock Paper Shotgun . But the PC Gamer one isn't significant coverage, and if they don't care enough to cover it, Wikipedia doesn't cover it either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as above. The Kotaku and Rock Paper Shotgun articles are valid commentary even if the latter is not clear on its views. The PC Gamer article is a press release type article. If one more reliable source of significant coverage can be found, happy to make this a keep . ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 20:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Five Nights at Freddy's#Ultimate Custom Night (2018) . Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 09:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge PC Gamer is just an announcement, the other two sources are pretty good. Five Nights at Freddy's#Ultimate Custom Night (2018) seems like a pretty good target. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:25, 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 |
Rielle Hunter: The claim to notability here rests in the extramarital affair, and that information can be merged into John Edwards , John Edwards extramarital affair , and John Edwards 2008 presidential campaign . The separate information about being the inspiration for a character in a book + their father being part of a scandal aren't relevant for notability purposes, nor is her film career (Hunter is not named in our cast lists for either Overboard or Ricochet even though this article calls them Hunter's most notable appearances). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , Politics , and Florida . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Hunter wrote a book that has been cited in scholarly articles. 1 . She is discussed, still, in news stories about political scandals 2 , 3 , 4 . She writes about equestrian sports 5 . Deleting this article was discussed on the talk page 14 years ago ... and it's still here. -- Jaireeodell ( talk ) 21:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jaireeodell : Which of those websites/news stories contributes to her notability under WP:NBIO / WP:NBASIC ? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hunter is notable in both a conventional sense (for better or worse her relationship changed the course of history and continues to factor in discussions of political issues) and by WP:GNG . The current article includes reliable sources focused on Hunter as the main topic. The "separate information" (the Poole character appears in five books by the way) may seem less relevant if the topic is John Edwards, but the topic is Hunter here. With hundreds of scholarly articles 1 referring to Hunter and with her abiding presence in discussions of political scandals, I think it would be a mistake to make her a mere section of the Edwards entries. -- Jaireeodell ( talk ) 13:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jaireeodell : Thanks for the reply, but it doesn't address my question. Which specific sources do you believe contribute towards her notability in the Wikipedia sense? I know that there are many sources out there that mention her, but so far I'm not seeing the sort of significant coverage that meets the GNG/NBASIC standard, let alone WP:BIO1E . However, if I have missed some coverage, please fill me in. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the author of a notable and bestselling autobiography. What Really Happened was reviewed in Kirkus and was widely discussed in the press. It easily passes WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG . If her life story is notable, then she must be notable. pburka ( talk ) 20:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Pburka : NBOOK is a notability guideline for books . It is completely separate from the notability of authors. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm saying that the subject and author of a notable biography must be notable. That's just common sense. pburka ( talk ) 01:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Pburka : Can you point me to the provision in WP:N or a sub-page that says that? I'm very open to being wrong, but I've never heard this before. Edit : I've realized that you're probably thinking of WP:AUTHOR , but that provision is a higher bar than one single notable autobiography (and I'm not sure it's notable, but I'm happy to accept that for the sake of argument). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The story of her life is notable. We could write an article about her autobiography, which will include most of the same information as this one, or we can just keep the existing biography. Keeping the existing article is simpler, so it's my preferred option. pburka ( talk ) 02:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge selectively to John Edwards extramarital affair . While memoir writers may sometimes have WP:BASIC notability support based on coverage of their life story, this memoir is titled What Really Happened: John Edwards, Our Daughter and Me , and seems best incorporated into an existing article based on the context and coverage (e.g. ABC News , 2012, NY Daily News 2012, Guardian Opinion 2012, Kirkus (2012) "An object lesson in misguided tell-all writing: A woman hounded by the media while raising an infant fathered by a cheating man manages to render herself unsympathetic"; Library Journal (2013) "unnecessarily cheesy, adolescent voicing that makes this unfortunate story best suited to Jerry Springer fans and Oprah whoopers"). She also published In Hindsight, What Really Happened: The Revised Edition: John Edwards, Our Daughter and Me ( Hollywood Reporter , 2013, which "apologizes for both her behavior and her decision to write about it"; Vanity Fair 2013 "It is a sequel of sorts to her utterly forgotten 2012 memoir"). I have also reviewed sources with WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:BLP policies in mind, and it does not seem possible to write a balanced standalone biography article at this time. Beccaynr ( talk ) 16:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into John Edwards extramarital affair - known for only that event. A search for her alleged professional film related career prior to Edwards, comes up lacking in substance. She would not warrant a stand-alone article without Edwards. Grundle2600 who created the article is under an indef ban for creating approximately 393 socks. (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Grundle2600). — Maile ( talk ) 13:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 393 socks? wow, that's quite the time and effort involved. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments are split between those advocating Keep vs. those preferring a Merge. Given the age of this scandal, I'm surprised there are not earlier AFDs for this article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I'd prefer a merge; outside of that "event", there isn't really anything for notability. Scandal perhaps, nothing for GNG. Non-notable as a producer, the book/author isn't meeting AUTHOR that I can see. And frankly, the article has more info about the affair than the rest of the individual's life, pointing to what's potentially notable in the story. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into John Edwards extramarital affair per the rationales of Beccaynr and Oaktree b. Not independently notable, but there's some noteworthy content here that's relevant to the aforementioned article. So let's merge, shall we? A. Randomdude0000 ( talk ) 23:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge anything useful, as per above. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips ( talk ) 00:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into John Edwards extramarital affair per Oaktree b. Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 13:08, 17 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 |
Elihu Adams: Probably best to just redirect to Adams political family#Members . Clarityfiend ( talk ) 06:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Massachusetts . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom. The cited sources don't amount to substantial coverage. Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 17:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom. Fails the GNG, and per WP:NOTMEMORIAL ; this is an unremarkable person. Ravenswing 19:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge he fails WP:GNG , just being related to famous people doesn't confer notability. Mztourist ( talk ) 03:21, 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 |
Viva Supermarket: Poor coverage , sources I found online are either sponsored or contain mere trivial mentions of this company. Fancy Refrigerator ( talk ) 00:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates . Fancy Refrigerator ( talk ) 00:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Non-notable company doesn't meet WP:GNG . A story as old as time. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 01:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As per the refused A7, a 77-outlet operation and the first retail discounter in the United Arab Emirates, national newspaper and other coverage now added to the article clearly passes WP:GNG . Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 06:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The parent company, Landmark Group , may be notable, but it doesn’t mean its subsidiaries are too. Moreover, the source you added from Gulf News [72] looks to be sponsored content. The third source, from TimeOut Dubai [73] , fails ORGCRIT as “store opening” type media coverages are generally trivial. Lastly, both Khaleej Times articles [74] [75] are interviews, which are not independent of the subject. Fancy Refrigerator ( talk ) 13:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, you are incorrect. There is no evidence the Gulf News story is sponsored content. TimeOut does not fail ORGCRIT, I'm not sure what part of that policy you are citing that 'store opening type media coverage is generally trivial'. Sources 3 and 4 are not interviews, but contain quotes - a normal practice for news reporting. There are still three WP:RS pieces here, passing WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 18:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A line on WP:Notability (organizations and companies#Examples of trivial coverage reads “of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops”. The TimeOut article isn’t exactly in-depth and only provides basic information about the opening of Viva stores in the UAE. Sources 3 and 4 do look to be Q&A interviews. Source 3 consists of various paraphrases and quotes from Landmark Group and Viva supermarket CEOs. Source 4, too, quotes various statistical information from the Landmark Group CEO. Fancy Refrigerator ( talk ) 12:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - the news coverage of the chain's inception and coverage of its expansion shows that there is coverage to meet WP:GNG and I disagree that this type of coverage constitutes routine coverage. -- Whpq ( talk ) 13:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ask yourself this: If not for Landmark Group, would Viva Supermarket have received the coverage it did? And would it be notable independently? Sources [76] [77] [78] focus more on Landmark Group than Viva Supermarket. Viva Supermarket fails ORGIN as its notability relies too heavily on Landmark Group. Fancy Refrigerator ( talk ) 12:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have re-read the sources replacing "Landmark" with "Petrified Gargoyles" and find that the articles are still about Viva. These reliable sources have taken note of the launch of Viva by Landmark Group. Your argument is basically that notability is being inherited from Landmark Group, but those articles have Viva as the primary topic and are not just incidental coverage in some overall coverage about Landmark Group. -- Whpq ( talk ) 14:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Landmark Group . Due to WP:PROMOTION . MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What promotion? Redirect would only make sense if the entire article needed WP:TNT . -- Whpq ( talk ) 11:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect seems like the best option. Trivial mentions outside of the parent company. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] With respect, even a cursory glance will confirm the sources are focused on Viva Supermarket and its growth in operations and not Landmark. As the largest discount retailer in the UAE, with several RS sources confirming this, there is notability here. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 07:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 00:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Landmark Group . I am not seeing the sources here as serving as a basis for keeping this as a freestanding article, but neither am I seeing the case for removing the information here from the encyclopedia altogether if it can be merged into another article. BD2412 T 03:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge the article is promotional and the news coverage is mostly announcements of store openings. Merging with the article on the corporate parent is the best editorial choice at this time to fix the promotional issues. No objection to un-merging if there are more detailed references (possibly in Arabic) found by others. Walt Yoder ( talk ) 23:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above. While the promotional angle can be addressed with editing, the sourcing in my opinion fall short of warranting a standalone article. There is verifiable content so I think merge is superior to redirect here. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:22, 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 |
Hajji Tower airstrike: It is one of the countless airstrikes of the 2023 Hamas-Israel war. There is no significant or sustained coverage of the airstrike, no lasting effect (with all due respect to the casualties), nothing that differentiates it from any of the other airstrikes, and it seems as if only this Wikipedia article is covering the airstrike under the title "Hajji Tower airstrike". Mooonswimmer 16:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 17:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Hello everyone, the article talks about the air strike on Hajji Tower, which led to the killing of 3 prominent journalists in the Gaza Strip, noting that the killing of 3 prominent journalists at once in itself meets the standards and is notable. Regarding the phrase (countless in war), please note that this is the first air strike during the war that targeted the first residential tower in the Gaza Strip. The article meets all the standards of noteworthiness in terms of the importance of the event and in terms of the results of the event. --— Osama Eid ( talk ) 18:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Merge to Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war . I'm not sure which standards Osama Eid is talking about, that killing 3 journalists guarantees notability - in the "should have its own Wikipedia article" sense. I agree with the nominator that it has no lasting effects (again, with all due respect to the casualties), I would argue that events like this are common during the war, thus it shouldn't have its own Wikipedia article but rather a section in 2023 Israel–Hamas war Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war - yeah, this article is perfect for containing such events. Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 18:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war . Left guide ( talk ) 20:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war . Not worth its own article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war per above, yet the correct amount of text and sourcing is already there. gidonb ( talk ) 00:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as discussed is ok, somewhat notable but just not enough coverage for a full article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Killing of journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war . Apart from the deaths of the journalists, this was not a notable event. Material will fit well into merge target, there is not enough material to support a stand alone article. // Timothy :: talk 07:03, 26 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 |
Aflacts: This page mostly consists of details of the campaign in press release fashion, and it does not seem to have received sustained coverage. The one or two usable citations could certainly find their way into the main Aflac article. Deprodded in 2009 with citation improvements that are insufficient to carry the article today. 🦆 Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 06:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Advertising , and United States of America . Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 06:29, 19 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! 06:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge relevant facts into the Aflac article, rest isn't notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:38, 26 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 |
Ovan: This article was mostly build up with trivia articles/sources like passing mentions from games reviews. It has zero WP:SIGCOV . Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 13:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. appears to be fancruft, more suited to a wikia site than here. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I made this back such guideline wasn't used but I'm surprised it needed an AFD. Same goes for Atoli. Not sure if Haseo has enough articles where he is the primary subject as months algo O tried cleaning up his reception. Same with Kite. Tintor2 ( talk ) 21:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above, just nothing really there for the article. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 16:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Impresive scraping of mentions in passing, but fails WP:SIGCOV . It would be a shame to loose this - I recommend SOFTDELETE and merger of reception to the List of . hack characters . -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge A merge discussion would've been fine in this instance, but the character doesn't seem notable, and WP:SIGCOV doesn't appear to exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 16:11, 23 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 |
Bane (Antonio Diego): If not deleted, I think this article can also be merged to the "Film" section of Bane in other media . WuTang94 ( talk ) 03:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . WuTang94 ( talk ) 03:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as an AfD outcome. GNG is presumably met by NYT and MSN coverage already in the article, and the nom fails to articulate BEFORE results or do a source analysis of these existing references. Having said that, a non-AfD merge discussion is entirely reasonable. Jclemens ( talk ) 03:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 03:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Bane in other media . The MSM article could count for GNG, but the NY Times looks to be just the film review. Agree that a merge is more appropriate than deletion. Rhino131 ( talk ) 12:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Bane in other media . There just isn't enough here to justify a separate article here. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 15:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep , meets GNG as detailed above (and hopefully below). As to character importance in Wikipedia's Batman collection, please note that Bane is the only villain to defeat Batman, and (Gasp! Holy hotcakes Batman!) that Bane killed Alfred! As for merge (another name for 'delete') also note List of Batman family enemies for a summary. My point of many Wikipedians running out of things to do may apply here, AfD should close down for most of the year, way too many daily nominations and way too many of them like this one. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 15:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We're not saying that Bane isn't notable, as he most certainly is. We're saying that this specific incarnation of Bane by himself is not. Whatever is covered here can easily be covered by Bane in other media . Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wait, above you said There just isn't enough here to justify a separate article here. which means he's non-notable. If he's notable, there's enough for an article--that's the definition of notable. So which is it? Jclemens ( talk ) 22:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I feel there is some confusion going on here - this is not an AFD for Bane (DC Comics) , this is an AFD for the specific version of Bane that only ever appeared in Batman & Robin (film) . Rorshacma ( talk ) 17:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Bane , the character, is notable. Bane , from Batman & Robin, is not individually notable from the original Bane character. Bane is a character who is notable, but this incarnation has only appeared in one film and doesn't appear to be individually notable enough to warrant a separate article from the original character. I hope that makes sense, because I understand the confusion with the phrasing here. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 21:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong delete . The NYT article is about the film, and it doesn't even cite the character. This iteration of Bane is not so notable to have a separate page. Redjedi23 ( talk ) 17:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Bane in other media . Not independently notable. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 23:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Bane in other media per others, though I'm not exactly convinced that article in itself is notable either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 23:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or delete as redundant to the main character article. Not separately notable in how it's treated by sources. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 04:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Merging to Bane in other media is just a fool's errand since there is currently a major tendency to delete "in other media" articles for characters, much like "move to draft space" it seems to be an option that is just a delayed deletion. ★Trekker ( talk ) 17:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How is this iteration of the character so notable to justify a separate page? Redjedi23 ( talk ) 11:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong merge Nothing in either searching this character or the article itself shows that this version of Bane is notable enough for his own article. Unnamed anon ( talk ) 23:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Bane in other media for now, though honestly, that page itself should be trimmed and merged back to the main Bane (DC Comics) . There are no sources that actually show that the particular version that made the singular appearance in Batman and Robin passes the WP:GNG . Of the two sources already in the article that are being cited above as demonstrating notability, the NYT source appears to simply be a review of the movie as a whole, and the MSN article is nothing but a reposting of a ScreenRant article that, itself, is just summarizing an article posted on the official DC Comics website. Searches do not turn up any additional significant coverage in reliable sources that would indicate any kind of notability for this specific version of the character. This version is already included in the target list, and there really is not anything here that would need to be merged over. Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Bane (DC Comics) . I have concerns that Bane in other media is not notable topic in itself and will follow suit eventually. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:16, 23 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 |
Matrix (Doctor Who): The article already cites no sources to begin with. Thus, the article doesn't seem to meet GNG or SIGCOV. Given some of the information may be worth retaining, the best alternative to straight deletion would be to merge it with the List of Doctor Who Items article, where the Matrix is already listed, though it lacks relevant information there. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 19:43, 29 July 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 . Pokelego999 ( talk ) 19:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Doctor Who items , although I am worried about the current state of that page. There are little to no SIGCOV, and the article is unsourced. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 20:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I too am concerned with the state of the page, but it's really the best option for right now, I feel. If that article proves problematic, the other potential solution I can see might be a merger with Gallifrey , but I'm not too sure on that front. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 20:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Doctor Who items per QuicoleJR. I agree the merge target is in a questionable state. But this can only improve it, with room for further discussion later. There isn't enough WP:SIGCOV about the Matrix and it fails the WP:GNG . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 01:05, 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 |
List of American Horror Story: Freak Show characters: As a list of characters from a particular series of a TV show, it's an unnecessary split of American Horror Story: Freak Show . It has no actual encyclopedic information to speak of, e.g., creation and inspiration, development, reception, legacy, etc. It just rehashes the plot of the series from the characters' point of view. Unnecessary, suitable for Fandom or a dedicated fansite. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for multiple reasons: A) "it's unnecessary" is not a good argument for article deletion, per WP:WEDONTNEEDIT . B) The burden to carry out the checks under step B, especially B2, of WP:BEFORE rests on the contributor requesting deletion prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, and this has not been done in this case. C) The article can be fixed through normal editing, meaning it is not a candidate for AfD per WP:BEFORE , Step C, D) the wiki user requesting deletion did not search for sources that might be added, instead deciding that it's not their job and thus is nobody's and deletion is preferable (bad practice per Step D of WP:BEFORE ). E) This article does, in fact, have encyclopedic value, as much as any other list of characters in a fictional work does. Per MOS:TVLISTLEAD, Characters of Kingdom Hearts is considered "a good character list example [...] although it is not a television-related article". This sets precedent for character list articles (potentially) having encyclopedic value and not just being devoid of value by default by virtue of being a list article of fictional characters. E) the statement "It just rehashes the plot of the series from the characters' point of view" does not seem true at first glance. Can any concrete examples of this be given? The first main section, on Bette and Dot Tattler , is written from a neutral point of view and includes encyclopedic information about critical/award circuit reception to the actor's portrayal of the character(s) and information about the VFX production process. F) The statement that "the user undoing [the] revert[sic] has stated to have no intention of improving the article." is false (and would be irrelevant, in any case). The user in question (me) only stated that the burden to WP:IMPROVE does not rest solely on me, but on all contributors that are interested, and that if any issues are observed, you need to either try to fix them yourself, or raise them and give others time to fix them before deletion can be considered. This has not been done as of the time of this writing. Recommend speedykeep, this article can be fixed and is not worthless. Thranduil ( talk ) 18:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure if my reply on the AFD page will automatically be transferred over to here, so sorry if it's a duplicate. Keep for multiple reasons: A) "it's unnecessary" is not a good argument for article deletion, per WP:WEDONTNEEDIT. B) The burden to carry out the checks under step B, especially B2, of WP:BEFORE rests on the contributor requesting deletion prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, and this has not been done in this case. C) The article can be fixed through normal editing, meaning it is not a candidate for AfD per WP:BEFORE, Step C, D) the wiki user requesting deletion did not search for sources that might be added, instead deciding that it's not their job and thus is nobody's and deletion is preferable (bad practice per Step D of WP:BEFORE). E) This article does, in fact, have encyclopedic value, as much as any other list of characters in a fictional work does. Per MOS:TVLISTLEAD, Characters of Kingdom Hearts is considered "a good character list example [...] although it is not a television-related article". This sets precedent for character list articles (potentially) having encyclopedic value and not just being devoid of value by default by virtue of being a list article of fictional characters. F) the statement "It just rehashes the plot of the series from the characters' point of view" does not seem true at first glance. Can any concrete examples of this be given? The first main section, on Bette and Dot Tattler, is written from a neutral point of view and includes encyclopedic information about critical/award circuit reception to the actor's portrayal of the character(s) and information about the VFX production process. G) The statement that "the user undoing [the] revert[sic] has stated to have no intention of improving the article." is false (and would be irrelevant, in any case). The user in question (me) only stated that the burden to WP:IMPROVE does not rest solely on me, but on all contributors that are interested, and that if any issues are observed, you need to either try to fix them yourself, or raise them and give others time to fix them before deletion can be considered. This has not been done as of the time of this writing. Recommend speedykeep, this article can be fixed and is not worthless. Thranduil ( talk ) 18:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'd appreciate it if someone could clean up my entry here and on the AFD page proper (or tell me how to do so myself), apparently the text was duplicated on both. The text before "I'm not sure" shouldn't be here, and "Keep" should have been bolded. Thranduil ( talk ) 18:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with American Horror Story: Freak Show#Cast and characters (after significant trimming). In my opinion, lists of characters should only exist if the main article is long and needs to be split, or if information about the characters would be split across many pages (i.e., different seasons or different shows). Here, neither reason is met and basic background on the characters could be reasonably incorporated into the main article. RunningTiger123 ( talk ) 03:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't disagree with a merge. As a user, that's where I expected to see more/sufficient info about the characters (somewhere between just the character names and lengthy in-universe bios). But then again, other seasons of AHS have the same structure - just the character names in the main article, linking to a "list of.." article that's been (perhaps a bit overzealously) now removed by User:Soetermans Thranduil ( talk ) 12:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For what it's worth, character lists for any AHS season are probably unnecessary for the same reasons I listed above, so I agree with those redirects. RunningTiger123 ( talk ) 18:51, 18 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 |
Amantia peruana peruana: Author declines to merge to the species article. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions . UtherSRG (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge both subspecies to species article. No benefit on the Lord's green Earth to splitting these off into separate articles - a paragraph of minuscule detail description certainly does not justify that. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 19:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is my expected outcome as WP:ATD . - UtherSRG (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge No need for separate pages here. Reywas92 Talk 19:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm happy to ! vote merge but note that the only thing here that isn't already on Amantia peruana is an unsourced sentence about etymology. Mgp28 ( talk ) 22:01, 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 |
Soundscape Digital Technology: I can find a couple of 1990s articles online in a specialist magazine, but this wouldn't be sufficient to pass WP:NCORP these days. Time for this article to go? Sionk ( talk ) 22:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Companies , Technology , Computing , Software , and United Kingdom . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NEXISTS . Ordinarily I prefer to add links to ill-sourced articles that are up for deletion before voting, but there's a disconnect here between the sourcing and the article itself. This article is about two things, the SSHDR1 and the company. The history stuff is unsourced (maybe scraped from somewhere, copyvio style, no obvious candidates) and probably would need to rely on primary sources. It seems a shame to lose all this information if it can be sourced. Mackie has published a number of press releases and company announcements (it's a listed company) which could help for verifiability. For notability, I think the extensive coverage of products over more than a decade would suffice. Here are a series of sources, there are more: Sound on Sound profile of Soundscape R.Ed [12] 1993 Music Technology Article on HDR system [13] Audio Media magazine review of R.Ed (a reprint provided by the company but appears to be an independent review) [14] Sound on Sound 1995 article with a few sentences on Soundscape systems [15] Sound on Sound April 2006 review (post-Mackie) [16] Making music with digital audio : direct to disk recording on the PC, book has multiple instances discussing Soundscape products [17] I would note that these were easily found, suggesting the nomination would have benefited from a better WP:BEFORE exercise. Sound on Sound is a specialty magazine, but its not a minor publication, and there are others. There are also two potential merge targets Soundscape_R.Ed and Soundscape SSHDR1 both of which are poorly sourced but several of these sources extensively discuss those products and would help save them from deletion. I'd be happy to see the three merged. Oblivy ( talk ) 02:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:43, 13 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! 23:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect to Soundscape_R.Ed as ATD. Since there are already pages for the products, a merge is the best solution all round. In order to meet GNG/NCORP guidelines for an article about the company, we require at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company* . As per GNG/ WP:NCORP which are the appropriate guidelines for both companies and for products, there is very little information available on the company but extensive reviews on the products. HighKing ++ 14:07, 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 |
Elk, Kansas: It's not even clear that the location given is where the post office was, since it's unlikely to have been in a cemetery. Most of the sources are old maps which are used to justify statements that they cannot support. I also had to prune out a great deal of padding in the form of a historical snapshot of the state. Mangoe ( talk ) 23:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Given Diamond Creek , a township of Chase co., Kansas, Pop. 663. It contains Elmdale , Hymer , and Elk. — Lippincott 1880 , p. 572 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLippincott1880 ( help ) it seems reasonable that this and Hymer, Kansas be merged into Diamond Creek Township, Chase County, Kansas , otherwise we'd still be putting about the same thing in the township article (q.v.). Alas that Valens 2011 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFValens2011 ( help ) is self-published and (patently) not expert-written. There used to be a GNIS entry (with feature class "cem") for Elk Cemetery, by the way, which is probably how the coördinates got there. Uncle G ( talk ) 03:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] - Comment : Blackmar's 1912 Cyclopedia of Kansas [1] on page 572 describes Elk as "a country post office with one general store in Chase county" having a population of 45. Jbt89 ( talk ) 06:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] references "Diamond Creek". Lippincott's Gazetteer of the World . J. B. Lippincott & Company. 1880. Valens, Frankie (2011). "The Community of Elk". Chasing an Illusive Dream . AuthorHouse . pp. 559–565. ISBN 9781467036368 . Merge to Diamond Creek Township, Chase County, Kansas The local papers for Elk have many mentions of Elk and it's township. James.folsom ( talk ) 22:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Diamond Creek Township, Chase County, Kansas per James.folsom and Uncle G. There was something here but it appears to have been a gathering point for the surrounding township more than a town in its own right. Jbt89 ( talk ) 19:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP , don't merge into a township article in Chase county, because the community sat directly on the county line betwen Marion and Chase Counties. There is 2 pages about the former community of Elk on pages 319 to 321 of the " Marion County Kansas : Past and Present " published in 1972. Chase County side was post office, house, ice house; Marion County side was woodman hall, cremery, shop, house, lime kilm, there was a building with a 500 pound grinding stone to grind wheat, and a large windmill next to it to power the grinding stone. I shouldn't have to remind all of you, that all historical documentation isn't on the internet, and just because you can't find information on the internet doesn't automatically mean a community didn't exist. 21:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Comment I'm always impressed by how some people can take the most banal non notable facts and describe them like they are the most awesome thing ever. That aside the local papers do not give any significant coverage of the place. Additionally, nobody said the place didn't exist and existence ≠ standalone Wikipedia article. Stand alone articles need to meet the notability guidelines, and this one doesn't. James.folsom ( talk ) 23:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . Ghost towns can be notable, as I have argued here for years , but this I think is not. Bearian ( talk ) 18:04, 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 |
The Master (Fallout): Cannot find a single WP:SIGCOV somehow on google search. GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 19:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Fallout (video game) . Does not seem individually notable - lacks SIGCOV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 20:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep : putting aside the fact that this is a good article , The Master is clearly notable as one of the best villainous characters in video game history , which is well-referenced statement, as you can see in the reception section. I completely fail to see how the article lacks SIGCOV. 〜 Festucalex • talk 21:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Its from ranking sources, not directly about the character. GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep as a WP:GOODARTICLE . I wouldn't say that it's impossible to delete a good article, but it's a high bar, considering that it's very difficult to produce a meaningful good article without significant coverage in reliable sources. There are older good articles from over a decade ago that could get away with that, but not more recently. "One of the best villainous characters in video game history" is pretty notable, at least in the qualitative sense. The second half of the reception is a little indirect. But the first paragraph demonstrates significant coverage about the character, and it could be easily expanded if people felt this needed more detail. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 22:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you found more sources about Master, could you send it here so I could attempt to expand it (I have guilt for opening this afd now). GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 23:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, I think you have a point about the second paragraph. But the first paragraph is built on significant coverage that is much more than a passing mention. Even if we are being critical of listicles that are too narrow or short, the one page about The Master from GameSpot is clearly significant. GameSpot declares this to be one of the best game villains, and would qualify as WP:SIGCOV in both a qualitative and quantitative sense. I've seen articles summarize this kind of coverage with 2 or 3 sentences, where this article sparingly summarizes it with one. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 20:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’d also like to see more sources if they exist. The Master seems like an interesting character who has some meaningful individual reception. Dronebogus ( talk ) 00:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a GA, the article reads well enough. The assertion that just because there aren't multiple RS'es it cannot be notable is a Inverse (logic) argument and doesn't necessarily follow from our notability rules. If anything, this article demonstrates that we've been looking at notability all wrong: If notability is about the ability to write an encyclopedic article, then the fact that this is a decent encyclopedia article is evidence that we've been construing notability too narrowly. That is, two listicles and a couple of quotes don't demonstrate notability.... but maybe an arbitrarily large number of snippets, appropriate arranged... do. Jclemens ( talk ) 08:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to closing admin All "keep" opinions so far are some variation on WP:ILIKEIT and WP:EFFORT - nobody has put forth the supposed sources that grant this article notability. I would legitimately like to see the sources people are citing. If someone doesn't demonstrate hard evidence, that should be considered when judging the AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 09:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I find your assertion here somewhat problematic. You're only writing it because the tally of positions seem to be going in the opposite direction at the time. The closing admin can come to their own conclusion on whether there is a viable consensus that complies with Wikipedia guidelines, every participant has said their piece, so I don't think it's appropriate for you to instruct the closing admin whose position to discard or take into consideration. Haleth ( talk ) 20:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Fallout . This one was painful, and I expanded out the references here to make them stronger. But the problem is there isn't as much examination as one would think, and it doesn't help that all this feels like it could work better as reception alongside the game, especially given how small the rest of the material is, without feeling like overdue weight. I looked through everything I could, I mean literally *everything*...and there isn't more there. I saw the argument was that notability may be too narrow, but I'm going to argue the problem is more the subject here is too narrow to really make it properly work. The thoughts in the reception keep repeating themselves: the master is sympathetic, one of the greatest villains in gaming, pure body horror, and it was novel you could convince him to stop. I really wish there was more thorough examination of him. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 11:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . In this case, I think the optimal solution would be the creation of List of Fallout characters or List of Fallout factions and to merge the most relevant information there. I think I'd lean toward keep over delete, but I agree with Zxcvbnm's analysis that the keep ! voters to this point have made arguments that aren't relevant to a notability discussion. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 16:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I found three sources that appears to some substantial discussion about the Master: Fallout: A Tale of Mutation has devoted anywhere between 15 to 20 pages discussing the Master's in-game role. Pessimism: Critiques of Religion and Technology in the Fallout Games , from the few preview pages I could glean through searches, has devoted at least a few pages about The Master as part of an extended discussion about his faction of Super Mutants. Transcendence: A Study on Fallout in the Context of Gérard Genette’s Theory of Transtextuality went into detailed analysis about the Master over a few pages. It's a Master's thesis which appears to have been republished or cited in a couple of other sources, so your mileage may vary on what constitutes "significant scholarly influence". Merging into another extended article is only a viable or optimal solution if said article actually exists. Haleth ( talk ) 20:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could this 3 sources be implemented in the article? So we'll see how it turns out, rather than seeing repetition source. I may be convinced that the article could be enough. Thank you. GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 23:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For the 2nd source we should be careful of citogenesis, it literally cites the Master's Wikia page in it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 23:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The last source additionally at most suggests inspiration for the Master may have come from Carpenter's The Thing and the film Dr. Strangelove. That's the extent of its conversation there. The only sources I feel comfortable with his the book but it's written in a weird meandering way it's hard to gleam anything from the previews, and it seems more to talk about what happened instead of examining it. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 08:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Citogenesis is only an issue in this context, if it was citing the same Wikipedia article we are having a discussion about. Anyway, this article is not based on its Wikia counterpart, otherwise the GA reviewer or any admins who are responsible copyvio regulation would have picked it out already. More often then not, the reason why peer reviewed academic journals and books may want to cite a Wikia article for their work is because these often contain a neatly compilation of the in-universe or primary material they want to refer to, instead of citing individual pages of a book or the video game in vague numerical terms, and readers who want to cross check the in-universe can simply refer to the Wikia article. Haleth ( talk ) 21:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge the threshold to keep is very close, IMO, but I think the deciding factor is that so much of the secondary sourcing is related to the Master in the game itself; you can (and probably should) include a lot of it in the reception for Fallout . Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It's still a bit iffy; as David says, the threshold is close, but I think the sources provided - at least in the case of the first and third sources - are adequate to put me on this side of the threshold. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 17:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Fallout (video game)#Plot . Reviewing the three Haleth sources: (1) Lafleuriel's Fallout: A Tale of Mutation only discusses the Master in context of the general plot, which is then how we should cover the character in proportion. (I.e., it covers other characters and elements of the game and that would not justify separate articles based on that discussion either.) Bainbridge's Pessimism does the same: The Master is only discussed in passing context and is not analyzed in any depth. Denizel's Cybertextual Transcendence is an unpublished master's thesis, which we do not use for purposes of notability. Seeing no other rationales discuss the listicles currently in the article as compelling, it's unclear what sources actually assert this character's notability independent from the game. I can see some content being merged per WP:PRESERVE but since the target article is already featured status, I don't see it as a necessity. Sources on the impact/legacy of the character and game can be worked into the relevant parent sections. czar 03:42, 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 Russia, New Delhi: Efforts to redirect this have failed. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 04:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes failed, because you cannot redirect to a page which does not mention the subject. At the very least you have to merge the referenced info into the target page. - Altenmann >talk 04:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , India , and Russia . Chris Troutman ( talk ) 04:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 07:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of ambassadors of Russia to India as WP:NOPAGE , Alternative target India–Russia relations . — siro χ o 05:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Consensus on a target would be helpful Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Embassies are generally considered notable enough to warrant their own articles and many such articles exist. Dazzling4 ( talk ) 03:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Dazzling4 : I'm not aware of any guideline where embassies are given the presumption of notability, but I could be entirely wrong – could you point me to where this is stated? If this isn't actually a guideline, please note that the existence of other similar articles does not confer notability (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ). Tollens ( talk ) 00:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough this is textbook WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - I change my suggestion to Delete Dazzling4 ( talk ) 02:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The article contains nontrivial information, reasonably sourced. - Altenmann >talk 04:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with India–Russia relations : While not appearing to meet GNG, there's certainly usable material in the article. List of ambassadors of Russia to India seems to me to not be the correct merge target here, as an embassy is not an ambassador. Tollens ( talk ) 00:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with India–Russia relations as AtD, generally agree with Tollens, I think GNG is iffy here, but I do believe the merge will result in a better target and more exposure of the material. If in the future it improves into a stand alone article, the history will be preserved. // Timothy :: talk 15:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Rohit Shetty filmography: Rohit Shetty's filmography is already listed in his WP:BLP , which isn't so very long that a separate spinoff article would be needed. As always, every actor or filmmaker does not automatically get his filmography spun off to a separate article from his base BLP as a matter of course -- that can be done for people whose main biographical articles are extremely long and need to be chunked out for size control purposes, but most film professionals just get their filmographies listed in the main article rather than requiring two separate pages, and Shetty's main article isn't long enough to need a spinoff. Bearcat ( talk ) 20:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India . Bearcat ( talk ) 20:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Rohit Shetty . Unneeded WP:CFORK . QuicoleJR ( talk ) 22:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Rohit Shetty : Reasonably short filmography, there's no need for this to be split into a separate article, it's just a WP:CFORK . Ravensfire ( talk ) 23:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Rohit Shetty . Unneeded WP:CFORK . // Timothy :: talk 19:07, 1 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 |
Crayenborgh College: Cannot find any sources online or in other language wiki to demonstrate otherwise. Tooncool64 ( talk ) 07:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Not seeing indication that the BEFORE included a check on Wikipedia Library, so other intrepid editors who aren't going to bed in five minutes may wish to start there. I found a passing mention on JSTOR, so at least we know it's real. ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 07:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Netherlands . CptViraj ( talk ) 09:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Merge to Leonard Blussé following gidonb , see below. One of the problems is a False friend : in Dutch, college means lecture. Therefore, "Crayenborgh lecture" returns more hits than "Crayenborgh college". Many renowned scholars that are invited to the Crayenborgh lecture series later publish their lecture. See this one by Stanley Meisler. No doubt the Crayenborgh lecture series is prestigious. That said, it is hard to find an independent, secondary source. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 21:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Posdata: on nlwiki about Leonard Blussé it says that the Crayenborgh lecture series is terminated. I have a hard time finding which was the last one. It existed in 2009 for sure. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 01:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge (selectively) to Leonard Blussé as a discontinued program of limited encyclopedic interest. The Leonard Blussé article is way too short and would benefit from one sentence with a few sources on the program. gidonb ( talk ) 02:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fine with me. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 16:05, 24 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 |
Development Business: Only non- WP:IS sources. Fails WP:GNG . UtherSRG (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals , Politics , Business , and Economics . UtherSRG (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This has been at AfD for four weeks running now. Somebody else please weigh in. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe ( talk ) 13:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Maile66 : you participated in the last AfD, any additional thoughts? – Joe ( talk ) 13:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs United Nations Department of Global Communications - I said "Keep" before, but nobody else responded. Like I mentioned before, this is a vital arm of the United Nations. Maybe it would help if I linked the three Events pages of Development Business. I was not aware the United Nations provided this, until this AFD arose. Maybe our other Wikipedians were also not aware of it. — Maile ( talk ) 15:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Making it unanimous with the respondents below. — Maile ( talk ) 23:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to United Nations Department of Global Communications . According to their history page , Development Business was launched by the United Nations Department of Public Information (now United Nations Department of Global Communications), so a better merge target, since I can't see anything that links this with the UN DESA. Maile66 is right that this seems significant, but I cannot find any independent reliable sources which would establish notability; the best I can find is this interview, which is not independent. So, failing GNG, a merge seems most appropriate. (I'm surprised that I can't find more on this and wonder if I've missed something - very happy to change my !vote if additional sources are uncovered.) WJ94 ( talk ) 14:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to United Nations Department of Global Communications , with no prejudice against future expansion -- I was also surprised by the lack of SIGCOV sources here. Suriname0 ( talk ) 03:58, 29 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 |
Animorphism: However, I am nominating this for AfD rather than simply redirecting it because I cannot find mention of this term in the slightest outside of a TVTropes page, meaning it violates WP:NOTNEO as likely just a neologism someone made up one day. It merits a discussion on whether the term is actually a relevant one, and if it is a separate topic rather than a complete overlap. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , Mythology , and Spirituality . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep Unless I am missing something completely, I can't see how I cannot find mention of this term in the slightest outside of a TVTropes page comes about. There are non-TVTropes sources which use the term already in the article. The usual Google Books and Google Scholar searches provide numerous hits, including the Lexical Semantics for Terminology and the The Routledge Companion to Literature and Disability . So no, this is not a neologism made up by users of TVTropes or Wikipedia editors. I did not check if this is notable in it's own right or a WP:CONTENTFORK of therianthropy , but as the nominator stated, that would not be a deletion discussion then. Daranios ( talk ) 07:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep Hey there, i saw that you left a message on my talk page, thank you for that! I wrote the article as it was listed on the wikipedia red link, upon reading up about it i found some academic articles mentioning it. Based on my brief interpretation of the 2 items, I believe that Therianthropy and Animorphism differ in how Animorphism is only used as a literary device and trope in fiction. However Therianthropy also contains psychiatric and psychological aspects which extends beyond the realm of fiction and can be seen in modern day as forms of hallucination or psychiatric disorders. I've added more academic articles if you still require evidence of it's mention. But as User:Daranios mentioned, there are multiple mentions outside TVTrope. Therefore I too will dispute that this article warrants deletion on the basis of "violates WP:NOTNEO" as WP:NOTNEO mentions "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction)." Source 4 in the article reference: "Animorphism in the anthropocene: nonhuman personhood in activist art practice" mentions the word "Animorphism" 41 times in the whole journal entry, thus it does not simply "use the term" but stretches the usage of "animorphism" to philosophy. As of now there are currently 6 other academic sources in the Animorphism article which discusses animorphism and make mention of it as a medium for furthering the hypothesis of their academic article. Intuivo ( talk ) 07:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am rather unsure what "nonhuman personhood" as described in the cited thesis has to do with transforming into animals. Although it may be a moot point, since WP:SCHOLARSHIP states that "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence", and I am uncertain if that one does. There may be uses of the term in various places but my point stands that it seems to be a neologism that is totally unlisted in dictionaries, or the article conflates different and unrelated uses of the term that mean different things. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 08:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed. Nonhuman personhood is the point I make below: older sources often seem to understand the term as related to animism and personification. There is a danger that sources are added uncritically to this page that equivocate on what is meant. The page must not equivocate on terms or else other deletion reasons will be cited (TNT in particular). Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 09:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or redirect to therianthropy - but any redirect would have to be a "redirect with possibilities". The article could do with some attention, particularly to establish how it differs from therianthropy, but it is clear that the term is widely covered in a large array of secondary sources. Per Daranios' searches, the term is used widely, understood and appears to have an overlapping defintion with therianthropy, whilst not being a subset of it - and this particularly around the TV tropes mentioned by the nom. It is interesting that the word does not appear in the OED, nor other dictionaries I have checked. But dictionaries are, like Wikipedia, lagging indicators of the notability of a word. The fact it is used in literature and in academic contexts does suggest there is a subject here. I caveat my own remarks, however, with a recognition that in the literature where this term is being used, it is frequently used within quotes ("animorphism") suggesting the author is intending a neologism (see nom's concerns regarding WP:NOTNEO ), or, and this particularly the cases more than 10 years old, it may not be used as per the description on this page. for instance Hartman (1999) defines the term to mean something much closer to personification (page 49). (c.f. animism ) Despite this, I don't think the subject fails GNG, so the only real question for editors is to what extent that this is different from therianthropy, and to what extent that merits its own page. Hartman, C O. (1999) The Long View London : Wesleyan University Press -- Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with therianthropy . Both articles seem to be about the same concept. "Animorphism is the ability of a character to transform into an animal" - "Therianthropy is the mythological ability or affliction of individuals to metamorphose into animals". Unless a source can be found that clarifies the distinction, I think this is a case of someone "reinventing" an obscure term, and coining a synonym. WP:CONTENTFORK applies. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or merge to therianthropy , as WP:REDUNDANTFORK . I would be open to changing my ! vote if there was significant coverage talking about how these are different. But it seems the evidence points towards these being the same, if not closely related. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 17:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or merge to therianthropy , which is further developed and superior, but is currently missing a mention of "Animorphism". Being fictional, these two closely releated concepts have no inherent differences to justify two separate articles. – sgeureka t • c 11:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There won't be a Speedy Keep here but there are clearly those editors arguing that sources validate this article while others believe it should be Redirected or Merged. At least there is agreement on a Redirect/Merge target. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with therianthropy . I have struck my keep and moving to merge based on ensuing discussion and because of the relist. The topic is notable but no evidence has been presented to show it is significantly different from therianthropy to merit an article. The term can be mentioned in that article, and if any difference in focus of the terms can be shown, it could also be discussed there, without requiring its own article. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 06:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge any salvageable (reliably cited) materials with therianthropy , the term is probably just about worth keeping as a vaguely plausible search term (if anybody thinks like that), but the topic is identical. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 08:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to therianthropy : In view of the later arguments beyond the nomination, it seems to me there is significant overlap, so a merge seems best. I did find one source relating both terms after all, though it is a bit off-handidly and in a pop-culture context, in this Wired article . Judging from a user comment at goodreads.com , the audio book Wolves and Werewolves in History and Popular Culture seems to have something to say on those terms. I guess there is noone around who can/would like to look into that one? Daranios ( talk ) 09:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Marge to therianthropy as per nearly all of the above. The term "animorphism" could benefit from being mentioned in the article as a neologism or an alternate name, but other than that, as people have said above, it's a situation where you have two articles on more or less the same topic . Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper - ( talk ) 13:53, 16 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 |
Yun and Yang: Zero commentary to the both characters. It relies mostly on listicles and passing mentions at the reception section. Some of the source were trivial like this [9] . This source alone [10] is not enough. GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I disagree with nom, and do not find the reception references already in the article insufficient to meet GNG. Jclemens ( talk ) 01:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Street Fighter characters . I approached this assuming they were notable, especially given they were unveiled in the 1990s when gaming magazines were a thing, and set out to prove it, but I could not find much significant coverage. While I found this mention in CVG, it has no independent commentary, and solely describes their backstory and moves. One could potentially argue this is SIGCOV, since it discusses them in context of the real life martial art they use. The rest are small mentions within lists; there's not much to go by in terms of proving they are independently notable. It's interesting they inspired the protagonists of Divekick ... that can be mentioned in a list. I would heavily debate the fact that they have "zero commentary", but their SIGCOV is insufficient to pass the GNG criteria. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 08:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's also this in GameFan. But again, literally just description, without opinion. Secondary source "contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources", not just a restatement of them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 10:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Street Fighter characters . Most of the sources are listicles or trivial news updates. No real SIGCOV. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 15:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Zxcvbnm. This unfortunately doesn't have enough coverage in reliable sources to support a stand-alone article. Something could be selectively merged per WP:PRESERVE . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 13:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Street Fighter characters per above. // Timothy :: talk 07:20, 28 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 |
Moran, British Columbia: – dlthewave ☎ 04:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada . – dlthewave ☎ 04:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to BC Rail#CN era (2004– ) . Thryduulf ( talk ) 08:42, 20 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 |
Economy of Lucknow: Lucknow#Economy on the other hand is well sourced. LibStar ( talk ) 06:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notified the article creator User:25 Cents FC as they are still active. - Indefensible ( talk ) 06:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions . Kpg jhp jm 07:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into the main article at Lucknow#Economy with any useful information not covered there . Kpg jhp jm 07:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions . Actualcpscm ( talk ) 09:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Lucknow#Economy : the main concern here would be readability and ease of navigation at the merge target. Although Lucknow is a relatively long article, it's well-structured and the Economy section is quite small; I see no reason to oppose a merge. I'd recommend Template:R with possibilities , though. It's plausible that someone will come along and write a significantly better article about the economy of Lucknow. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 09:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as described. If more in-depth sources come along later, we can redo the fork. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Lucknow#Economy to preserve article history for potential expansion again in the future. - Indefensible ( talk ) 15:38, 21 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 |
Whitehall Township Bureau of Police: A cursory Google search doesn't turn up any particularly notable incidents that attracted wider media attention. WP:ORGDEPTH BrigadierG ( talk ) 22:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Pennsylvania . Cooper ( talk ) 22:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Every town has a police department but they don't usually need standalone articles. Like, do they not all have basically the same rank structure? Reywas92 Talk 15:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Police ranks of the United States . Yevrowl ( talk ) 15:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Four external links added, thanks. Yevrowl ( talk ) 16:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Every town in the country has routine crime news, these don't actually add anything to the article. There would need to be significant independent coverage about the department itself. But again, small towns generally don't need separate pages for their police departments, fire departments, councils, etc., and these sources don't justify one. Reywas92 Talk 20:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or Merge - There's a whole category of local police departments Category:Municipal police departments of Pennsylvania . Given that it's a police department, there's coverage of the actions of its employees in case law. Alternatively, merge into Whitehall Township, Pennsylvania . GobsPint ( talk ) 18:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The existence of other articles isn't a reason to keep an article ( WP:WHATABOUTX ), only Wikipedia policies and guidance are. If you think there is significant coverage, I would invite you to reference it, rather than simply stating that there WP:MUSTBESOURCES . Note that the burden here is not just reliable sources proving that the subject exists or that it has done something, but significant secondary coverage indicating its notability in particular. BrigadierG ( talk ) 00:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the township article at Whitehall Township . Every town of 10k to 20k has its own police force, which generates some local news ( see If it bleeds, it leads ), but as everyone knows, there are thousands of local government police forces in the United States. This similar to, say, a county sheriff's office , which covers a larger territory and population, but was merged and redirected after a vote to keep . Bearian ( talk ) 13:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What content would you actually want to merge? I don't think this should be a redirect or a merge, there's no actual content in the article to merge aside from a sentence about the date that the police org was founded which I'm not sure really matters. BrigadierG ( talk ) 10:44, 3 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 |
Matt (Wii Sports): The article has some WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources - to the extent that the character is a topic of discussion in Game Ramt style pieces - but what is here is quite minimal: this is not a character with a personality, story or really any background, there is no initial reception as acknowledged in the article, no known development history behind the character, and the coverage that is purported to give rise to notability is a meme about the character's purported difficulty and reappearance in later titles. The article also overstates fan reaction a little which sort of indicates to me that there's not a lot that reviewers or outlets themselves have to say about the character. Overall I'm not sure if the sum total of sources really have enough to say about this character to merit an article. Please also note that the page creator has worked hard to find additional sources on the talk page that may be of use, although these seemed more like gameplay coverage. I concede that the standard with character articles has been difficult to gauge recently so open to views and appreciate the hard work of the page creator: if a merge to the Wii Sports series or game is preferable, let's prioritise that. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 11:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 11:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep a quick Google search turns up significant coverage of Matt in particular as a character of particular cultural importance from the Wii Sports universe. For example, there are plenty of sources discussing him in depth as a character with Wii Sports being only a backdrop: https://gamerant.com/wii-sports-matt-popularity-explained/ https://www.svg.com/1051111/why-matt-from-wii-sports-has-become-an-iconic-gaming-meme/ There are also sources which describe his cultural relevance, for example this article in Polygon seems to say that not only that he exists, but that he has "widespread popularity": https://www.polygon.com/23306387/nintendo-switch-sports-matt-wii-meme-input-code BrigadierG ( talk ) 12:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] SVG is unreliable, while Valnet sources like GameRant doesn't help WP:GNG , see WP:VG/RS . Possibly in all, only the Polygon is a good source, thou you need WP:THREE that are sigcov. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 13:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I know this isn't a WP:ITSPOPULAR argument, but the issue is that the depth of coverage relates to a very narrow aspect of the character: the meme. The "widespread popularity" noted in the Polygon article is stated in the context of the meme; and some sources even state that Matt was unnoticed until this point. So I think the live issue is whether all this coverage counteracts the fact that the article and coverage don't have much to say about the other aspects of background, story, development and critical reception normally present in a character article. But then I guess there are articles for memes so this is obviously not clear-cut. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 21:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom. In my discussions on the talk page, nothing was really sticking out to me in terms of notability. I was going to BLAR or AfD it myself within the coming days myself if nothing came up, but since this is happening now, I may as well lay my thoughts out here. He doesn't seem to be notable per the current sourcing, but I wouldn't be opposed to seeing some of the content here be referenced in Wii Sports' article given Matt did get some coverage, even if most of it doesn't contribute to notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 21:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies if I jumped the gun on that discussion, I had a quick look and assumed that it was settled given the additional sources provided didn't satisfy a view of WP:SOURCESEXIST . ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 21:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge What's here doesn't work well for GNG. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 22:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge There is a serious lack of significant coverage; unsurprising given Matt is not really characterized, nor does he stand out for any gameplay aspect. He is more like an in-joke amongst fans. IGN is probably the closest to SIGCOV but it's still pretty weak, mostly citing fan posts. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 07:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom, the character does not have significant history outside of the Wii Sports brand. Of the sources I have found including above, they are either WP:ROUTINE or more significant of Nintendo Switch Sports when they added Matt. Conyo14 ( talk ) 19:14, 1 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 |
2009 Midwest Blizzard: Noah Talk 16:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Greenland , Canada , and United States of America . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (“long last and forgotten” is not a reason for deletion.) A WP:BEFORE shows a range of coverage New York Times , well sourced article , short 2009 description . With the damage and deaths it meets WP:LASTING . 109.37.150.153 ( talk ) 20:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into 2009 North American Christmas blizzard , which appears to be the same storm. 152.179.246.14 ( talk ) 10:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to 2009 North American Christmas blizzard per the above. The keep ! vote cites 3 sources but two of these are primary and the other just a list. However the merge target has a couple more secondary sources. I expect that one would be kept if taken to AfD. However this one appears to be an inadvertent CFORK. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 11:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to 2009 North American Christmas blizzard per the above. ++ Lar : t / c 14:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to 2009 North American Christmas blizzard . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 16:02, 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 |
Gretchen Wieners: No sources with in-depth character discussion exist, all of her mentions come from sex appeal listicles. Character fails WP:SIGCOV and WP: NCHAR . Propose redirect as it can be described in a parent article, such as a list of characters. FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 14:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect the usable content. microbiology Marcus ( petri dish ) 15:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Film . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per above. Nothing in the article suggests this meets WP:GNG . But the nom should clearly report on their BEFORE. GScholar shows some mentions in passing, at minimum, so there is a chance something could be dug up to rescue this. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete missing indicators of WP:GNG , which needs more than passing mentions. Redirect is a valid WP:ATD . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 17:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There can't be a Merge or Redirect if no one specifies a target article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Mean Girls (2004 film) is a plausible merge/redirect target, this character is mentioned 4 times there. VickKiang (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Mean Girls . I found no evidence that the subject meets GNG. Please ping me if good sources are located. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 22:52, 29 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 |
Viviane Senna: Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED . Nswix ( talk ) 20:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Brazil . Nswix ( talk ) 20:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Everything mentioned about her is in relation to her brother, all Gnews and Gsearch points to him. She could perhaps be a brief section in his article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Viviane Senna founded a non-governmental organization focused on education with prominence in the media. [21] [22] She is often interviewed about educational themes, not only about her brother's legacy. [23] [24] In any case, if it is not possible to keep it, I suggest to merge the article with that of the Ayrton Senna Institute . DanGFSouza ( talk ) 21:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm ok with the merge. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. DId you mean Merging with Instituto Ayrton Senna because the page you link to is a Redirect. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, that was what I meant. I've added some sourced statements since the AfD nomination I think they can support the subject's notability; I leave the decision to the consensus. DanGFSouza ( talk ) 23:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:39, 19 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 |
Alameda's hot springs retreat: 777burger user talk contribs 22:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Montana . 777burger user talk contribs 22:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Here are a few sources: Touring Hot Springs Montana and Wyoming Newspaper article Moon Montana & Wyoming USA Today travel section Travel blog with editorial oversight -- Magnolia677 ( talk ) 22:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Hot Springs, Montana , per User:Jfire 's suggestion. Both articles would benefit. Magnolia677 ( talk ) 14:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep . I'll add this newspaper article from The Missoulian to the list of sources: [19] [20] . Still, I think this might be better covered in Hot Springs, Montana per WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK . Jfire ( talk ) 03:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Hot Springs, Montana - Think it was known as Camas Hot Springs for a long time. Shining the Hot Springs Bat Signal in the sky for netherzone - I'm going to see what I can do to improve/expand. Any help appreciated. jengod ( talk ) 05:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Thanks for the ping, jengod. I'll see what I can find. It may be notable as an establishment, they've been around for 85 years. But I'm also thinking the hot springs as a geological feature probably could meet WP:NATFEAT if that part of the article can be improved through sourcing. Netherzone ( talk ) 05:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Yeah from what I'm getting so far the hot springs and the tribal control thereof and the rise and fall of a couple of associated bathhouses/hotels are all encyclopedic for sure, but I suspect that Alameda's per se is a comparatively small part of the story. I expect a name change/move will be called for but still readin'... jengod ( talk ) 07:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Changed my vote from keep to merge. Also created Camas Hot Springs . Also note Symes Hotel . I think this particular assemblage of cabins and infrastructure has some minor notability so if it's kept that's fine but a merge probably the best decision on its current state of referencedness, etc. jengod ( talk ) 09:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - agree with other editors above that merging is the best alternative to deletion. Either potential target Hot Springs, Montana or the new article Camas Hot Springs is fine with me. Netherzone ( talk ) 17:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Hot Springs, Montana : per above eval. // Timothy :: talk 17:03, 28 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 |
Koach: Non-notable arm of a larger movement, has been defunct for 10 years, with no WP:SIGCOV that would justify a stand alone article. I did a WP:BEFORE, finding no WP:RS of import not about the organization's closure. Similar rationale as the recently closed merge proposal for Koach's sister organization in the Reform movement. Longhornsg ( talk ) 20:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education , and Judaism . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - with United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism , the project that created it. KOACH was discontinued 10 years ago. — Maile ( talk ) 22:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge / Redirect to United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism . It's not the age of the organization or the year it closed, it's the fact that there seems to be little in-depth independent coverage of Koach that would merit a standalone article. Alansohn ( talk ) 14:40, 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 |
New South Wales Systems Biology Initiative: Sources all appear to be about research that has been done, and not on the oragnization itself. Fails WP:GNG . UtherSRG (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education , Schools , and Australia . UtherSRG (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into article for parent UNSW Faculty of Science . References look WP:PRIMARY and the originating author may have a WP:COI with the subject. - Indefensible ( talk ) 20:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There may be some good partial merge targets here Methylation might benefit from a small merge. Perhaps protein complex as well. It may also be possible to merge a few notes to UNSW Faculty of Science and possibly redirect — siro χ o 20:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to UNSW Faculty of Science per above. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 00:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above. Denaar ( talk ) 14:17, 6 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 |
Sacred Games (soundtrack): As the music has no independent notability in my research, it needs to be merged with Sacred Games . Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 22:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Television . Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 22:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge trimmed down and properly sourced material to Sacred Games (TV series)#Music as proposed. // Timothy :: talk 11:05, 30 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 |
1 Million March 4 Children: Its content, if even appropriate for Wikipedia, can be covered in articles such as anti-gender movement . ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics , Sexuality and gender , Education , and Canada . ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and this event cannot be considered to have a sustained effect at this point. Might be WP:TOOSOON , but also likely can just be covered in the existing articles as they Afd nomination suggests. Raladic ( talk ) 06:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and Merge with anti-gender movement MicrobiologyMarcus ( talk ) 13:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I feel like this is just a news event and nothing suggests it is lasting in its significance for now, could be covered at existing articles. Alextejthompson ( Ping me or leave a message on my talk page ) 19:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete, no redirect Nothing significant here except for disconnected groups trying to make something out of what's ultimately nothing in the real world outside their phones or computers. Nate • ( chatter ) 23:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. B3251 ( talk ) 00:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to anti-gender movement ; a summary section can be added for Canada under Anti-gender movement#North America . Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 14:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to anti-gender movement or, if consensus if against a merge, I would ! vote for deletion. There are no supporting sources for WP:GNG (or, more appropriately, WP:NEVENT ) here, and it lacks WP:SUSTAINED and WP:EFFECT needed for a stand-alone article. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 15:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Anti-gender movement per Ivanvector and Last1in. Sal2100 ( talk ) 17:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Basically WP:ONEEVENT but for org. NM 19:41, 23 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 |
List of early-modern British women playwrights: Either this functionally should be merged into that article, or just use a category like Category:Women writers (early modern) , which already sorts alphabetically. Having to maintain two identical lists is pointless. Gonnym ( talk ) 16:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Lists of people , Theatre , History , and United Kingdom . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Chronology of early-modern British women playwrights per above. -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 17:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge: Merge article with the aforementioned Chronology of early-modern British women playwrights , per arguments above. — Mjks28 ( talk ) 03:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge the 2022-created Chronology of early-modern British women playwrights into this 2006-created list, but convert to a table sortable on surname and birth and death dates (have to work out what to do with the "fl." people), to provide all the functionaliy of both lists. (Note that the inclusion criterion of "active ... before about 1800" seems rather loosely applied as Elizabeth Barrett Browning (1806-1861) is in both lists, although not in List of early-modern British women poets ! ) Pam D 08:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge under the title "List of early-modern British women playwrights", as per the reasons listed in the proposal and responses above, as well as in my previous comments on both talk pages . In fact, putting List of early-modern British women playwrights into a table and removing Chronology of early-modern British women playwrights , which has not been updated, has been on my to-do list for awhile. Since doing so would probably mean making the same changes to the sister lists, List of early-modern British women novelists and List of early-modern British women poets , I have been putting it off. — scribbling woman 07:25, 29 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 |
2001 Myrtle Beach tornadoes: Even though a lot of people were injured, there were no fatalities. — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 00:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC) on behalf of 144.178.5.26 [ reply ] Merge with Tornadoes of 2001. Too brief to be a stand-alone, and fits in with the Tornadoes of 2001. — Maile ( talk ) 02:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Science , Environment , and South Carolina . Skynxnex ( talk ) 02:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Tornadoes of 2001. This article far to short to warrant an individual article. DimensionalFusion ( talk ) — Preceding undated comment added 08:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There may have been only two tornadoes here, but there were more tornadoes that were reported, but not confirmed. They're are also plenty of non-tornadic impacts that can be added. Chess Eric 22:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Tornadoes of 2001 . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 09:01, 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 |
List of tenants of Herm: We don't have an article about tenants of Herm . Being a tenant does not usually make one notable, unless this is a significant historical title which currently the article does not suggest is the case. Not sure if merging this to Herm makes sense but it could be considered a WP:ATD . I'll also translate a comment from ongoing pl wiki deletion discussion which seems quite well made: "The island is an integral part of one of the parishes (municipalities) of Guernsey and belongs entirely to the central authorities of the island (until 1949 it was owned by the Crown). The island is leased for a specified period of time (with the possibility of extension), and tenants sometimes sublet it further. This is no different from any other lease of state land in any country in the world - after all, we are talking about the lease of only approximately 150-200 ha, and there are many such areas in the world that have been leased for a long time (including islands). The list of people leasing given areas is not encyclopedic." (by User:Aotearoa ). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United Kingdom . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. "Tenant of Herm" is not an official (or unofficial) title, as far as I can tell, just a resident of the place. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 07:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Herm . Editors may not know that Herm is a small island and there's just one tenant at a time. I see that some of the listed tenants are in the article already, but the citation will be useful over there and it should be possible to cite the other tenants also. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 10:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I have put important items into the Herm page. Ânes-pur-sàng ( talk ) 14:34, 12 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 |
Lloyd Austin hospitalization controversy: At this moment I don't see any reason for this to have its own article, when a few lines in the main Lloyd Austin article should more than suffice. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 21:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wait — Premature nomination. Information about Austin's ongoing hospitalization is still regularly coming in. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The nomination is not premature; the creation of this article is. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 12:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What Kingoflettuce said. Not sure why it's so hard for you to let content grow in the main article before making a new one. Reywas92 Talk 05:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] : KEEP I agree. 209.6.153.165 ( talk ) 01:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge selectively to Lloyd Austin . Crazy, moment by moment levels of detail about a hospitalization that may have broken 'procedural law'. As the nominator says, this is WP:NOTNEWS . Sionk ( talk ) 22:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - WP:NOTSCANDAL - Certainly not worthy of a stand-alone article. A big uproar so both major parties could get some news coverage for their complaining. There is Deputy Secretary of Defense to fill in during any secretary's absence. The government has checks and balances to keep it going if someone is temporarily sidelined. — Maile ( talk ) 22:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Changed my Delete to Merge, based on the majority of the input here. — Maile ( talk ) 23:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge is fine. "Guy goes to hospital and doesn't tell people about it" isn't notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is likely to be just a few lines in Secretary Austin's personal life section in the end; right now it's yet another overheated story about a telephone game -like failure to communicate because it's Washington and political journalists refuse to just let someone heal from life-threatening surgery, nor not make a news cycle about it (and incredibly wrongly described; how can it be the secretary's fault when he's bedridden and his PAs don't communicate that well?). Nate • ( chatter ) 01:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Your last sentence is irrelevant to this discussion, but this is not a fair characterization of the issue; Austin had several instances in which he could have brought up his planned prostatectomy but failed to. Austin is notoriously secretive. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP This is very important. Every day since the hospitalization was announced, it has been mentioned on every news channel in the U.S. every single hour. This is clearly important. 209.6.153.165 ( talk ) 01:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Kingoflettuce KEEP which boxes? I see a wonderful article. 209.6.153.165 ( talk ) 01:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Duplicate vote! struck. Nate • ( chatter ) 02:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is clearly an important topic, but depending on the outcome if some people believe that it may not be independently notable then merging should be an option rather than deleting it. Keivan.f Talk 06:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My thoughts exactly, but I don't see this meriting anything more than a merger. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 12:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I think anything here could be merged into the existing section on Austin's page; so far, it seems like a news cycle doing its thing. Nothing wrong with that, but it can be better summarised for readers in a smaller, less intensely detailed section. Gazamp ( talk ) 21:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:NOTNEWS , WP:RECENTISM . – Muboshgu ( talk ) 01:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy merge/delete Once again we see this user racing to create an article about a current event before it's needed. Sure it's an important topic – one that can be (and is) covered at Lloyd Austin . Countless cabinet secretaries have had major and minor scandals that hit the news cycle, but that does not mean they need separate duplicative articles. Reywas92 Talk 05:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If I had "raced" to create the article, it would have been created days prior. The breadth of reactions and inquiries suggested to me that this was not going to be a one-off event. Keep your differences in opinion to differences in opinion. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP This is a major issue; note that anyone under Austin's command when he was a general could be court-martialed for dereliction of duty, i.e. being AWOL (absent without leave) for three days. MERGE might be appropriate once time passes, as this is still a developing current event. -- FeralOink ( talk ) 19:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm shocked that the US Armed Forces do not, in your opinion, recognise medical leave even for what appears to have been a medical emergency! Shame on them! -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi @ Necrothesp , Please do not use the discussion as a soapbox for the topic (see WP:SOAP ). Best, @ Avishai11 Avishai11 ( talk ) 17:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Good grief, it's called sarcasm! A response to a clearly daft comment. I really don't give a monkey's about what Lloyd Austin may or may not have done. It's a proverbial storm in a teacup. Which was my point. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 18:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . Hardly worth a full-scale article. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Lloyd Austin . This feels like WP:NOTNEWS and if this becomes a more significant issue, it will likely be under another title. -- Enos733 ( talk ) 16:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Definitely does not need it's own article, this could be a paragraph in the Lloyd Austin article, maybe a new section there at most. Mighty Midas ( talk ) 21:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP very important as people may be court-martialed. Avishai11 ( talk ) 22:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Extremely spurious rationale... KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 13:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We are hearing new revelations each day about the situation, so I believe we should keep and wait. Avishai11 ( talk ) 19:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Not notable on its own. Intothat darkness 19:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge a properly sourced summary to Lloyd Austin . This is NOTNEWS as a stand alone article and an unneeded CFORK from the main article. // Timothy :: talk 10:09, 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 |
Mendota, Kansas: It must have been very crowded in there. Mangoe ( talk ) 20:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kansas . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: listed in Blackmar (p. 268) with the following description: "a country hamlet in Ellis county, is located in Hamilton township, about 20 miles northwest of Hays, the county seat, and 10 miles from Ellis, its shipping point and the postoffice from which it receives mail by rural route." Labelled on this old map [1] as "Mendota P.O." Jbt89 ( talk ) 05:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And listed as a hamlet in Ellis County, Kansas#Communities , because I went through all of the ones that Blackmar had, as well as all of the post offices listed in the State Board of Agriculture reports. Uncle G ( talk ) 10:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ https://www.mapsofthepast.com/ellis-county-ks-kansas-everts-1887.html Comment : Found this 1971 article in the Hays newspaper about Mendota. [8] -- Milowent • has spoken 19:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Ellis Township, Ellis County, Kansas . It's pretty clear that this was just a "post village," with a post office and perhaps a general store to serve the surrounding rural area, not true town. Similar case to Elk, Kansas (also mentioned in Blackmar), which we merged into the article on the surrounding township. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbt89 ( talk • contribs ) 21:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge according to consensus or delete I checked the ellis county papers. I couldn't find anything that disputes what has already been said. But, in april of the year the post office changed names from Halton to Mendota, the person sending in the news to the paper from Halton, wrote that the name of the post office had changed. And just like that everyone started calling it Mendota. I think if it had a community identity, that would not have happened. James.folsom ( talk ) 22:57, 2 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 |
RoboCop (2014 soundtrack): I've reverted back the main article and consider that an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK . On it's own it doesn't really qualify under WP:BASIC . Govvy ( talk ) 08:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've just noticed that I was reverted , again upon outcome of this AfD, would suggest a restoration on article. I don't understand why you call it clutter. Govvy ( talk ) 08:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . Govvy ( talk ) 08:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions . Govvy ( talk ) 09:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . Govvy ( talk ) 09:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to RoboCop (2014 film)#Music per nomination. Soundtrack article doesn't even show independent notability at this point anyway. Movie Wave is a single-author blog and I have no idea what consensus there is on Film Music Reporter but it doesn't look much better to me. The other three are so obvious I don't even need to explain them. If that's the best coverage this soundtrack got (note that I haven't searched for any more coverage) then it should've never been split in the first place. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 13:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect , search is pulling up absolutely nothing. Mach61 ( talk ) 21:45, 16 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 |
Alma Wade: The sources/book looks lime its isn't enough yet and most the sources from google search shows talks about the game, and not the character itself (some of them, but mostly plot and passing mentions). Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 13:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to F.E.A.R. . There is no indication of standalone notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge what can be saved to the parent game, but for the most part just redirect. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 09:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Kung Fu Man. The limited coverage suggests a redirect is best. But some amount can be preserved at the target. Doesn't meet WP:GNG . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 21:23, 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 |
1994 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit: Apparent WP:NEVENT fail. Could be redirected to Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix . ( t · c ) buidhe 22:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Events , and Sports . ( t · c ) buidhe 22:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Austria , France , and Germany . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just because the Wikipedian lacks familiarity with the sport, it does not mean that the event is not notable. A quick Google search shows hundreds of thousands of results for Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix and an article covering the results of events should not be responsible for stating the notability of the event, since the original article Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix does this. Besides, the point is to list the results, so a list of scores is enough. The notability of the event has been established in the original article describing the event. -- ThiagoSimoes ( talk ) 23:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix as an WP:ATD . Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 16:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix as an WP:ATD . // Timothy :: talk 14:14, 26 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 |
Alisa Bosconovitch: At most she gets light mentions, but little actual discussion and more passing reactions. Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 15:17, 15 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 ) 15:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Tekken characters#Alisa Bosconovitch . There is no SIGCOV. I'm surprised the article lasted this long with that reception section. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 15:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please review the reception section again, there were countless deletions of valid sources by Kung Fu Man and others users that I wanted to restore. Some could be removed like the Twitter citations but I remember there were news article about polls for character popularity of that image. There was a Vice article about this character on mental health that was deleted for example. [1] I think its pretty flawed to look at character reception and make an opinion, for example most news articles are written about controversies. Lucyk Chloe saw some social media uproar because of her being a generic Japanese idol character, Josie Rizal caused controversy because of a similar Phillipinian national figure with similar name, and boom there are your news articles now you have sources, and now you have ammo to write a Wikipedia article? I think that is a really flawed way how that should work on Wikipedia, and very revisionist. I mean it will only benefit basically the newest characters because the internet penetration wasnt really there yet during Xbox 360/PS3 era. Its a general problem on Wikipida with pop culture. -- Crossswords ( talk ) 17:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You mean this Vice source that doesn't even discuss the character and barely mentions them?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 17:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It didn't, someone forcibly reverted the WP:BLAR under the guidelines of her appearances and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS . -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 15:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ O'FLAHERTY, AIDEEN. "How gaming is giving agoraphobic young people a window into the world" . Retrieved 15 July 2023 . Redirect back to the list. Crossswords, I insist you consider whether sources speak about the character in a significant way, as the Vice article has nothing about her - she's only tangentially related, a passing mention. Further, it's not even the author mentioning Alisa, it's a person interviewed for the article. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 17:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The author is clearly mentioning Alisa and has even used the characters picture in the article header. Quote: But gaming has allowed her to confront her fears in a safe environment, with the hours spent fighting as the Tekken 7 character Alisa Bosconovitch serving as an avenue for her to gain confidence, and get a handle on her anxious thoughts and feelings. Crossswords ( talk ) 17:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But this isn't commenting on Alisa in any way, and the article is clearly not talking about Alisa helping her mental health, but more Tekken 7. There's no evidence to suggest that Alisa is what helps her with mental health, it's just speculation. We obviously don't agree, so I won't continue this debate. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 18:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Tekken characters#Alisa Bosconovitch . Significant coverage must be considered when trying to create/expand an article. A character who gets numerous sentence-long mentions is not one who is individually notable, though there is a clear WP:ATD in the character list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 17:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To summarize my opinion at least, why this character warrants a Wikipedia page. She was one of the default Characters in Tekken 6 if you played the Story Campaign, playing offline she was the default companion along seeing cutscenes of her story with Lars Alexandersson . She was heavily featured in the CGI movie ' Tekken: Blood Vengeance ' and there werent really that many other Tekken characters in this movie. There are countless cameos by now. Removing her own article would not reflect the reality of her impact as a Tekken character. Crossswords ( talk ) 17:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unfortunately, the general notability guideline doesn't give much weight to merely being featured in prominent roles. We can't speculate on her impact, which I wouldn't argue is based on what Bandai Namco does with Alisa, but what reliable secondary sources have to say about the character. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 17:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Crosswords, stop bludgeoning Dronebogus ( talk ) 20:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Anyway, WP:ITSPOPULAR is not a valid AfD argument. If she was truly _that_ major she would have tons of significant coverage, no? So either there are sources nobody found yet (but you haven't put forward) or she is not actually that major. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 23:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge “reception” seems to be banking on a single vice article that doesn’t actually talk about he character. Dronebogus ( talk ) 20:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep this series of edits by the nominator invalidates the entire premise of the AfD: decimating an article and then nominating it for deletion is a user conduct issue and should be addressed as such before considering any such discussion valid. Articles should be put up for deletion in their "best" state, not one where someone with an opinion has already excised sources they don't think pass muster--if it's to be deleted, that's for the participants to decide. As you can see from the above ! votes, this has had an effect on others' perceptions of the article. It may have gotten lost in Crossswords ' WP:WAX arguments, but this deserves serious consideration — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclemens ( talk • contribs ) I'll bite - what examples of significant coverage was removed? @ Jclemens : - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 21:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From what I can see, the most significant source removed by Kung Fu Man is a Kotaku article with a few sentences about the producer joking (or not?) about her breasts being essential functionality. I would tend to agree that articles should not be heavily pruned before an AfD, but I also don't see the major things that were removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's is literally nothing wrong with cleaning up an article before nominating it. Please don't baselessly suggest otherwise. Sergecross73 msg me 23:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sure that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but you just lost your moral high ground by suggesting I'm casting aspersions... thereby casting aspersions yourself. Jclemens ( talk ) 04:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Moral high ground"...? Weird thing to say to someone who hasn't taken a stance in the argument. Anyways, until you cite something that says articles can't be trimmed/edited prior or during an AFD, your claim that the AFD is somehow "invalidated" is objectively false. Sergecross73 msg me 15:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Opinions can be objectively false? New one to me. Jclemens ( talk ) 18:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're not following. You are talking about opinions. I am not. I'm not asking for your opinion. I'm asking you to cite something - a policy, guideline, or widely accepted consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't see where I said I was referencing any policy, guideline, or widely accepted consensus. Jclemens ( talk ) 22:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He also didn't do what you described, he cleaned it up and ended up redirecting it back in May. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 23:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Re-pinging @ Jclemens : ; can you clarify what KFM removed that shouldn't have been? - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 22:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Cleaning up... and then redirecting. Do you not see how that's a problem? If there's enough to keep an article, cleaning up trivial mentions is fine. If there's not and it will eventually be redirected or AfD'ed, then minimizing the coverage in the article prior to redirecting it--even if the editor doesn't think it amounts to significant coverage--is a WP:FAIT issue. All discussions should have the best evidence, and if editors think something should be deleted, then it is incumbent upon them to make sure their conduct with respect to the article has been with the cleanest possible hands. Why am I explaining this to editors who should know better? Jclemens ( talk ) 04:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jclemens : , have you considered that the goal of the initial cleanup was to figure out *what* sources could be used for notability and then see what else is out there before BLAR-ing it? It's a lot harder to work on a foundation with all the rotten wood in the way. Assume some good faith.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 04:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seriously. It's honestly shocking that this position is being taken. @ Jclemens : What should KFM have done if the content was largely falsely attributed to a source? Or a complete misrepresentation of what the source said? What benefit is there to leaving up bad content besides misleading people? The fact that your reply did not demonstrate a single specific piece of content removed that should not have been removed tells me one of two things: either you didn't check to verify what KFM removed was even remotely valuable, which would make me think that you have extremely poor judgment, or you checked it, saw nothing of value removed, and were being dishonest in your reply. For an experienced editor, it's concerning that I'm arriving at either negligence or dishonesty. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 13:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you asserting any of those possibilities to be the case? No? Then leave the WP:WAX arguments out of discussion, please. The answer to the question I suppose you believe is a "gotcha" is that of course I didn't check any of the sources, because it wasn't my job to. For that matter, I'm not an expert in video game character notability, so much as I am in editor conduct. Kung Fu Man Could have added "Full disclosure: I removed a bunch of lousy sources back in May" or words to that effect in the nomination, even pointing to the diffs like I did, but didn't. If you think nominators are responsible to search the Internet for sources, but not discuss sources they themselves previously removed prior to the nomination, I'd be really curious as to why. Jclemens ( talk ) 18:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Non-experts may participate, of course, but I would highly recommend that non-experts think twice before making baseless accusations of user conduct without even verifying whether there is a conduct issue to be found. This is not "editor who joined in 2008" caliber, aim higher than this. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 20:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Who's the non-expert on user conduct? Not me. Who joined in 2008? Not me. Who are you even talking to? I certainly don't need your approval or consent to document a user conduct issue, although it is curious how much pushback you and others are giving me, defending the suboptimal nominator conduct. Jclemens ( talk ) 22:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . Zero WP:SIGCOV . Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 10:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As said before. And by the way it wasnt just Alisa's page which was entirely deleted/merged but so was Asuka Kazama and Lili , all female characters from the Tekken series around the same time as Alisa's. Unfortunately there wasnt someone who decided to have an argument first like I did for Alisa, to have discussion page about a deletion/merge at the time?-- Crossswords ( talk ) 21:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I would think there would be enough products, dolls and merchandise where most characters would be notable. Seeyouincourt ( talk ) 01:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to WP:GNG , notability needs to be established via reliable secondary sources, and the existence of merchandise does not fulfill that. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 01:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not a valid metric for proving notability. Sergecross73 msg me 02:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is a WP:SPA that arrived today. scope_creep Talk 08:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] An admin unrelated to this has blocked them for being a SOCK. Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 21 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 |
Burma Economic Watch: Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Of the 4 sources currently in the article, 3 are just in-passing mentions and 1 goes to a login page on the website of the university that publishes this journal. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG , hence: delete . Randykitty ( talk ) 08:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Myanmar . Randykitty ( talk ) 08:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. Not indexed in selective databases; none of the sources in the article provide SIGCOV. No sources turn up in a quick search myself. WJ94 ( talk ) 10:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Macquarie University . Headbomb { t · c · p · b } 11:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merging what to all appearances is a very minor publication to the article on the university may well be UNDUE... -- Randykitty ( talk ) 13:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with Randykitty that merging content about a non-notable journal to our main article on Macquarie University would constitute WP:UNDUE coverage. WJ94 ( talk ) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Sean Turnell (with a very brief mention of both the group and the bulletin). I agree that this seems to be "a very minor publication", and not in se worth an article. On the other hand, Sean Turnell indeed is noteworthy - but probably more for his imprisonment after the coup d'état than for either his academic work or his brief rôle as an economic policy advisor to Aung San Suu Kyi . (However, I see that our article about Turnell was started under his time as advisor, whence that activity probably should be regarded as more noteworthy than just the academic work.) However, these three sides of Turnell's life are related. The fact that he initiated the group Burma Economic Watch , and was (and is?) a coeditor of the academic bulletin with the same name, and that it was in their rôles as editors of this BEW that he and Alison Vicary urged continuing economic reprisals against the military leadership in Myanmar during the previous open military rule is somewhat relevant, I think, both for why Suu Kyi chose him as advisor, and why the present junta had him imprisoned. Thus, IMHO, a brief mention in one or two sentences and some of the references from the present Burma Economic Watch article indeed would improve the Turnell article. JoergenB ( talk ) 20:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Sean Turnell . I agree with JoergenB's reasoning; this does not appear to be independently notable, but Turnell is closely enough connected to make a good merge target. I have added neutrally-worded notifications to Talk:Macquarie University and Talk:Sean Turnell as I think should be a required part of the process whenever a merge is considered at an AfD. To do otherwise risks getting two conflicting local consensuses at the AfD and the merge target. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 20:46, 7 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 |
Jiang Li: While the article may appear lengthy and have multiple sections at first sight, the Biography, Powers and abilities, and In other media sections are all focused on in-universe fictional content. The powers and abilities section lacks any citations, while the Biography and In other media sections solely rely on using the comics and the film as WP:PLOTSOURCE . This leaves only the Publication history section, but the majority of that section isn't even related to the subject person. The first paragraph discusses how Shang-chi's mother was supposed to be an unnamed white woman in early drafts (it is not about Jiang Li and that part is uncited). The subsequent paragraphs delve into the development of the Shang-chi comics, and has nothing to do with Jiang Li again. Only the final two paragraphs actually cover Jiang Li, with the first one focusing on the character's portrayal in the film, which already has its own section in the Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe: M–Z#Ying Li . Half of the second paragraph discusses the release of a new Shang-chi comic series based on the film. Only half of the final paragraph contains original content about the character, supported by one secondary source from Comic Book Resources . — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 20:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In short, the entire article has only two properly cited sentences and one source that actually introduce the character. I have conducted additional searches on the internet, but I could only find one more comic review from CBR that briefly mentions the character. [6] Therefore, I don't believe this comic character deserves her own article at this point, as it fails to meet the criteria of GNG. Normally I would suggest redirecting it to the comic book series Shang-Chi . However, since the series itself is not notable enough to have its own article either, I would recommend filing for deletion. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 20:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note : The first nomination was from 2009, and was thus about a different topic (a non-fictional — and also non-notable — musician) than this comic book character introduced in 2021. (No opinion or further comment at this time.) WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: J#Jiang Li in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . It has no benefit to let that section referring here hanging. Aside from the mentioned sources, there's a web page on the character with some commentary here . Refinery29 as an entertainment news website can be considered reliable for our subject area here, right? I believe with regard to notability, the comics version Jian Li and the Marvel Cinematic Universe version Ying Li should be looked at together, as they are closely related. But as Ying Li does not currently have its own page and I currently have no time for a more intense search, I can't tell if they meet the notability threshold. Please let me know in case anyone finds more secondary sources. Daranios ( talk ) 11:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Shang-Chi - Unfortunately, I am not convinced at all that this character has even the small bit of notability needed to be included on one of the massive "Marvel Character Lists". As the nomination rightly describes, almost none of the content of this article, and very few of the non-primary sources, are even about this character at all or even mention her. And the few sources that do exist specifically on this character are extremely trivial. Rather than worrying about leaving the section at List of Marvel Comics characters: J#Jiang Li hanging, that section should just not be included on that list and should be removed. As her only claim to notability is being the mother of Shang-Chi , and her recent roles in the storylines where she was recently introduced are pretty extensively covered at that article, Redirecting to there would be a sufficient WP:ATD . Rorshacma ( talk ) 15:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Changed my vote to a Redirect. My original rationale for deletion was that both Ying Li and the Shang-chi comic series were not available destinations for moving the page. However, I find both Daranios and Rorshacma 's arguments reasonable, and I believe Rorshacma's suggestion is slightly better. There isn't much to say about this character even if it were moved to the list article, aside from stating that "she is Shang-chi's mother" and "she is inspired by the film character." Therefore, I changed my vote to a redirect to Shang-chi . — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 16:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: J#Jiang Li to avoid WP:FANCRUFT while retaining material to a more appropriate location for this subject. Redirecting to Shang-Chi would not prove as useful as we shouldn't merge more content on related characters to that article when a comics list entry already exists. Trailblazer101 ( talk ) 06:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The issue, though, is that if we avoid WP:FANCRUFT , there really isn't anything left to merge to a character list. This is a very minor, recently introduced character that just does not really have any good sourcing to show even a small bit a notability. Merging every character to massive character lists, even ones that are completely non-notable, just makes massive lists filled with non-notable, poorly sourced information. Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: J#Jiang Li Does not pass WP:GNG . There is very little to merge. Jontesta ( talk ) 03:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jontesta : But that section currently only contains a link here. So in my view it not very helpful to redirect to a basically empty section that then just tells us that this is some Marvel character but not any context. Shouldn't at least a brief character description, development of the character over time - American White woman, then scion of Ta Lo , then the adaption into film as Ying Li - based on the primary and secondary sources we have, be put into that target section to make things clear for the interested reader? Daranios ( talk ) 09:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The idea would be to merge over some content from this article to that section to retain a brief overview of this character. Trailblazer101 ( talk ) 15:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] One of the rationales when I was nominating the article for deletion is because of the lack of content. Aside from "she is Shang-chi's mother" and "the character is inspired by the film's counterpart", there is nothing else to say. The fact that she is Shang-chi's mother can be added to Shang-chi's biography, and the film counterpart already has a section in Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe: M–Z . A similar example I could think of is Darcy Lewis . The fact that Lewis was an MCU original character who later appeared in the comics was mentioned in the film character's section in the MCU character list , so it is also a considerable option for Jiang Li's case. Mentioning that Shang-chi's mother was intended to be a white woman in early drafts shouldn't be added to Jiang Li's biography, since that simply wasn't this character. So I don't really see a point of adding a super minor character of two sentences to the list article. A redirect to Shang-chi would be sufficient. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 11:53, 23 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 |
StarzPlay by Cinepax: Fails WP:GNG . HistoriesUnveiler ( talk ) 11:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Television , Internet , and Pakistan . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agreed with above points, there is enough wrong with it that it would be too much trouble to edit it into an acceptable state, and even then I don't think it would be notable enough. The brief coverage the topic is given in Starz is probably enough. Endersslay ( talk ) 15:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge salvagables into Starz#Lionsgate+ , where it seems the details about Starz's international streaming services have been placed (the service mentioned here is now called Starz On, by the way, and is hosted here ). Nate • ( chatter ) 17:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:14, 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! 23:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect into Starz#Lionsgate+ as above as per WP:ATD . HighKing ++ 12:55, 26 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 |
High Commission of Malta, New Delhi: No in-depth third party coverage. Sources 5-9 merely confirm former high commissioners. LibStar ( talk ) 22:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , India , and Malta . LibStar ( talk ) 22:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Per nom. Poor sources and the page fails to be a stand-alone article without significant coverage in the reliable sources independent of the organization. RangersRus ( talk ) 14:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge & Redirect to a more normal and neutral topic of " India–Malta relations " like as it has happened to the rest of the standalone articles. While it could also be moved to " Diplomatic missions of Malta ", it is least likely proposed. Though a strong proposal of merging is expected higher. 110.235.217.74 ( talk ) 09:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC) — 110.235.217.74 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 |
WYBN-LD: Translator WVBG-LD can be kept because that station has a storied history (it used to relay a PBS station). Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 05:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 05:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It may be appropriate to redirect WYBN to the WVBG article or merge, given that this station's existence is needed in that article. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 01:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with WVBG-LD : WYBN-LD might be operated as the "parent" station, but it would appear to lack the coverage (in potential sources; not referring to broadcast coverage) the (older!) WVBG-LD attained in the past. I can't see any separate notability for WYBN; one article for the combined operation is enough. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 6 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 |
WorldEdit: Only mentions. Everything else is either a primary source or is unreliable/unvetted. There's really not anything else to say here besides that it is simply not a notable piece of software, and fails SIGCOV. A WP:BEFORE search does not change this, either. λ Negative MP1 00:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software . λ Negative MP1 00:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I've just added a couple of academic sources. Minecraft themselves have endorsed the software in a list, saying that in that list, WorldEdit is "Probably the most commonly used". — Panamitsu (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep With the sources that Panamitsu found, it barely passes WP:GNG . If not keep then a merge might be possible to Minecraft modding . Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Owing to Panamitsu's recent update I'll strike the delete. This is one of the things where a Google search brings a ton of relevant results and youtube videos but very few to none that explicitly cover the topic in a way that would be acceptable to policy. There's a surprising amount of content in the article owing to borderline original research and citogenesis - probably because there just isn't much else to write. RetroCosmos ( talk ) 07:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Wikipedia is not a database of every single minor software program. Fails WP:GNG with a dearth of significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 11:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Minecraft modding . I think there's just not enough significant coverage about what the program is and its value to the modding community to warrant an independent article. Most of the non-research articles are primary sources. The coverage about the modders who used it to create something in Minecraft is trivial. I think the strongest stuff here is the recognition from Softonic and Rock Paper Shotgun that it is useful software, but there's not a lot of content and as a listicle both are not terribly descriptive or evaluative. Similarly, the research articles add some but not a lot of value. Two are theses, which are generally viewed as primary sources under WP:SCHOLARSHIP . The Deepak paper does not mention the program in the content of the paper. The Nebel paper is inaccessible but WorldEdit seems to be used in the context of researchers using it as an application for educational tools, which isn't mentioned in the article nor complemented by other research sources, so I'm not sure it's something to hang notability onto. The Rossi source is of minor value with a sentence or two stating that it is a tool with server capabilities that made large-scale modding more efficient. The Koutsouras article has some occasional references across the paper noting where it is used in technical description of in-game building design practices. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 06:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Minecraft modding . I tend to agree with Vrxces here; the sources seem to be by and large mentions that aren't big enough to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG in my opinion. ― novov (t c) 22:26, 17 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 |
KPTB-DT: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 05:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Christianity , and Texas . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 05:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KRPV-DT . Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 06:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with God's Learning Channel : Even as far back as 2011, the individual notability of this station was questioned enough that a previous article was deleted via PROD. A new article was created in 2016, but notability standards have only tightened since even then — and if it couldn't survive in 2011, there's even less reason to have a separate article now. (Because the recreation amounts to a de facto contesting, I procedural declined a PROD that came right before this AfD.) WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:57, 22 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 |
Manayunk Special Services District of Philadelphia: Cannot find any examples of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder ( talk ) 18:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pennsylvania . AusLondonder ( talk ) 18:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge There is a quarter century old complaint against it, [5] and a year old financial report, [6] which I think is enough to earn it a sentence in the neighborhood article though not an article of its own. Jim.henderson ( talk ) 00:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If nobody else comments today or tomorrow, I intend to drop the flag, reflag for merge in the respective article Talk Pages and, if still answered with silence, execute the merger next week. Jim.henderson ( talk ) 15:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as proposed by Jim.henderson as WP:ATD . ~ Kvng ( talk ) 17:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Kvng and Jim.henderson , can you specify the Merge target article you are considering? Thank you. L iz Read! Talk! 23:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The target I suggested in my deprod was Manayunk, Philadelphia ~ Kvng ( talk ) 13:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes. Sorry for the delay; I got distracted. Jim.henderson ( talk ) 01:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : absurd stub article. This Philly bureaucracy should be a part of the Manayunk, Philadelphia article in an appropriate section but not a merge or redirect. Nirva20 ( talk ) 00:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete It doesn't need an article for this. Currently fails WP:SIGCOV . scope_creep Talk 13:55, 6 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 |
Structural analog (electronic): Rick Jelliffe ( talk ) 06:14, 18 June 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 June 18 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 23:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Analogical models , It looks like content forked out, which is redundant. CastJared ( talk ) 08:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Mathematics . Skynxnex ( talk ) 01:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: While mergers can be agreed at AfD as an alternative to deletion , I think it would be preferable if the dedicated process were used in those cases where even the nominator does not argue for the content to be deleted (cf. this essay ). Felix QW ( talk ) 09:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge . The WP:COMMONNAME for the electronics concept the article describes is equivalent circuit . PaulT2022 ( talk ) 00:01, 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 |
Expectations from the Muslim Woman: What sources do exist don't really seem to be discussing this specific lecture, but mentioning it in context for Ali Shariati 's views on women and Islam. There is a language barrier however so I could be missing something. If not, redirect to Shariati's biography. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 11:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Islam . PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 11:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Ali Shariati Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:24, 13 June 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! 17:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment If the issue is notability, it seems that finding out how many scholarly works cite Expectations as a source might help. I'm attempting this at Google Scholar, but there are probably more efficient sites out there: [26] I clicked on one of the Google Scholar results, more or less at random, and I got this 2014 study that cites it: [27] And so do these [28] This took probably three minutes. It's likely there are a lot more out there. If anyone has a university JSTOR access, we could have this thing sourced up in no time. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 01:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Darkfrog24 I mean, sure, it's cited, but the issue is I can't find any sources that talk about the actual thing besides the fact that it exists. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 01:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Its academic nature may affect our ability to do that from this side of the paywall. It doesn't look like the sort of thing that would end up in the New York Times book review. Do you have JSTOR access? Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 01:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes. Couldn't find anything on that, ProQuest, Gale, etc. If there is sigcov it probably isn't in English, which is the issue. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 01:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I checked and there's one linked article to another Wiki. The sources, whose titles appear in English, seem to be just Expectations itself. I'm comfortable with deletion without prejudice to recreation if better sourcing appears, but I'm not confident it exists. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 13:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the sources presented by Darkfrog24? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:25, 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 |
California School of Podiatric Medicine: I put a PROD that expired, but apparently this was nominated in 2008. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 00:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , Schools , Medicine , and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Samuel Merritt University EncyclopediaEditorXIV ( talk ) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Samuel Merritt University . It’s just a department of that university; no WP:SIGCOV of the department at this time to warrant a standalone article. Prof.PMarini ( talk ) 00:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - normally, I'd lean towards a redirect (not a merge as nothing has a secondary source) to the parent institution, but it's pretty questionable that article would meet NCORP either. 4.37.252.50 ( talk ) 01:08, 29 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 |
Ayu Tsukimiya: With those sources removed, there's next to nothing actually here. Trying to find sources through Scholar or even Web Archive found next to nothing, and while book sources do exist they're discussing her role in the title, not offering any analysis on the character that can be cited. Even the GAR it went through years ago argued it should've been merged. Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 20:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 20:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 20:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge anything sourced/missing to Kanon (or the character list if exists) but definitely at least redirect since she’s easily the most famous character ( uguu , anyone?) Dronebogus ( talk ) 00:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom. GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 04:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge an evaluation of the sourcing in the article doesn't indicate the character passes GNG independent from Kanon, and it leans pretty heavy on crufty trivia that can easily be condensed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . Article seems to rest its laurels on references, sometimes improperly referenced (such a citing an episode of Lucky Star without referencing someone saying that it was a reference to Kanon). - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 18:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above. I checked the reception section and it is pretty thinly stretched from passing mentions, and likewise, references cited are generally not meeting WP:SIGCOV or are not reliable. WP:FANCRUFT , I fear. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 08:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This remains a "good article" on the Chinese Wiki [11] . Have you tried checking foreign sources? I did a quick look (in Japanese) and came across: (Natalie 1) , (Natalie 2) , J-Cast , Character poll , Voice Actress Interview . English books: (talks about Ayu) . - Knowledgekid87 ( talk ) 17:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Did you look at the sources you're recommending? Almost none of them are offering reception, with the book only offering a tiny amount at all. The voice actress interview doesn't count towards character reception. And what another part of wikipdia does in terms of its articles is very different from this end of Wikipedia. Many character articles still exist on the Japanese end and they're a complete mess. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 17:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Kung Fu Man : I said I did a quick look which is better than not looking at all. A voice actress interview definitely helps on a character article as its out of universe perspective. I also notice that her character design inspired Fred Gallagher to pen a cartoon. The "Creation and conception" needs third party sourcing which I feel can be found via foreign sources, which falls under WP:BEFORE . This article could benefit from cleanup and a re-evaluation of the sources present. That being said... the bar is being set high here, are we going to discount the influence on a notable cartoonist, an interview of the voice actress given by a WP:RS , and sources giving character reviews? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk ) 13:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry but being referenced in a webcomic, even by a notable cartoonist, doesn't really account for much. Nothing is being said their about their thoughts on the character in any significance just a nod towards them, which could also translate towards the related media and not the character per se. And the voice actress interview doesn't seem to go in depth on the character either, just mentioning that it was done. The bar is no higher than any other article, the sourcing trying to prove notability is just not cutting the mustard. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 13:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay I concede... I tried looking into foreign sourcing and didn't find anything. I wanted to at least give it one last effort before exhausting the search. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk ) 13:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nomination, I tried in vain with nothing to be found. Even the GA nomination had editor concerns on the character's notability. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk ) 13:42, 21 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 |
Scooby Snacks: There were one or two sources about the name being used in the drug scene that could be given a sentence in the pop culture section of the main article. 2 (better source needed - no author information or related policies given) 3 QuietCicada - Talk 01:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Food and drink , Television , and Comics and animation . QuietCicada - Talk 01:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Scooby Snacks are not only an iconic part of the show but also part of a lot of merchandise. There is an article in the NZ Herald about "Scooby Snacks" accidentally being fed to children. [19] which was also reported on by the BBC. [20] There is also an article by the Daily Express about Scooby Snacks merchandise in B&M. [21] There is an article in The Sun about Scooby Snacks. [22] and an article about a copyright dispute involving the snacks. [23] "Scooby snacks" is also used as a term outside of the show and was added to the Oxford English Dictionary [24] and was covered here. [25] [26] The term is also used to refer to drugs, likely originating from the show. [27] [28] [29] The term was mentioned in the following paper. [30] Here are some other sources which mention Scooby Snacks [31] [32] [33] GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 13:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Some other sources I found with mention of Scooby Snacks: [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] There is also this article which I cannot find the full version, if I can find it, I might post it here. GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 16:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Scooby-Doo as a new section under merchandising. This section can include the mishaps with the dog treats. The other sources are mere WP:ROUTINE mentions. If a source exists of the snacks being illustriously detailed about their comparison to drugs, please ping me and I'll reconsider my ! vote. Conyo14 ( talk ) 17:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Scooby-Doo , possibly in its own section. None of the sources appear to actually be substantial, or are talking about a real-life product (as opposed to the fictional snack this article is about). I am simply not seeing the standalone notability of it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 23:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Scooby-Doo as indicated above, Bduke ( talk ) 00:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, the article talks about the term and could easily talk about the real-life product (including the reliable, independent coverage). The question is if the topic is notable, not if the article is. Hobit ( talk ) 16:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or merge per above. Most of these are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs and not enough for WP:SIGCOV . This is a small tangent about Scooby-Doo and can be mentioned at a parent article. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 19:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] keep sources provided by GoldenBootWizard276 are enough to get over WP:N. plus OED has an entry and WP:DICDEF isn't an issue. [49] is an academic publication that discusses these. I don't really see any way this doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines. Hobit ( talk ) 02:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep While some sources are definitely trivial mentions, there are some of them do discuss the snacks at large as a form of commentary and outside coverage of them is obviously present. The academic sources listed alone make this article worth keeping as per WP:ACADEMIC and deleting it just because of the wonky sourcing at the moment directly conflicts with WP:DINC . SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk ) 18:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment That academic article, fwiw, uses Scooby Doo’s famous devotion to his treats as a playful hook to introduce a legal argument about federal regulation of dog food - I’m not sure that it constitutes significant coverage of Scooby snacks for WP purposes. Llajwa ( talk ) 20:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Llajwa : I'm honestly confused by which reference you're referring to as there's various academic articles referenced as some of the links remain inaccessible for me. Regardless, let's use Reference 23 as an example of significant coverage. Scooby Snacks or at least some real-life variation are mentioned around 76 times across the article to demonstrate a greater point on the marketing of fictional characters within merchandise and other products. Notability isn't demonstrated by just reliable sources talking about the subject at large but also mentioning significance from topics that are outside of the original series' scope while also displaying secondary coverage. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk ) 20:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious ( talk ) 09:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Scooby-Doo per above. The vast majority of the multitude of links above are just a bunch of google hits, many of them being from unreliable sources, and many of them being the most trivial of mentions of the term (with some not even mentioning it at all that I can find). Looking through them to find the actual reliable sources, there still is not that extensive enough coverage that an independent page could really be supported, and per WP:NOPAGE , this would be better covered on the broader topic of the franchise for the greater amount of context covering that way would provide. All that can really be said, using the reliable sources here, are that they are a reoccurring plot device in the franchise, that there have been some real-life tie-in products named after them, and it has been used as slang for other things outside of the franchise. This is something that can easily be covered in a few sentences on the main article without the need for a split out article. Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Subject passes GNG I feel. ★Trekker ( talk ) 12:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Rorshacma. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 22:34, 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 |
Nox (platform): It's a copy paste from the source which was present in the first version so there's nothing to revert to and no indication the text was released under an applicable license. I'm unable to find sufficient sourcing on which to build even a stub following rev del. Star Mississippi 19:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . Star Mississippi 19:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : There seems to be a lot of reliable sources on this subject when searched for "Nox" platform SDN on google books , scholar and I believe the platform was/is used widely. If someone can ping a subject matter expert, it would be useful to evaluate the sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk ) 05:21, 8 July 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! 23:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any more editors want to weigh in here? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect to Software-defined networking . As the nom notes, the existing content is both confusing and a copyvio. But there does seem to be enough coverage of this software to keep a redirect. Perhaps the current one-sentence mention of it is sufficient; the Software-defined networking article has a lot of content problems of its own. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 02:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nom comment fine with this. I do think the text should be rev-del'ed if the article itself isn't deleted before the redirect. Star Mississippi 02:38, 19 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 |
Lightspeed LA: Standalone notability appears insufficient, perhaps WP:TOOSOON . IgelRM ( talk ) 11:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and California . IgelRM ( talk ) 11:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Tencent Games as not passing WP:NCORP . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 14:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete After five years, they've never actually created a game, so this is more notable for being yet another gaming industry money effigy pit more than for its actual value as a game studio. Nate • ( chatter ) 20:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The studio deserves a page. They've just announced their first game. Wariorio10 ( talk ) 21:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Announcing a game doesn't give you a free pass to have an article about your game and studio, since Wikipedia is not for advertising spam - it needs an encyclopedic reason to exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] People come to Wikipedia for information. It doesn't matter if it's a little bit of information or not, as long as the article provides accurate information, it deserves to exist. This page can be expanded in the future over time. Wariorio10 ( talk ) 22:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Accuracy alone is insufficient for inclusion. Cortador ( talk ) 09:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Draftify given the announced game may come to fruition. But this obviously attracts WP:GNG . Put it this way, if the studio's notability hinges on the studio's announcement of Last Sentinel , an article for Last Sentinel itself would be draftified for being WP:TOOSOON . Pre-release coverage for things yet to materialise should always be dealt with caution as the coverage is largely reliant about what the studio is saying about itself. This is indicated by the presser-style news articles, and inclusion of interviews and YouTube channels. The studio just hasn't reached a point yet where anything can be said about it other than what the studio is announcing and telling media itself. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 01:55, 19 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! 05:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Tencent Games. The studio isn't notable by itself. One announced game won't change that, and sources are more likely to report on that game than on the studio specifically. Merge to Tencent Games as WP:ATD , unable to find anything that meets GNG/ WP:NCORP . HighKing ++ 19:08, 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 |
December 2009 Lower Dir mosque bombing: No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT . LibStar ( talk ) 14:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Terrorism , Islam , and Pakistan . LibStar ( talk ) 14:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2009 . PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 19:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun ( talk ) 15:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette Edit! 16:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2009 . It's depressing that these are almost routine, but there it is. Mangoe ( talk ) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as suggested. Sadly, like shootings since 2012 in the United States, terrorist attacks in Pakistan around 2009 were all too common and part of a pattern. Bearian ( talk ) 14:23, 1 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 |
List of NBC Sports golf commentators: Let'srun ( talk ) 19:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Television , and Golf . Let'srun ( talk ) 19:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Golf on NBC#Commentators . It's trivial, but still somewhat useful. Conyo14 ( talk ) 16:37, 5 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 ) 04:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Golf on NBC#Commentators per Conyo14 's good idea. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 18:02, 26 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 |
Doctor Thirteen: Fails WP:GNG , my before gave my nothing. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:59, 25 November 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 . Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: D in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 17:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I would be willing to accept a merge. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment If the article is not kept, we likely need a disambiguation page. Thirteenth Doctor and Thirteen (House) are currently linked in hatnotes from this page. TompaDompa ( talk ) 19:19, 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 |
Brevard County Social Services: Sources are primary sources or passing mentions. Z1720 ( talk ) 20:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions . Z1720 ( talk ) 20:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability , Organizations , Education , and Social science . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect into Brevard County, Florida . Appears to have been spun off from that article back when it was pretty bloated. It would benefit from unsourced statements and WP:FARTs being removed in the process. Zsinj Talk 00:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
International Project Space: It does not seem to have been incorporated or had staff beyond an exhibition curator. Rather, it seems to have been a venue, an art gallery run by Birmingham City University's Birmingham Institute of Art and Design (Q22661578) and located in the Ruskin Hall (Q26340863) building. No sources found in cursory search. Daask ( talk ) 11:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts , Organizations , and England . Daask ( talk ) 11:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - A suitable target article to redirect this to would be Bournville Centre for Visual Arts . Netherzone ( talk ) 14:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Bournville Centre for Visual Arts seems best as the information is verifiable — siro χ o 19:07, 10 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 |
2022 Galicia bus crash: The crash received a brief spike of coverage at the time but neither the sources in the article nor a search for other coverage finds any indication that it had lasting notability. BilledMammal ( talk ) 00:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Spain . BilledMammal ( talk ) 00:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe it should stay as the accident happened in a country that normally does not get mass casualty incidents like this and when they do should be documented as such Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . This does not have the massive societal ramifications or long-term retrospective coverage necessary to meet WP:NEVENTS . Wikipedia is not a collection of news stories. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 04:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge (selectively and without prejudice) into List of traffic collisions (2000–present)#2022 . Yet another case of bizarre fragmentation! The topic may be notable or not. The answer DOES NOT MATTER as, regardless of the answer, this is an improper WP:SPINOFF from its parent that has just the listing and one short sentence on the accident and could use ALL OF THE SOURCES! gidonb ( talk ) 20:46, 26 June 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! 00:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : We have continuing coverage through at least March 2023 in national as well as local media. The investigation is apparently still ongoing. It's not clear to me that there is persistent coverage, but it's also not entirely clear that there isn't, or won't be. That said, I don't see any compelling reason not to merge. -- Visviva ( talk ) 03:19, 16 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 |
Cervantes de Leon: It is therefore not notable. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 15:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Video games , and Japan . QuicoleJR ( talk ) 15:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge With List of Soulcalibur characters#Cervantes , I couldn't find WP:SIGCOV of him. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 20:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Fails WP:GNG . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 21:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge is a reasonable outcome. Bearian ( talk ) 19:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Soulcalibur characters#Cervantes . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 08:28, 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 |
Chris Britton (musician): Which was a bit surprising. Draftify might be an option, if someone wants to work on this, but can't find enough in-depth coverage. Onel 5969 TT me 12:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to The Troggs per WP:MUSICBIO as a musician primarily notable for their work with one band. While the article includes descriptions of a solo career, this material is exclusively cited to Discogs listings that do not demonstrate notability. While it's possible that the 1969 solo album may be found notable with reference to contemporary offline reviews, the rest of the description (a smattering of individual songs on compilation albums) does not suggest that substantial coverage of Britton is likely to exist offline. signed, Rosguill talk 17:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Chris Britton, although he is not the most notable person to surpass Wikipedia:MUSICBIO , has done a lot more than fellow Trogg members Pete Staples and Ronnie Bond . In comparison, Britton has done a lot more in the industry than Staples and Bond. You've stated that " Redirect to The Troggs per WP:MUSICBIO as a musician primarily notable for their work with one band.", yet P.S and R.B are only primarily known for their work with one band, what makes them so special to have one? The majority of Ronnie Bond's article is just stating what hits the band had. I did a little counting, and out of the 157 biographical words (excluding headings, references, discography etc.) on Bond's article, 93 consisted of only Troggs songs and their chartings, leaving only 64 words explaining Bond's personal life (less than 50%). Bond didn't do anything outside of the Troggs, but he has an article, Staples, though he has recorded solo releases, gets one, so why doesn't Britton? Chris' article has more information and references (excluding the discogs references), so, personally, I do believe Chris Britton is capable enough of owning his own article, just like the other three. Foox123456789 ( talk ) 01:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Other stuff exists , those articles should probably be converted to redirects too. Unless there's RS coverage of their non-Troggs material. signed, Rosguill talk 16:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Seems to be sufficiently sourced. ― Justin ( ko a vf ) ❤ T ☮ C ☺ M ☯ 15:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep did find a staff review of his solo album at AllMusic here , Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If the opening statement of the one piece of coverage of Britton outside the context of The Troggs is Chris Britton's rare solo album sounds much like you would expect if you're familiar with his very occasional singing and songwriting outings within the Troggs , I think the case for independent notability is extremely flimsy. signed, Rosguill talk 04:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep based on existing sources. Pershkoviski ( talk ) 02:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Additional input is needed, since most of the keep votes are "weak", and editors do not seem entirely convinced. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I was able to find a few additional sources: [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] . I don't really see any justification for deleting the article when he is clearly famous enough that he is likely to be searched for on Wikipedia; this page should at least redirect to The Troggs . JMB1980 ( talk ) 23:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's either a Redirect or a stand-alone article, JMB1980 . - The Gnome ( talk ) 09:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm fine with either keeping the article or converting to a redirect, but there are more than enough sources to show the article shouldn't be deleted. JMB1980 ( talk ) 00:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The point the Gnome was trying to make is that no one in this discussion has suggested deletion yet; you're arguing against a non-existent perspective. The nominator could have been a little more explicit about their perspective, but it's fairly obvious that they're advocating for redirection given their prior edits to the page and the lack of any evidence to the contrary. signed, Rosguill talk 18:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This coverage does not demonstrate independent notability--100% of it is in the context of The Troggs. signed, Rosguill talk 16:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge downsized version to Troggs : BLP, Fails GNG and BIO. Rosguill's reasoning is solid. I wanted to keep this, but the sources are not there. Subject is notable due to their involvement in the band and not solo. The above Keep votes (one exception, see below) are based on opinions and OTHERSTUFF exists, citing no policy, guideline, or sources. BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ). ILIKEIT doesn't cut it. Source eval from above: About the band >> https://www.wyza.com.au/articles/entertainment/rock-n-roll-flashback-chris-britton-from-the-troggs Interview >> https://www.therockpit.net/2016/chris-britton-the-troggs/ Where are they now... ? The Troggs Interview >> https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/635681/Lead-guitarist-Chris-Britton-The-Troggs "Chris Britton, from British rock band The Troggs, visits Mosman Art Gallery for exhibition named after famous song Wild Thing" about the band/song >> https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/mosman-daily/chris-britton-original-member-of-british-rock-band-the-troggs-visits-mosman-art-gallery-for-exhibition-named-after-famous-song-wild-thing/news-story/1b3d796fece5845f85442e7cd18f903a Interview >> https://13thfloor.co.nz/the-troggs-chris-britton-the-13th-floor-interview/ Merge is a good alternative to deletion. // Timothy :: talk 18:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge As per the reasoning of Rosguill and Timothy. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect as suggested and a good compromise. The band was huge in the day, but unless you're a fan, a short summary (with all the citations) is probably enough for our core readership. Bearian ( talk ) 14:55, 3 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 |
Phú Diễn station (Hanoi Metro): The best I could find is an article about an inebriated train driver at a different station . [35] Toadspike [Talk] 15:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If closed as delete, please redirect to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) . Same for all the others. Toadspike [Talk] 15:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete SNG says that these are not presumed wp:notable and therefore must meet GNG. Clearly does not even 1/4 meet GNG. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 17:23, 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) 17:08, 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 ) 23:17, 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 |
Bataireacht: A remarkable number of those hits seem to include the words "making a comeback", and all date to October 2022. The article is extremely poorly referenced, and I'm almost in agreement with others on the Talk page that it's little more than a hoax. Much seems to have been written by JohnWHurley - who seems to also be the author of The Shillelagh Makers Handbook and Shillelagh: The Irish Fighting Stick , two books - both self-published - which had been the main references, along with a blog, irishstick.wordpress.com. A breach of WP:NOADS and WP:COI . Hurley also appears to have edited with another account, Shillelaghman123 - see history of Irish martial arts . There is only a single reference dating from the 21st century, and three of the seven references, total, are about the word "shillelagh", not the article subject. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , History , Sports , Martial arts , and Ireland . Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I'm seeing this BBC article , this book from 2001 , and this paper without much effort. Whilst I hear the problem with COI editing, it seems to me highly likely that sources exist that meet the GNG. JMWt ( talk ) 17:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: for some reason the BBC weblink is not working, I haven't seen that before - no idea why. JMWt ( talk ) 17:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] JMWt . It's because you've got pipes in those links. EL format is [https://www.bbc.com/ BBC article] rather than [https://www.bbc.com/ | BBC article] . Guliolopez ( talk ) 18:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, I've fixed. And sorry for messing it up. . JMWt ( talk ) 18:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, it's that October 2022 BBC Travel article that seems to have been widely copied and used as the basis for dozens of other article over the next few weeks. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well it's an RS. The other two sources I linked to above are nothing to do with the BBC article and were published beforehand JMWt ( talk ) 18:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - looks to just pass GNG. -- MartyTheArty ( talk ) 19:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi. Could you expand a little please? Otherwise your contribution looks, for all the world, like a verbatim example from WP:ATA ( WP:ITSNOTABLE )? Guliolopez ( talk ) 17:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the solid refs JMWt found about this Irish martial art. Of course the Irish know how to fight -- I could have told you that!
JMWt, can you add those refs to the article?
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Done but article needs further tidying and the refs might not be in the best place JMWt ( talk ) 07:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] JMWt , you've certainly done more than I do during an Afd. I just stick new refs I find at the bottom then put a {{ Inline }} template at the top. So thank you very much! ::-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 07:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Um, the Irish know how to fight? I guess we do? In the 1700s and 1800s, it was with pikes . In the 1900s, it was rifles, car bombs , and Semtex . In the 2000s, it's been handguns , pipe bombs and, well, just knives. It's never been shillelaghs. As a martial art. Secretly handed down from father to son, lost, and now resurrected via... /checks notes... newspaper and magazine articles, and court documents... Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Bastun , I apologize for thoughtlessly insulting you and slandering the Irish people. On this side of the Atlantic, "Fighting Irish" is just a cheerful meme - the Notre Dame Fighting Irish or even the names of my predominantly Irish-American Catholic parochial school's teams. It was clueless and insensitive to overlook the real pain the people of Ireland have experienced. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 18:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Shillelagh as suggested by others. I still believe this topic is notable but it's more appropriate to include this material in the other article. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note : When you're looking for references, you can't just search for a term and throw it into the article, hoping it sticks. Please also AGF and give me some credit for having already done WP:BEFORE . The BBC Travel article is dubious, but I'll leave it. However, I've removed the Historical Archaeology reference. It makes literally one mention of "bataireacht", says what it is supposed to be, and that's cited to Hurley's 2007 self-published book - which isn't a reliable source. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Excuse me. The BBC article is a Reliable Source. A published academic paper on the topic is a Reliable Source. A book published on the topic is a Reliable Source. If you've got issues with these, the correct way to deal with them is to discuss it on the page or on WP:RSN . The wrong thing to do is to start a fight because people are adding sources that you don't happen to like. The whole purpose of the WP:GNG and WP:RS is that we reflect how other sources have treated the subject not that we make the page say whatever we want it to say. The fact is that independent third party reliable sources have covered the topic. JMWt ( talk ) 14:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not starting a fight, I'm pointing out that a 24-page academic paper mentions the term "bataireacht" once , and uses a citation for that inclusion that goes back to Hurley's self-published book. Maybe self-published books by people trying to create a mystique or pseudo-history around a (re?)invented martial art are deemed reliable by that journal's editorial board, but they're not RS by Wikipedia standards. (See WP:SPS ) Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not contining to argue with you in two venues. A published paper is a Reliable Source. I understand that you think the topic is a fake, but ultimately it isn't up to you. We reflect the published sources. The end. JMWt ( talk ) 15:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . While I'm (currently) slow to make a recommendation on the veracity or notability of the topic, I would note that it is absolutely the case that this article was created by the same person who wrote the main book/works on which it is based. (I refer, for consideration, this exchange from 15 years ago .) That the secondary sources (Hurley's book) and tertiary sources (the BBC piece) and this Wikipedia article are somewhat "self-referencing"/"self-supporting" (cyclical) is pretty clear. I mean, Hurley started this article at the same time he was writing his book(s) . This, IMO, raises at least a few WP:NEO concerns. If this article is retained as a standalone topic, the WP:CFORK overlaps with (not least) the shillelagh article would ideally be addressed... Guliolopez ( talk ) 17:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A merge to Shillelagh might be an option. Interesting that the BBC article used on that page doesn't use the word bataireacht once, and a practitioner acknowledges "most people think it is a joke." :-) Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems like you are merging two different complaints here. First there are the COI issues which are not a reason to delete - and frankly would only affect the 'history' section given there are plenty of people and a good number of sources now to say it is a thing (even if someone recently made it all up). Even there, I think it is a weak argument as I've independently found sources going back to the 19 century regarding rules for Shillelagh fighting. Then there's the issue about the name - which again seems like a non-starter as a) it is Irish for 'stick fighting' and b) we have recent sources that use the word. Third there is the question of WP:CFORK which would appear to be fairly easily solved by participants in the pages, given that Shillelagh appears to refer to the stick and this page appears to refer to movements in the fight. In essence, I don't accept your premise. Someone wrote a book and other people quoted and included the book as a source for other media - ok. That's how it works - it has been noted in other media. Even if the original was made up or exaggerated, it can't now be a fake given that we have sources showing people doing it. An investigation as to whether all the people interviewed in all the sources (including some others I've found but not included) are actors for the journalists concerned is clearly outwith of the role of Wikipedia editors. And to be honest, even if it is all fake, even that's not a reason to delete the page. Write a book with your extensive research showing how it is all a load of bunk and then we can include it as a source. JMWt ( talk ) 18:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Shillelagh#History . I've stayed on the fence a bit. Mainly to give myself time to read and consider the comments from those advocating a "keep" (and to review the sources noted in those !votes - such as the this BBC article , the passing mention in this book , and single mention in this paper ). And, having reviewed, I'm not seeing that the subject has significant independent coverage to warrant a standalone article. Certainly those 3x sources are not what I'd call WP:SIGNFICIANTCOVERAGE . In all honesty it seems that the term itself is something of a WP:NEOLOGISM - not having much use beyond the works of the same person who wrote the article. And the topic (fighting with sticks in Ireland) inexorably overlaps with the topic of fighting with sticks generally (already its own article) and the topic of fighting sticks in Ireland (already its own article). The modern resurgent/reinvention practice, as discussed in the BBC article for example, could readily be covered in the Shillelagh#History or Shillelagh#Modern usage sections. And wouldn't seem to be subject of sufficient coverage to warrant a stand-along article (not based on the limited coverage at any rate....) Guliolopez ( talk ) 16:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Shillelagh , various sections, mostly History - as above, and my own searches. The term does seem to be a neologism, and that's after I trawled through some 19th century materials, and it is not at all clear that there was any structured sport of that name, or even in that area. Rather it looks like a freshly-defined structuring of something people did, with a label attached. Some passed down within some families, including a branch of the Doyles (one of the 10 largest name groups in Ireland, but only one small branch, in Canada, claims this carrying of this martial art) and the mentioned scholar, Hurley. In such an event, and with apparent sources in fact apparently mostly echoing one BBC item, and a couple of self-published books, we may be WP:TOOSOON - perhaps some day, this will be a full-scale sport. After all, whatever about ancient hurling, Gaelic football, now massive, was largely developed as a formal sport in the relatively recent past. But for now, Merge... Unless someone can get hold of the books by Hurley, and follow up their underlying references, if available. SeoR ( talk ) 01:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I got hold of one of Hurley's books as an e-book, and I have to say, it's well-referenced, from a range of sources (mostly not academic, but still...). Its focus is on "Irish stick fighting" and it makes a convincing case that by, at latest, the 16th century, there were several structured styles of stick-fighting used by Irish practitioners, many at least part-based on fencing forms. I remain of the opinion that this article should be merged into Shillelagh, but I do see grounds for a solid section in that article on "Irish stick fighting". One positive in reading the book was that the author himself is quite clear that much of modern martial arts "history" is dubious, and that there is little real evidence for widespread survival of any legacy Irish stick fighting forms - but his historical survey is persuasive, and while attempts at reconstructing 16th-18th century fighting styles are of course somewhat speculative, there is a clear basis present. SeoR ( talk ) 01:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : As an Irish former university history student, this looks doubtful. Admittedly, my view may be based on cavities in my studies, however it's also true that this apparent neologism does not robustly pass the smell test. If bataireacht was a genuine thing, it has an extremely low profile in modern folk memory, to the point of obscurity. The claims of recent practice in the Modern practice section are entirely unverified by any references. Franky, I don't believe them. It has been suggested that the article be merged with shillelagh . If consensus emerges to keep it, it could with equal validity be merged into the singlestick article. Proceed with caution: the bataireacht proposal has a case to prove to justify the article's survival. Spideog ( talk ) 20:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Shillelagh , per Guliolopez and SeoR, rather than my original proposal to delete. Merging seems the better option, and if 'bataireacht' does become more prominent at some future point, it can be split. (I've struck my earlier Merge comment, so as not to be double-counted). Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see what earlier participants who supported Keeping this article think of the Merge suggestion to Shillelagh . Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : also a one paragraph discussion here [21] , seems to at least be a "thing". Should be just barely at GNG. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I suspect that that Sun piece was researched by reading Wikipedia, and this is more circularity. Uncle G ( talk ) 18:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What a totally inside-out way to approach a topic! We don't have the Irish faction fights , which is exhaustively covered in sources that (a) mention that it was done with far more than sticks and (b) don't describe it as a martial art, but we do have this? Based upon a thesis propounded via Lulu.com books ? The subject of the Irish faction fights makes up the meat of this article, even before it was recently pared down. One of the books even cited here is about the faction fights, and it has been carefully cherry picked to be about sticks (and not give a page number), since the book goes on to talk about swords, spears, sawn-off shotguns, and robbing soldiers for their weaponry in the Caravat and Shanavest fights (on page 88). This has been copied and pasted into Irish martial arts as well. So much effort put into a single author's 21st century re-invention and self-publication using Lulu.com and Wikipedia, and no effort into the things that are in the history books. Yes, this should redirect, as above, and a lot of this seems to be misrepresenting the faction fight sources, so I don't support a merger of the content. Uncle G ( talk ) 18:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Embassy of Sudan, London: Fails WP:GNG . Only sources are a government list of diplomatic missions and a source purportedly about a protest at the embassy more than a decade ago but which appears unrelated.
Previously subject of contested PROD and contested merge/redirect. AusLondonder ( talk ) 16:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Organizations , Sudan , and United Kingdom . AusLondonder ( talk ) 16:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] redirect Merge to Sudan–United Kingdom relations#Diplomatic_missions as is typical for cases where the building is not itself notable. Mangoe ( talk ) 20:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Assuming the protests aren't mentioned in the main article, there's now something to merge, but the protests were about relations, not buildings. Mangoe ( talk ) 13:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Pedantically protests can be about buildings (e.g. [14] ), but these ones were not. Thryduulf ( talk ) 16:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have revised the comment, pedantically. Mangoe ( talk ) 21:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I've found the source for the protests and fixed the article, so that information is now verified. Thryduulf ( talk ) 09:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge 48JCL ( talk ) 17:43, 29 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 |
Meta Knight: The only usable sources were about him being banned at Smash Bros, nothing else. Also, I'm more concerned that most people cared about the GAR situation (another guy at the talk page, like can we end this?) at the past unlike its notability, hence I decided to afd the page. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 13:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 13:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Characters of the Kirby series . I think some of the most decent sources include This and this and there is also a mention here , but it doesn't strike me as a character who is known very well outside of being banned in Smash. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above...as much as one would think Meta Knight would be notable, it does make sense he's not: what can really be said about the character? The Smash Bros. stuff only goes so far, and even in the original AfD, there was great difficulty in finding sources with most asserting "there had to be some" for a character that was already 15 years old at that point. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 09:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Characters of the Kirby series . The current sources do not demonstrate notability of the character and a Google search yields no significant coverage as far as I can see. Fieryninja ( talk ) 14:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per all. Coverage doesn't pass the WP:SIGCOV needed for a separate article, but there is a good target to WP:PRESERVE some of the content. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 15:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Has a good bit of coverage mainly for being banned in tournaments. KatoKungLee ( talk ) 15:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Gagauzia–Turkey relations: This, however, seems like a WP:COATRACK WP:POV article for grievances about Moldovan policy towards Gagauzia, where the actual substance on relations with Turkey is razor thin. Geschichte ( talk ) 16:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Moldova , and Turkey . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Err, to be fair, unlike most of the Turkey—*Random African country* relations I'm seeing at AfD these days, the two sides are actually pretty close to each other, literally and figuratively. The two leaders, especially the Gagauz one, regulary speak positively about the other side, a Turkish search reveals: [43] , [44] , [45] , [46] , [47] , [48] . There is this journal article on economic relations of Turkey—Moldova, which also covers Gagauzia. The Turkish WP article has some other sources as well. Someone who has the time could likely be able to improve the article. Styyx ( talk ) 12:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per my sources above and lack of any refutal. Styyx ( talk ) 09:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with all that, especially that Gagauzia and Turkey have a lot more reason to have relations than many of the Random 1 - Random 2 relation articles proposed for deletion, most of which are worthless. I'm not sure about keep , however: the information should certainly be kept, but better as a section of the Gagauzia article. So I'm tending more to Merge . Athel cb ( talk ) 12:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge (at best) into Foreign relations of Gagauzia and Foreign relations of Turkey . There is nothing uniquely notable about the intersection of the two. If a merge is not viable, I could easily be convinced by deletionist arguments. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 16:19, 12 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! 16:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 08:55, 21 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 |
2019 Makran massacre: No lasting effects to meet WP:EVENT . LibStar ( talk ) 00:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Terrorism , and Pakistan . LibStar ( talk ) 00:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge a (heavily abridged version, probably a paragraph) to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2019 , where it is mentioned with no detail. Seems a relevant note given their security situation. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 00:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are some sources, but that are RS.-- Ameen Akbar ( talk ) 19:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources are all from April 2019. Needs WP:LASTING coverage. LibStar ( talk ) 22:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have cited a source published in 2023. Phil Bridger ( talk ) 22:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge selectively to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2019 . No evidence of sustained significant coverage. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 18:26, 24 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 |
Night Hawk (comics): To give further details on my WP:BEFORE results, the only results I was able to find in actual reliable sources were extremely brief, usually just a sentence or two stating "An early example of this kind of character was Night Hawk" and that's about it, such as these two books. Rorshacma ( talk ) 19:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Comics and animation , and United Kingdom . Rorshacma ( talk ) 19:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A redirect/merge to the The Nelson Lee Library seems more sensible than deletion. I'm assuming you've checked the physical media covering British story papers, like Book & Magazine Collector, Boys Will Be Boys, etc., etc. rather than just using Google. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 21:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. Couldn't find WP:SIGCOV . Would support a redirect if people can agree on a valid target. But it's an unlikely search term and deletion is also fine. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 01:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to The Nelson Lee Library , agreeing with BoomboxTestarossa . We do have the mentioned secondary sources, which should count for something, but does not seem enough to be to establish stand-alone notability (I cannot see The British Superhero , p. 41, myself). So merge as WP:AtD . Daranios ( talk ) Merge to The Nelson Lee Library as preferred WP:ATD . ~ Kvng ( talk ) 17:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to The Nelson Lee Library absolutely Sansbarry ( talk ) 01:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to The Nelson Lee Library . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 12:18, 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 |
Christopher Wursteisen: If not deleted, may be a fit as a merge into the early life section of Galileo , or to Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems , the latter of which is the article about the 1st source. Source 3 is an IP link. Gscholar reveals very little. Fails WP:GNG . UtherSRG (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , and Science . UtherSRG (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to something like Cristiano Vurstisio or perhaps Identity of Cristiano Vurstisio instead, because that is what the topic that meets GNG is truly about. A merge as nom suggested may also be appropriate, but should be kept either way. some coverage [7] [8] . — siro χ o 12:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Galileo or Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems , does not seem independently notable beyond that historical connection and other sources are hard to find. - Indefensible ( talk ) 19:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would favor a move to Cristiano Vurstisio per Siroxo. That would require a modest rewrite to encompass other theories, which I am happy to do if pinged. No real objection to a merge to Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems , although it seems to me that having more than a glancing mention of someone who himself is only glancingly mentioned in that work might be a bit undue. -- Visviva ( talk ) 04:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems . The historical person is not notable apart from the possibility that he is to be identified with the "Christian Wursteisen" of the Dialogue (who could not have been Christian Wurstisen ). Srnec ( talk ) 20:03, 3 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 |
Ogre (Tekken): GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 00:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 00:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 00:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Jam-packed with "TheGamer"/"Game Rant" sources, which are listed as situational. I couldn't find any sort of significant coverage outside of those - seems like a minor NPC character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 02:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge salvageable details into List of Tekken characters (à la my vote for Kuma and Panda ). -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 02:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above. Kazama16 ( talk ) 11:41, 22 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 |
Camp Evangelista shooting: No lasting impact or coverage to meet WP:EVENT . Also WP:NOTNEWS applies. LibStar ( talk ) 01:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events , and Philippines . LibStar ( talk ) 01:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the location it occurred in its own section at Camp Evangelista . Its closest claim to notability is making the army reevaluate some of their practices. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 03:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Camp Evangelista per WP:ATD -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Camp Evangelista . More significant to that article. Borgenland ( talk ) 09:24, 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 |
LBTBP: No mention of notability, proposing delete microbiology Marcus ( petri dish ) 14:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New Jersey . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Local organization sourced only to local organization's own website. The lead could be condensed and merged to Long Beach Township, New Jersey . Reywas92 Talk 19:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi, Reywas92! The speedy tag was temporary while the page was being fixed. As for the citations, they were the ones used on this page before the horseplay issues occurred. The page should likely not be merged because it already was existing page before my rectifying edits. 76.117.162.190 ( talk ) 22:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ 76.117.162.190 : Looking at the page history, there is no evidence of "horseplay". However, you have removed maintenance tags from the page without rectifying the issue (e.g., removing the uncategorized tag ). Can you provide evidence to support your claim or provide sources to prove the notability of this topic? P.S. It would also be beneficial for you to register for an account instead of using an IP address. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 22:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Significa liberdade : Hi! The horseplay that I am talking about deals with an apparent hoax regarding a so called “Tony’s Beach” (See user Drmies’ talk page) originally added to this page by a now blocked user (See user Tonys Beach Enthusiast). It seems that an administrator blanked the page because of the “Tony’s Beach” hoax. Since I was not aware of that prior to my edits (and my previous comments calling them “rectifying”), I assumed I was simply fixing the page and rightly removing the tags in the process. I now see why that is not true. Because I am not the original (by original I mean person who edited the page before the horseplay) editor, I am not completely versed in the sources and notability of it, and I have no problem merging any relevant information to a different page. I cannot register for an account because it seems that a blocked user was operating under my IP, and it says that I am barred from creating an account because of that. Lastly, now that I have been enlightened on the topic, I changed my stance on the issue (See below). Thank you, and I hope you understand. 76.117.162.190 ( talk ) 00:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, Microbiology Marcus. I appreciate your review and care for the accuracy of this page. This article was recently subject to horseplay where all of the information was deleted. I essentially rewrote the article and returned it to its previous state. As for the different articles, I saw both and edited one so I wouldn’t have to do double work. 76.117.162.190 ( talk ) 22:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails wp:GNG and is written in a weirdly self-serving tone— blindlynx 23:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your input. Could you please explain what you mean by “self-serving tone” and give examples of from the article of this. 76.117.162.190 ( talk ) 23:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You don't need to respond to every comment here. The article is not written in an encyclopedia tone but in one that celebrates this organization— blindlynx 01:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand that I do not need to reply to every comment. However, I choose to do so to be respectful and to attempt to improve my my editing skills. Could you kindly identify specific instances of tone that celebrates the LBTBP so I can edit as necessary. Thank you. 76.117.162.190 ( talk ) 00:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The entire article is at best a florid description of life-guarding. Only the list of beaches is obviously unique to this organization underscoring it's lack of notability— blindlynx 19:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your statement is incorrect because the article does explain more specific things (beyond the list of beaches) that sets the LBTBP apart from other lifeguarding, with examples being: the Beach Badge Checkers, the unique events and culture, and the programs that are only offered by the LBTBP. Had it only been about lifeguarding, it would have gone into specifics about how lifeguards rescue people. This article instead explains how multiple aspects of the patrol contribute to its goal of serving and protecting the public and beach environment to ensure a safe and enjoyable experience. 76.117.162.190 ( talk ) 21:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Long Beach Township, New Jersey The article does include some relevant information that is of importance when talking about the LBTBP, and the edits and tone seem to be accurate and consistent with the contributing primary sources. However, it is seemingly not notable enough on its own and any relevant information can be transferred to a different page. 76.117.162.190 ( talk ) 23:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why are you pretending that these are someone else's edits? You're the main contributor to that page— blindlynx 01:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not pretending to not be talking about my own edits. In fact, I am simply stating what I see objectively from this article from my point of view. As I stated, if the tone is not neutral, it is because the source’s tone is not completely neutral. I tried my best to make the page as unbiased as possible. What I stated is accurate according to the sources I used. Please remember that I am also merely returning the page to the state it was in before the aforementioned horseplay. 76.117.162.190 ( talk ) 01:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The information relayed to this page is accurate and reliable based on the cited sources. The information is also unique and notable (see Ship Bottom Beach Patrol, which does not provide most of the same programs or amenities that the LBTBP does) and is written in a mostly neutral tone. 2601:84:C900:BCC0:C2A:7896:892D:B378 ( talk ) 22:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It doesn't matter what services Ship Bottom Beach Patrol provides unless that beach patrol has been verified as notable according to Wikipedia's standards. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 22:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge / Redirect to Long Beach Township, New Jersey There is no evidence of any independent notability for the Long Beach Township Beach Patrol . The sources are almost all from the organization itself, with the single mention in an article by the Asbury Park Press being a trivial mention that lacks in-depth coverage. What relevant material here that is present should be greatly condensed and merged to the article for the township. Alansohn ( talk ) 01:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Alansohn : Thank you for your insight on this matter. Could you help identify what information may be relevant from this article so I can prepare a few condensed lines about it on the Long Beach Township, New Jersey page? Your help would be greatly appreciated. 76.117.162.190 ( talk ) 02:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge / Redirect to Long Beach Township, New Jersey As noted above, none of the sources verify notability . All but one source is primary , and the one secondary source is an overview of a single event. If there is valuable information backed up by even one secondary source about this place, it can be merged. Otherwise, delete or redirect both this page and Long Beach Township Beach Patrol . Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 22:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you very much for contributing. It is truly appreciated. I am working hard as we speak to prepare a condensed paragraph or two of relevant and notable information to add to the Long Beach Township, New Jersey page. Have a wonderful day! 76.117.162.190 ( talk ) 00:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Doesn't appear to be notable but probably deserves a mention in the Long Beach Township, New Jersey article. A full merge would give undue weight to the organisation. From reading the target article, it's not obvious where LBTBP fits. Maybe, mention in a new Tourism section or add a profile of the beaches in the Geography section and mention there? Rupples ( talk ) 04:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Selective Merge to Long Beach Township, New Jersey , where it should mentioned, tho not in such depth/ and without MOS:PUFFERY . 08:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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