text
stringlengths 40
160k
| label
stringclasses 8
values |
|---|---|
List of ambassadors of Pakistan to France: . Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 21:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 21:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Bilateral relations , and France . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to France–Pakistan relations following WP:DIPLOMAT . Broc ( talk ) 12:28, 25 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! 23:33, 26 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 |
1995 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit: Apparent WP:NEVENT fail. Could be redirected to Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix . ( t · c ) buidhe 22:14, 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 22:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Belgium , Germany , and Netherlands . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:49, 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. -- ThiagoSimoes ( talk ) 23:14, 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 14:13, 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 |
C. M. Rubin: The article was written by a blocked user and seems to primarily serve the purpose of self promotion as defined in WP:NOTADVERT . P3D7AQ09M6 ( talk ) 23:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 23:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note : I have fixed this heretofore-malformed nomination. No opinion at this time. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and South America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to a line in Alice Liddell 's Alice Liddell in other works section. Stuartyeates ( talk ) 19:42, 6 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 |
Slashing (ice hockey): It goes as far as to define slashing, and not much more can be said that isn't already said about it. Maccore Henni user talk Respond using tb , please. 22:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 23:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ● Merge to Penalty (ice hockey) - per ATD 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 23:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Common ice hockey penalty and perfectly sourced stub. I see no real reason for deletion. Nate • ( chatter ) 00:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Ice hockey Penalty (ice hockey) : That it is a common hockey penalty is as may be, but is no part of any notability criteria, and with just a single primary reference , I am at an utter loss as to how this could be considered "perfectly sourced" -- that's the definition of inadequately sourced. For anyone for whom those aren't good enough reasons in of itself, that this also violates WP:DICDEF is another. Ravenswing 09:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Wouldn’t the list of infractions section at Penalty (ice hockey) be a more appropriate place to merge it? -- NHL04 ( talk ) 16:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes it would I haven't thoroughly read the Ice hockey article so I was unaware of that article. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 18:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to penalty article. Don't really see why this should be a standalone. The Kip 19:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect to Penalty (ice hockey) as it would fit better with the rest of the infractions. Powerplay44 ( talk ) 20:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Haytham Kenway: So, starting with WP:BEFORE , the character doesn't have any WP:SIGCOV . We're going to do source analysis now, which is in the reception section. First we got a PC gamer source with zero mention of character/game review , G4t7 dead source, [15] [16] Zero mentions about Haytham, GamesRadar+ has a short trivia content , IGN listicle with trivia content , another IGN's listicle , listicle with a short content , dualshockers' listicle with trivia content , Gamepro's listicle , Gamerevolution's listicle with short content , just a short interview , Comicbook source isn't reception at all , Heavy source contains only trivia quote content , while the last popmatters source is a bit useful, but with short content about the character . Overall, the article still fails WP:GNG ; and has no SIGCOV at all. 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 ( 🔔 ) 06:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Video games . 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 ( 🔔 ) 06:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strongly oppose . The article was nominated for deletion on similar grounds a few years ago, which was dismissed. Nothing has changed since then. Also, the argument that there is no significant coverage is baseless. The article has over 40 sources, you choose to focus on the reception section, ignoring all the others. Also, I don’t see how listicles indicate a lack of notability. DasallmächtigeJ ( talk ) 10:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If we're gonna include everything; not sure how these 3 sources with very short content, interview and another trivia-like content at dev info would help WP:GNG . This is not like other fictional characters; when there are a lot of reliable sources, it does not mean they are automatically notable, unless the character was really discussed by multiple reliable sources. 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 ( 🔔 ) 10:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ DasallmächtigeJ Could you link us to that AfD? It's not on Kenway's talk page for some reason. In any case, consensus can change, so a renomination is valid. Additionally, Reception tends to be the biggest bulk of proving an article's notability. Usually, listicles tend to provide very little to Reception. While there are plenty of exceptions, the ones here seem to be very weak overall, from a glance. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I was wondering why I couldn’t find it and after some digging I remembered it wasn’t even nominated for deletion. A user simply turned it into a redirect without seeking consensus first. The issue was resolved on my talk page, where the discussion can still be found here . DasallmächtigeJ ( talk ) 12:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ' keep - I think this just about meets the criteria. I'd agree there isn't three articles that only talk about the subject, but there's an awful lot that at least talk about them. this game radar article talks about how the character feels a bit like a red herring , this Kotaku article talks about them in terms of a game they aren't in and realistically, this interview is about as in-depth as you can get about a character. I think given them, and the other articles cited, the article does a good job showing that this minor character is indeed notable. The GA status, or lack of it, has nothing to do with this. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs ) 11:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The interview counts as a primary source, and thus does not count towards GNG nor SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 19:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] well, if it was an interview with the game's publisher, I'd probably agree. I don't agree that a voice actor being specifically interviewed by a third party would be primary. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs ) 21:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I mean, I'd argue it's primary since it's an interview with a person directly affiliated with the development of the game and the character in question. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 18:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters . Every source here is trivial to some degree, and there's a distinct lack of strong sourcing to anchor the article around. Ping me if more sources come up but I'm not seeing anything that's close to meeting the threshold needed to split off here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 19:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters - his standalone notability is dubious and there's a clear and obvious WP:ATD to target him to. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge a lot of the reception is trivial, and while one could argue it helps re-examine the series antagonists it doesn't have much substance beyond that and even then it's shaky. Importance outside the parent work just isn't indicated.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 10:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More specific commentary on the sourcing situation would be helpful in attaining a consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters - Discounting the primary sources and sources that are just trivial coverage, the sources currently in the article are largely reviews or coverage of Assassin's Creed 3 or the series as a whole, that just discuss Haytham as part of that larger review/discussion. These kinds of sources lend themselves much better for the subject to be discussed in a broader topic, in this case the character list, than spun out into a separate article. Searches are bringing up more of the same - smaller amounts of coverage as part of the broader discussion of the game and its plot as a whole. Rorshacma ( talk ) 19:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Rorshacma. These are mostly WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs about the character when discussing the game. That reflects how this should be covered on Wikipedia, by mentioning the character in the main game article. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 23:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per Lee Vilenski. Spy-cicle💥 Talk ? 23:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This looks likely to merge, but even if it does merge, it should be a "generous" merge that keeps most of the content. This is for sure a borderline case but the GamesRadar article linked above, while not having tons of content on Haytham, establishes him as an important character as far as AC3 is concerned, and AC3 sold a zillion copies. Yes, yes, WP:NOTINHERITED , I saved the link, but I think that it's better to err on the side of inclusiveness in a case like this where we know this character is a big deal and the game is a big deal and the bigness of the deals are linked. SnowFire ( talk ) 04:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I feel this argument is very much arguing that notability is inherited from AC3. Just because Kenway's important to AC3 doesn't mean he's important overall. An equivalent argument to this would be arguing that something like Zamazenta is instantly notable because it's an important part of Pokemon Shield , which sold a lot of copies, despite the fact Zamazenta has absolutely no claim to notability. I do agree that this should be a decently large merge, given most of the relevant content in this article isn't at the list entry. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 18:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Opinion is evenly divided between those editors advocating Keep and those arguing for a Merge. I find the Merge argument stronger but maybe those who believe it should be Kept can make a better argument about the sources being adequate. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:04, 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 |
Survey stakes: CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect/Merge Survey stakes are included in articles such as [22] . It's likely the subject doesn't need it's own article - recommend merging and redirecting into Construction surveying . Resonant Dis tor tion 08:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect : Utilizing sources like what ResonantDistortion provided and Modern Residential Construction Practices (2017) [23] , the topic can be properly merged into Construction surveying . XxTechnicianxX ( talk ) 23:35, 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 |
Mughal conquest of Baglana: Also it lacks notability as only found a line around this event, that "Aurangzeb easily overran the kingdom". Based Kashmiri ( talk ) 18:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , and India . Shellwood ( talk ) 18:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I support the deletion request for this article, as I couldn't find any sources on the internet. I think that this article should be deleted unless there is more sources. Eason Y. Lu ( talk ) 22:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge to Shah_Jahan#Early_military_campaigns . Two reliable sources from John F. Richards and Munis Faruqui, also a historian but these two do not have any coverage on the battle or siege. One line that says that an Expedition was sent to Balgana and the kingdom was easily ran over and the kingdom became a vassal and this is not enough to warrant a standalone full fledged page. Maybe best for merge under military campaigns of Shah Jahan. All other sources fail reliability as they are translation of primary sources. RangersRus ( talk ) 11:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:04, 17 May 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! 23:35, 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 |
Fortune Indonesia: Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IDN App , another properties of IDN Media . I am also nominating the following related pages which are also properties: Popmama.com ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Popbela.com ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Yummy (company) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) IDN Times ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) GGWP ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) IgelRM ( talk ) 00:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Indonesia . IgelRM ( talk ) 00:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Websites . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Was GGWP meant to be in this nomination? – Pbrks ( t · c ) 01:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, some sources aren't independent of IDN Media and it doesn't appear to have WP:SIGCOV . IgelRM ( talk ) 03:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I mention this because it that article is not currently in this AfD, so the deletion template has been removed from the article. – Pbrks ( t · c ) 04:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh whoops. Edited in above, thanks. IgelRM ( talk ) 10:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all I went through this list and was planning to take all of them to Afd, so its fortuitous they have been bundled together like this. They are typical UPE fayre, brochure advertising and have value. References are very poor. scope_creep Talk 16:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Fortune (magazine) . Voting only on the main article for now, as I have not checked the other properties yet. Perfectstrangerz ( talk ) 01:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to hopefully get more editor opinion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IDN App , which the nominator refers to was closed as Merge. Is that the outcome you are seeking and, if so, what would the target article(s) be? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies for the messy nomination. Maybe closing Fortune Indonesia as merge/redirect to Fortune. And then separately relisting the other nominated IDN Media websites. IgelRM ( talk ) 15:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Fortune (magazine) for Fortune Indonesia . For the rest I would say it could be fair to just merge into IDN Media because a lot of it relies on non-independent circular-ish referencing here. TLA tlak 03:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge – Per above. Svartner ( talk ) 05:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as per ADT as above, topics on their own fails GNG/ WP:NCORP notability guidelines. HighKing ++ 10:55, 18 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 |
Olive salad: WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV . Contents of this article could be covered in 1 or 2 sentences on the Muffuletta article. BaduFerreira ( talk ) 23:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions . BaduFerreira ( talk ) 23:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Muffuletta . Per nom, this is not a distinct enough product with sourcing specific to it to need a stand-alone article. All sources here are in the context of the muffaletta. Reywas92 Talk 13:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as opposed to redirect, to save some information and sources. Bearian ( talk ) 16:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I realize this is not a typical argument at AfD, but you can also put it on pasta. Olive salad is associated with the muffuletta , and to be sure some version of it will be on every muffuletta, but you can also add it to any cold cut sandwich. You can drop a spoonful on an actual salad with leaves. I think it will be hard to establish notability for olive salad away from its parent sandwich because even recipes or articles talking about it in another context will still likely mention the sandwich. If it can't be kept though, it should likely be merged rather redirected or deleted outright to give more context for people unfamiliar with the spread. Rjj iii ( talk ) 05:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Fontys Academy of Journalism: Ktkvtsh ( talk ) 21:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Netherlands . Ktkvtsh ( talk ) 21:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Fontys University of Applied Sciences#Tilburg as a premature SPINOFF without prejudice against a justified spinoff. No valid reason to delete was brought forward so tempting to just procedural keep. Merge, however, is a correcter resolution. gidonb ( talk ) 00:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect as above. Appears to fail GNG, and therefore WP:NORG . This, however, is based on an English language source, and better sources proving notability may exist in Dutch. Bgv. ( talk ) 08:13, 28 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 |
4Dwm: There was a previous nomination in 2021 that failed on the basis that there are mentions of the software in Google Books and Google Scholar. However, these sources are either not independent (published by Silicon Graphics) or are not in-depth (passing mentions in a book chapter or a paper). HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 14:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to IRIX : no independent notability. Owen× ☎ 15:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software . Owen× ☎ 15:15, 23 May 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! 23:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to IRIX per above. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 02:32, 1 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 |
Pulses per quarter note: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the "Pulses per quarter note" article in Wikipedia needs to be expanded a little bit, in my opinion this page should not be deleted as it tells information about time division in midi files. 192.68.163.180 ( talk ) 17:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Müller, Meinard (2007-09-09). Information Retrieval for Music and Motion . Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-3-540-74048-3 . The article notes: "The number of pulses per quarter note (PPQN) is to be specified at the beginning in the so-called header of a MIDI file and refers to all subsequent MIDI messages." Sweetwater (1997-12-09). "PPQN (Pulses Per Quarter Note, sometimes Parts Per Quarter Note)" . Retrieved 2023-11-28 . The article notes: "The timing resolution of a MIDI sequencer. PPQN indicates the number of divisions a quarter note has been split into, and directly relates to the ability of the sequencer to accurately represent fine rhythmic variations in a performance, or to recreate the “feel” of a performance. Older sequencers were capable of 96 PPQN (sometimes even less), which often resulted in a stiff “quantized” feel to the music (even if it hadn’t actually been quantized). Current versions can reach 768 PPQN or even higher resolutions, which is more than adequate for most musical applications. Note that the resolution of the sequencer is especially important at slower tempos. If your sequencer is limited to a lower resolution, one trick is the double the tempo of the song, then perform the parts in half time. This effectively results in a doubling of resolution." Loops and Grooves: The Musician's Guide to Groove Machines and Loop Sequencers . Hal Leonard Corporation. 2003. ISBN 978-0-634-04813-5 . The article notes: "If a sequencer has a limited number of steps, which was always the case with analog and digital hardware sequencers, the concept of resolution becomes an important factor. In this context, resolution means the number of steps used to represent a note or measure. Resolution is a numerical value expressed as pulses per quarter note or ppqn." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pulses per quarter note to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 04:52, 28 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! 21:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I've added citations to three books, two of which (Anderton and Rumsey) have enough information that they should be considered SIGCOV. I have some concerns that the main body of the article (the long 2nd paragraph discussing feel ) is basically original research, whose ideas are supported by the texts but not really in those terms. That notwithstanding, there's sufficient mention of this concept to merit inclusion. Oblivy ( talk ) 00:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge so it seems there is value in having this content remain. Does it make sense to merge with MIDI beat clock or roll up into MIDI ? Pdubs.94 ( talk ) 16:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 17:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as article has been around since 2009 and barely squeaks by WP:SIZERULE guidelines. could easily be covered under MIDI beat clock Pdubs.94 ( talk ) 02:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with MIDI beat clock . Changing my vote. I've made the argument for keep but the merge target is really a good option. Oblivy ( talk ) 02:22, 6 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 |
Michael Larson: Jax 0677 ( talk ) 23:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Press Your Luck scandal . Per WP:BLP1E WP:BIO1E there should not be two separate articles. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 00:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as all of the reliable sources and verifiable content at Michael Larson has already been incorporated into Press Your Luck scandal . — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] keep BLP1E does not apply. He is not alive. And the article has substantial information about him beyond his winning strategy. JoshuaZ ( talk ) 01:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] An additional comment: Since Jax 0677 has decided in a somewhat idiosyncratic way to express skepticism about the above (see edit history of this page), I'll note that the article has a whole section titled "Later life, death, and legacy." JoshuaZ ( talk ) 02:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC) Changing opinion to redirect . Fourthords's comments below are convincing. JoshuaZ ( talk ) 16:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I assumed the nominator meant WP:BIO1E , which does apply. Also, all of this article's verifiable content (including the 11% not stemming from the PYL event) is already to be found at the article about the overall event— Press Your Luck scandal . — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Crime , Games , Florida , and Ohio . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Press Your Luck scandal , if only because there's little left to merge. The history may be useful for attribution purposes, though, and keeping the history around is useful for tracking how we wrote about this subject years in the past. As for Larson's article, it's now redundant to the scandal article. - B RAINULATOR 9 ( TALK ) 19:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . I mean, it was already merged in practice, but still. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 12:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply - I am OK with a merge or redirect. -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 23:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Whatever is done here, please remember to move Michael Larson (disambiguation) to the title, Michael Larson , when this is all over. BD2412 T 16:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, Michael Larson would continue to be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT , unless you want to open an RFD. 162 etc. ( talk ) 20:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reverse merge and redirect Press Your Luck scandal to Michael Larson. (This concern is slightly lessened if the article moves from its current POV title, but that's being argued in a RM currently, and I'd still prefer the reverse merge.) It doesn't make much sense to have two separate articles, yes, but this is the more relevant article and the better title. This is not a BIO1E case, this was actually the more notable article if only one is kept - see arguments in the earlier RM discussion. Many sources discuss the topic simply by Michael Larson's name and not by the episode or by "scandal", e.g. [20] . SnowFire ( talk ) 05:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, '''[[ User:CanonNi ]]''' ( talk • contribs ) 03:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Press Your Luck scandal . Just finished reading the scandal article. All the pertinent information is there. — Maile ( talk ) 13:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sourcing seems fine, it's in older sources but talks about this person. Bit of a scandal later in life, but he's notable for the win on the show and what happened after. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and merge Press Your Luck scandal back in, per SnowFire . A RM to move "Michael Larson" to "Press Your Luck scandal" was closed as "not moved". This whole "write a content fork, then nominate the old article for deletion" strategy feels like an end-run around that RM. Sceptre ( talk ) 02:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As the extant article was and is an over-detailed pseudo-biography containing original research and un- and mis-sourced claims about someone notable for only one event , I began writing the event-based article on or before 2 Feb 2023 (per the cited sources in the original version of the article . The request to move the BIO1E was instigated at 15:54 UTC on 22 March 2024 by TenPoundHammer ( talk · contribs ), by which time I had been writing the event article for at least thirteen months, even saying in that very discussion, I began writing a Press Your Luck scandal from whole cloth to ensure 100% citation to reliable sources. I'm seven (of 22) sources deep in it right now, and was probably going to spend another month or so before ready to bring live. Furthermore, this AFD was begun by Jax 0677 ( talk · contribs ). Given all this, I'm unsure how any involved editor can be so plainly accused of what you claim . — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Sourcing is fine and meets our inclusion guidelines. Coverage is over a wide enough time WP:BLP1E doesn't really apply. But I think the material is better covered by us as an event article rather than a BLP. Hobit ( talk ) 17:56, 2 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 |
Data-driven astronomy: It describes what will be done as part of an apparently funded proposal. Since there already is a more general page on the wider topic at Astroinformatics , I see no rationale for this page. Ldm1954 ( talk ) 08:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Computing . Ldm1954 ( talk ) 08:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : the two topics appear to be similar sub-fields of data science , so perhaps a merge of Data-driven astronomy and Astroinformatics is in order? It appears notable. Praemonitus ( talk ) 21:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article seems to be a mix of general discussion about a field of research and a description of a specific project. A merge with astroinformatics as Praemonitus suggests could be reasonable, as could a merge with Galaxy Zoo . As the article is only a couple of weeks old, I think the best approach would be to draftify and allow the author to refocus this article so it is more clearly about a specific notable subject, or to move relevant parts into existing articles. Mgp28 ( talk ) 22:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Astroinformatics per my original proposal. No deadline, as usual. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 11:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Astroinformatics : doesn't seem notable by itself. Owen× ☎ 22:25, 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 |
Amaze (software): All I found is authored by the company Deque Systems , which is obviously not independent. Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 16:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 16:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also it is written like an advertisement, so I could as well just tag WP:G11 on this and Deque Systems with it, but I'm not completely sure. Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 17:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability and Internet . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Deque Systems : there's just about enough to exist as a brief mention in the company's article, but not for a standalone page. Owen× ☎ 01:10, 20 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 |
OMNI (SCIP): This was contested with the addition of a "Manufacturer's Brochure", which is in no way a notability-establishing source, so the original PROD reason stands. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Computing . Skynxnex ( talk ) 02:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Since it verifiably exist(ed) and has a logical merge target available, I'd go with merge as a single bullet point under L3 Technologies#Products per WP:ATD , WP:DGFA point 4 and WP:PRODUCT . (I would do it now but do not want to preempt the discussion here, since a merge would require non-deletion). -- Visviva ( talk ) 01:41, 12 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 |
Bridges construction: However, as it stands this article does not actually make the case for being a coherent topic. The parent article is not large and this child article appears to have few if any cites that support its topic claims (historical facts, engineering opinions, etc.). The cites are for small specific details. There are too many different types of bridges, each with own construction method, and each already has its own article. And I agree bridges already has both well-cited history and a well-linked summary-style of the types. DMacks ( talk ) 14:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : As the nominator for deletion under A10 . Of course not all the content is an exact duplicate, but it appears to be a translation from the Russian article , and "Bridges construction" is essentially the same topic as bridges , so I thought A10 would work here under WP:SNOW of this ever being a keep at AfD. Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk ) 14:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The same editor as created the enwiki article is the only substantive contributor to that ruwiki article. That's not a license problem. DMacks ( talk ) 15:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not saying it is a license issue, rather it's an issue with the ruwiki contributor trying to push their translation of their russian article onto enwiki when we already have an article on bridges , which again is essentially the same thing as "bridges construction". Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk ) 15:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Gotcha. Obviously not disputing that aspect. DMacks ( talk ) 16:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] On the " Bridge " page there is no information about the methods and stages of constructing bridges. Therefore, the " Bridges construction " page is planned primarily to describe various technologies for creating bridges, and these two pages will not compete with each other. VasilijB ( talk ) 18:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Engineering , and Transportation . ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hmm . Having something on this seems a good idea. Not sure what we have is it. But not sure it's unsalvageable either. Hyperbolick ( talk ) 01:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge (selectively) into bridge . The overlap is too great. gidonb ( talk ) 01:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete (or Merge any previously unused reliable sourcing into Bridge ). Agree with DMacks view ("many different types of bridges, each with own construction method, and each already has its own article"). Paul W ( talk ) 09:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Selective merge is a suitable ATD here, as I share a lot of the concerns raised by the nom about the article, specifically about scope. microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 16:18, 20 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 |
Power Armor (Fallout): As in, multiple articles specifically talk about it, or an aspect of it. But, whether it needs it’s own article without the context of a wider topic is the real question. Again, while there may be GNG coverage here, we are not required to create an article like this, and it could be probably better if it is merged in the series article, or a universe of Fallout article. I think this is almost or maybe only belongs to the fandom (Not gonna argue someone here, especially with a turtle internet speed rn). Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 13:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 14:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Creator keep Article is clearly a WP:GNG pass, the nominator acknowledges that, so why is it in AfD? Seems to be a WP:WEDONTNEEDIT situation. There are articles solely on power armor from VG247 , Kotaku , and pages about in the independent published book Fallout: A Tale of Mutation . Power Armor is an iconic item in video gaming and The Digital Role-Playing Game and Technical Communication book explains how Power Armor is one of the most recognizable and highest branding value things in Bethesda's entire catalog. There's a solid argument for it being one of the most well-known armored suits in games besides Master Chief and Samus Aran. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A lot of the sources are not what I would consider significant coverage. For example, this source is to do with the flaws of the Fallout Creation Club and monetizing mods. This source is to do with Fallout 76 issues; the helmet is not the significant part of the story, the mold is. The reception section is largely supported by only two sources. and there's no creation info about the Power Suit included. I'm not opposed to the concept of the article if work is done to show notability, but as it is, the article doesn't demonstrate it. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 14:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Zxcvbnm I am still thinking. Are those the best sources? Can you link the pages from relevant book (to GBooks or IA)? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - per WP:MERGEREASON . Between Fallout (series) and Powered exoskeleton#Fictional depictions existing, I'm having a hard time understanding why this was split out into its own stub article. There's also very little substance in the reception section. It's been tagged for cleanup since 2020, and for good reason, it's a bloated collection of long quotes and random musings about them of little consequence. Sergecross73 msg me 14:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are describing WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems. Theoretically it could be an article that stands on its own, it's already fully notable, so that's what ultimately matters. If articles were never made because they need to be above a certain size, it creates a catch-22 (logic) where articles are never improved because they are never created in the first place. There needs to be a basis there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not convinced of that. It's been three years and there's been zero improvement. There's virtually nothing of substance there currently, and two separate areas where what little substance can be discussed now. Merge it now, and draft up something later and hold a separate discussion about splitting back off if/when someone ever decides to write a legit article. This ain't it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . I don't know why Greenish Pickle suggested it fulfilled GNG, it's supported exclusively by two sources, and when you cut down the text attributed to it, the Reception section is quite small. Otherwise, a lot of sources aren't actually to do with the Power Armor, but with the Power Armor as part of a greater subject. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 14:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, for effect, I trimmed the Reception down to what I believe is actually reception, and cutting out unnecessary quotes and details: "Patricia Hernandez of Kotaku was initially "disgusted" by how quickly Fallout 4 gave players the Power Armor due to how the Power Suit had to be earned in early Fallout games and how powerful it is. However, she grew to appreciate it due to it being indispensable in certain situations, stating that it was an all new Fallout experience for her. Richard Stanton of VG247 was more critical of its wider availability in Fallout 4 , feeling similar distaste, as he felt it should be reserved for players who work hard and earn it. He was also critical of its abundant use by enemies." If it is, indeed, the third-most-well-known power armor in gaming, it's not shown in the sources utilized. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 16:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd say the visceral reaction of the critics as to its use actually demonstrates how well known it is. It's the equivalent of, say, a Halo game where you can play as a normal soldier, but are granted Master Chief's SPARTAN armor. There was something of a backlash despite the game wanting to show off the armor as a more major mechanic. But I can agree the article is underdeveloped. I'll try to improve it to pass the WP:HEY standard, since people have mentioned that "it being a legit article" would change their opinion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 17:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No offense, but it's been more then 2 years after you first created this article, and your attempt to invoke WP:HEY will likely not sway the majority of participants of this discussion, including myself (and I am sympathetic towards salvaging problematic articles), to go for a keep position. I am not seeing much solid sourcing (development or reception) that would enable us to build a proper standalone article at this time. Haleth ( talk ) 10:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge What's here just doesn't support the article being separate. Most of the commentary is about the item as a gameplay element and even then not independently separate from the particular games. I'd love to see more Fallout spinout articles on wikipedia that matter, but this doesn't have legs to stand on. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 21:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom. Merge target should be Fallout (series)#Gameplay , which is fairely underdeveloped. Relevant gameplay concepts should be put there instead of being spun off into a separate article. OceanHok ( talk ) 12:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Fullfills the minimum requirements of WP:GNG in my view, although improvements would of course be welcome. Daranios ( talk ) 15:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Fallout (series) . A Universe of Fallout article would've worked better, but it doesn't exist at this time. The arguments made in a previous AfD, here , are quite persuasive: in that, we should consider whether it belongs better in a major section of a more comprehensive article about the Fallout universe, where it talks about the importance of Power Armor suits in that universe and its associated gameplay mechanics. Abstain . I believe dedicated coverage about the Fallout series' Power Armor should be on Wikipedia. However, I am not seeing much of a reason as to why it should have its own standalone article. Also note that we already have an underdeveloped section for Fictional Depictions in the Powered exoskeleton article. I personally don't believe that this article should be AfD'd, but some editors believe that a merge discussion would not have achieved an expedient outcome if it's an advertised merge discussion with no deadline. Haleth ( talk ) 10:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cukie Gherkin : @ Sergecross73 : @ Haleth : @ Kung Fu Man : @ OceanHok : Courtesy ping now that the article has undergone expansion. I feel it may convince people who think the article was too short or pointless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment For what it's worth, I have added a section and some primary sources discussing the design rationale of the Power Armor itself. I think this article still needs a lot of work, but now there are some sources that actually describe its specific context rather than its ingame appearance. There is good potential that the article's notability is founded on its cultural recognition as a central motif for the series of Fallout games, in the same manner as Pip-Boy . But the objections that most of these sources come from trivial or incidental things people have done with the Power Armor is also a concern too. Hope this helps. Vrxces ( talk ) 06:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can a material contributor to an article still express a view here without apprehended bias? If so, it's a Keep from me. Vrxces ( talk ) 07:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rules say you have to disclose any "vested interest" but can still participate and express your views. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment While I'm still formulating a proper response to the above ping, I will note I removed the Creation Club reference, as that matter was about whether or not Bethesda could released mini-dlc/"paid mods" of items that had also been previously released as mods in other forms for Fallout 4 by other authors, which involved the Hellfire Power Armor and Chinese Stealth Suit. The matter itself was not about power armor or even the Hellfire outright. The fact it involved a power armor was coincidence. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 10:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure I'd entirely agree. The title is "Fallout 4’s Creation Club armor has free counterparts — and fans prefer them". The fact that the items being debated are Power Armors is relevant since Bethesda used them as a focus of their paid Creation Club efforts. It's not a coincidence that Bethesda featured them since Power Armors are highly sought after items due to their in-universe significance, making it more likely for players to buy them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm inclined to agree with KFM, by virtue of the fact that the Power Armor is just an example of the problem with the Creation Club. Perhaps the most notable one, but the Power Armor wasn't the biggest problem with the Creation Club. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 13:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "It's not a coincidence that Bethesda featured them since Power Armors are highly sought after items due to their in-universe significance"--Speaking frankly Zx, this is original research...-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 13:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This additional Eurogamer feature more outright states that "Fallout 4's Chinese Stealth Armour mod was at the centre of the controversy around Creation Club". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, that was established in my main comment. The Stealth Suit also isn't power armor in either incarnation. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 14:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not sure it really moves the needle for me either way. Sergecross73 msg me 18:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The updated article doesn't make me want to change my position to keep right away, but some of the sourcing have merit. Even the nominator conceded that it meets the bare minimum of WP:GNG, so some of us may agree that it is an issue of content as opposed to notability. Haleth ( talk ) 12:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And that's about where I'm at. One could probably find a few Kotaku sources about the red shoes Sonic wears too, but that still doesn't mean it makes sense for me to spin it out to its own dedicated article. There's just little here, and multiple other places it could be covered. Sergecross73 msg me 15:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure that's a fair comparison, as Sonic's shoes are literally only worn by Sonic. Power armor is an item that is used across the ingame universe by both the player and NPCs alike, comprises an entire form of gameplay interaction when you put it on (at least in Fallout 4), and has story relevance as more than just "the shoes this character wears". Sonic's shoes can mostly not be separated from Sonic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're splitting hairs on a hypothetical - I don't think we need splits for Chaos Emeralds or Mario mushrooms either, despite them offering "gameplay mechanics across franchise entries and having story significance". Splits like this are more appropriate for fan wikias , not Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 18:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Barber Airport: I was unable to find any superior coverage searching online and on Google Books. signed, Rosguill talk 20:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Ohio . signed, Rosguill talk 20:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ’’’Keep’’’ There are multiple quality secondary sources from a variety of established, respected aviation publications that must not be ignored. There is worth in keeping the article up to be further expanded. At the very least move it to draft space to be edited for a time before being republished, but I don’t think it’s worth even that considering that the article has already been reviewed and approved with the sources it has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowtationjet ( talk • contribs ) Which sources? If you're talking about the ones currently in the article, they're not secondary sources, they're database entries with little-to-no analysis of the airport. Meanwhile, the page was marked reviewed by me, because I brought it to AfD; that is in no way an argument against deletion, that's just the NPP flowchart --once something is brought to AfD the review is completed and further decisions are up to the course of discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 16:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] SkyVector, AOPA, Flying Magazines, FlightAware, Visit Canton, and Canton Airsports are not databases. They are fully third party organizations/companies that maintain and publish information and articles about airports such as Barber. The only source that could be considered a database is PlaneCrashMap, which pulls information from the NTSB, which itself is a third party, independent source unrelated to the airport. Same with AirNav with FAA information. Slowtationjet ( talk ) 03:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have also added additional notable third-party sources to the article Slowtationjet ( talk ) 05:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The cited sources you refer to are not secondary prose coverage, they're metadata objects (e.g. [20] ) that don't contribute to establishing notability. The only cited source that begins to meet this is the Canton Rep article , which is a fairly weak start given that it's a local paper and coverage there is largely dependent on an interview with the owner. Coverage of accidents happening near the airport is not coverage of the airport itself unless the articles in question devote significant attention to the airport's role in the crash or other history. signed, Rosguill talk 17:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ’’’Keep’’’ Article passes the sniff test, not sure what you're complaining about. Also has had three notable enough accidents, which is good enough justification in and of itself... Windowcleaner4 ( talk ) 17:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC) strike sock-- Ponyo bons mots 21:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. Llajwa ( talk ) 21:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Would other participants be open to an ATD? For example, this could be mentioned in a sentence at Alliance, Ohio#Transportation . gidonb ( talk ) 01:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That sounds good to me, I think the sources support that level of coverage. signed, Rosguill talk 01:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To clarify, that would mean making the page a redirect to the page on the city of Alliance? Slowtationjet ( talk ) 03:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Absolutely, a merge now includes a redirect by default. No longer a need to write merge and redirect. That's now already implied. gidonb ( talk ) 01:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge (highly selective) into Alliance, Ohio#Transportation . About one sentence. Can include a few refs as long as this one is included. This ATD has the support of the nominator , the interest of the only keep sayer , and hopefully the only delete respondent will join as well! gidonb ( talk ) 01:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This makes sense to me. Llajwa ( talk ) 13:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I also support it Slowtationjet ( talk ) 06:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge (highly selective) into Alliance, Ohio#Transportation per Gidonb. Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 20:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
The Sidney Award: The sources in the present article are all directly from the website of the Sidney Hillman Foundation (which presents the award), and I'm unable to find significant coverage of the award itself from multiple independent reliable sources. The award is mentioned in The Sidney Hillman Foundation , so I think that a blank-and-redirect to the section of that article which talks about this award is warranted. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Awards , and United States of America . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and merge content to Hillman Foundation - Agree with above. --- Avatar317 (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Scotty Wong — 05:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge is fine. Nothing notable otherwise. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:10, 30 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 |
Bobroedka: It's about petty conflict between Alexei Navalny and Margarita Simonyan (the articles referenced are mostly about "why Alexei Navalny calls Margarita Simonyan beaver-eater"). So it's an article about Internet drama, is that necessarily notable? Part of the article isn't even about this term, just about Simonyan being petty to Navalny. The article is also very badly written and meant to promote a certain point of view, which is not what Wikipedia is about. At best this might be redirected to Simonyan's page. Jaguarnik ( talk ) 03:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics , Internet , and Russia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If anything is both reliably sourced and due then it can be merged with Margarita Simonyan and redirected. Otherwise delete. We don't need two articles about the same person, one under her real name and another under a nick-name. Phil Bridger ( talk ) 19:02, 25 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! 07:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Margarita Simonyan - I'm concerned about this as a POV fork, and see no reason we can't cover this meme on Simonyan's page in its own section. Suriname0 ( talk ) 17:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Temürtas: Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 22:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Iran . Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 22:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Malek Ashraf as ATD. I agree the subject isn’t notable. Mccapra ( talk ) 00:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . No citations. The section at Malek Ashraf#Family is also uncited and I couldn't find any reliable sources either. As a second choice, redirect to the father on the basis of too little coverage for a stand-alone article. Celia Homeford ( talk ) 15:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Malek Ashraf . Subject non notable to be a stand alone article. Piscili ( talk ) 12:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Malek Ashraf . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 23:56, 17 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 |
Vera Freeman: The obituary reports on a tragic death from a morphine overdose but provides no further biographical details. None of the sources cite anything specific about the subject's career as an actress (ie where she performed, parts she played, etc.). The article also has some rather humorous errors, such as calling "The Fencing Master" a company. It's a play adapted from the novel The Fencing Master which Max Freeman was working for as its stage manager on tour in 1893. In a WP:BEFORE search, which included google books, JSTOR, EBSCOE, and newspaper archives I could find zero mentions about this particular actress (no reference works, no reviews, not even advertisements), although a British actress of the same name who was alive later was in many sources. In short, there is nothing here demonstrating the subject meets WP:NACTRESS or WP:SIGCOV . On a side note, I have now started an article on her alleged husband (according to the sources cited in the Vera Freeman article he claimed they were never married in court) Max Freeman who was in reference works. Perhaps a redirect/merge to this article would be preferable per WP:ATD ? However, I'm not sure that is even appropriate given that the later British actress did have a significant career and would be the more likely search term. 4meter4 ( talk ) 21:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , and Theatre . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . I cannot find anything about her career. As the nominator mentions, all the references are regarding a British actress who was working 15 or 20 years after her death. -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 01:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know - working 15 years after you die sounds pretty notable!!! -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 22:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect I also can find nothing about her career, but found multiple references on their separation, divorce, and her death. DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 10:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Max Freeman . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 22:07, 20 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 |
List of striking US workers by year, Bureau of Labor Statistics (1916 - present): No context is given to the numbers (why are certain years higher than others? How did the labor movement evolve over this time period?). Not seeing notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This article was just started 19 hours ago - what's the rush? I suggest discussing with LoomCreek their plans for this article. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, I just saw that LoomCreek is on wiki break for several weeks so they won't be able to participate here. If deleted, could someone draftify the article in case they intend to to do more with it? -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I think it meets the guidelines for inclusion on a few fronts. First this information has been heavily documented by a reliable source, The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for the last hundred years. Because it's considered important historical information both for it's effect on the economy and politics. See for example the Strike wave of 1945–1946 , and how it led to the passing of the Taft–Hartley Act . Secondly, I assumed the title of the list gave enough information for what each number meant. With the first being the year, and the second being the total number of striking workers that year. If others agree that sub-headers should be added that can be done. Lastly, this list has a valuable informational purpose, per WP:LISTPURP . It simply takes the information already available from the reliable source, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics , and has it all in one accessible page. (also A.B is right, I am on a somewhat of semi-break but not fully. It's just to get me to step-back a bit more over these next few weeks. I will still see messages to me though.)-- LoomCreek ( talk ) 19:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Our notability guidance for stand-alone lists says: "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." The history of strikes in the United States is certainly notable and this is useful information not readily available elsewhere in one place, even at the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (from what I can tell). -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's correct, BLS' most comprehensive one visit page is 1947-present , while the other data is from their yearly strike reports. - LoomCreek ( talk ) 20:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm okay with a keep (Update: with all the new added context I lean keep over merge now) though the page needs a sentence or two to establish context. But, might this be more valuable in a broader context, merge d into an article like Labor history of the United States ? — siro χ o 21:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Siroxo you make a great point about merging to that article. It's would add value to that article. Furthermore, more people would see the data LoomCreek has prepared. @ LoomCreek , what do you think? -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 21:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While I'm fine with either as long as the information remains. After the suggestion, merging with the Labor history of the US seems like a really smart move. It would definitely add value and context to the article. So if that becomes the consensus I'm in full support of it. -- LoomCreek ( talk ) 21:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete clearly fails WP:NOTSTATS : tatistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. The "list" is statistics. I have no idea how this has captured the imagination of so many keep ! voters when it absolutely completely clearly fails WP:NOT as a stand-alone article. I have absolutely no problem if it's merged and discussed somewhere, though. SportingFlyer T · C 21:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The compilation also appears to be WP:OR - the statistics themselves aren't OR, but the compilation as a whole appears to be as they've never been discussed as a set by anyone, and the page only includes primary sources. Absolutely firm delete on this. SportingFlyer T · C 21:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per, WP:CALC "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible." and WP:ORMEDIA "Source information does not need to be in text form—any form of information, such as maps, charts, graphs, and tables may be used to provide source information. Routine interpretation of such media is not original research provided that there is consensus among editors that the techniques used are correctly applied and a meaningful reflection of the sources." (bolding added) This is simply listing the accepted numbers of strikers each year according to the U.S. BLS, a highly reputable source, it doesn't even count as WP:Synthesis since each piece of data is discrete and not mixed in any shape way or form. - LoomCreek ( talk ) 22:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It still clearly fails WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST as the figures have not been discussed as a group by reliable secondary sources. Furthermore, these are not technically calculations. The fact a keep ! voter above has even specifically mentioned this information isn't available elsewhere in one place makes it clear that this doesn't qualify for the encyclopaedia as a stand-alone article . It may be able to be used elsewhere, though. SportingFlyer T · C 23:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As a note, it doesn't fail WP:NOTSTATS anymore, as siroχo added the introduction you asked for. Sorry about that intial oversight. The frequency of strikes per year is something discussed by reliable secondary sources, one of which already included was the U.S BLS compilations of their own data from their previous primary sources (see Wikipedia:Party and person ). I've since added two other new secondary sources, which cover the extent of information. I think it would've still met policy otherwise but I've added that. I'm very much in support of merging it into the Labor history of the United States to be clear. It seems to be the best solution. If that works for those involved, I can go ahead and do that. -- LoomCreek ( talk ) 00:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, it still distinctly fails WP:NOTSTATS . You cannot save a notstats article by adding two sentences of unsourced text. SportingFlyer T · C 08:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's sourced to be clear. See the Strikes in the United States 1880-1936. Given that the rough consensus seems to be merging, we could do that. - LoomCreek ( talk ) 17:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I added some context, feel free to improve upon it. — siro χ o 22:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Adding an actual sentence isn't demonstrating it passes NLIST, though. It's just a collection of primary sources. SportingFlyer T · C 23:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Labor history of the United States . This article fails WP:NLIST and the source is better suited for enhancing an existing article. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk ) 00:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Labor history of the United States as there is no reason to have an article just to hold a single table/graph. The list of sources is a problem but there surely must be some way to deal with that Mangoe ( talk ) 02:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] On second thought, delete as WP:OR per @ SportingFlyer : 's analysis. Among other issues, it's far from clear that the numbers from different eras are directly comparable, as counting methodology could have changed. The point made by the graph is so obvious that one would think we could source it from some secondary analysis. At any rate, there's no reason for this to stand as a separate article even were it more acceptably sourced. Mangoe ( talk ) 02:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand the caution but I can assure you the methodology is consistent for the time period this covers. See, Strikes in the United States 1880-1936 for an for in depth analysis of the early data collection methods. To confirm this has been followed since, see BLS Handbook of Methods for Surveys and Studies : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics From the second source, "No Federal agency collected national information on stoppages occurring during the 1906-13 period. In 1914, relying exclusively on printed sources, the Bureau of Labor Statistics attempted to compile a record of all strikes and lockouts during the year. In the following year, the Bureau inaugurated a method for the collection of strike and lockout material which has been followed, with modifications, since that time." The jist of both sources descriptions of collection methods is that they've been consistent since 1915, with data becoming more detailed in 1926 with the creation of monthly reports. -- LoomCreek ( talk ) 03:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The new article got nominated very quickly. Wikipedia:Five_pillars "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." This information is useful in understanding the subject manner, and what you would find in any publication about the subject. Category:Strikes in the United States has additional information which should be included here, making it useful as a navigational list as well. D r e a m Focus 01:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per LoomCreek and others.-- User:Namiba 13:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:NOTSTATS ; just copies raw data without context Dronebogus ( talk ) 14:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is a large amount of context and explanation at this point. Including references to secondary sources. I don't think WP:NOTSTATS would apply to the article in its current state. — siro χ o 00:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per LoomCreek and others.--This is a very useful graphic that teachers can use in their lectures. The commentary is already covered in many separate articles. Rjensen ( talk ) 05:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:ITSUSEFUL Dronebogus ( talk ) 00:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Pemi attack: No sustained significant coverage. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 00:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events , Terrorism , and Nigeria . The big ugly alien ( talk ) 00:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Timeline of the Boko Haram insurgency . PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 02:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as suggested above. It's obvious that this fails WP:NOTNEWS , but it does deserve to be mentioned and documented in the larger conflict. Anwegmann ( talk ) 02:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Timeline of the Boko Haram insurgency : Based on nominator's rationale. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 18:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Timeline of the Boko Haram insurgency : per above. Drowssap SMM 23:34, 28 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 |
Dutch Olympic Sailing Team: Not very many similar Country×Sport at the Olympic Games articles exist for non-teamsports. Kaffet i halsen ( talk ) 21:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Olympics , and Netherlands . Kaffet i halsen ( talk ) 21:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Unconventional and ugly duplication of the Category:Netherlands Olympic sailing team templates Kingsif ( talk ) 22:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge (selectively) into Royal Netherlands Watersport Association#Olympic sailing as a totally unjustified WP:SPINOFF or WP:CONTENTFORK . This discussion and the direction it is heading reminds of a recent discussion here . The nominator and the sole respondent thus far DID WELL to take a look at the navboxes that blow up the size of the article and may have triggered the unjustifiable (!) spinoff. That said, these navboxes should NOT be the basis for the AfD conclusions as the article is NOT a list so the prose is the CORE and the rest is just auxiliary information if not deadweight. The Royal Netherlands Watersport Association is the organizer of this team. There is ONE proper paragraph of 7 sentences in the article that is BADLY needed at Royal Netherlands Watersport Association , where the section on Olympic sailing is totally EMPTY (yikes!). A selective merge with redirect also works WAY BETTER with WP:ATD , WP:PRESERVE , and WP:CHEAP . gidonb ( talk ) 04:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge (selectively) into Royal Netherlands Watersport Association#Olympic sailing . "Selectively" meaning not with the templates, but with any useful, sourced prose text. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 12:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Absolutely! We need a SUMMARY table, not tables/templates/navboxes specific to individual games. It doesn't exist so in this merge nothing should move with the long paragraph! gidonb ( talk ) 16:41, 2 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 |
Criminal accusation: Chidgk1 ( talk ) 18:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete A clear-cut case of WP:NOTDICTIONARY . TH1980 ( talk ) 00:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already brought to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to accusation , which already covers this topic. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 17:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete As stated by TH1980 , Wikipedia is not a dictionary . Jacona ( talk ) 00:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just to clarify, Merge to accusation is also an acceptable outcome, IMO. — Jacona ( talk ) 10:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to accusation per Thebiguglyalien and WP:ATD . The current content of the article is a dicdef, but the concept can be developed in greater depth. BD2412 T 03:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to accusation per Thebiguglyalien Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 07:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
1924 Delaware State Hornets football team: Fails WP:NSEASONS Reywas92 Talk 20:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions . Reywas92 Talk 20:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Delaware State Hornets football unless SIGCOV is found. Alvaldi ( talk ) 16:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I wonder how are we supposed to deal with articles like this - not just for DelState but for early college seasons as a whole, many of which were like this. Historically, we have regarded and usually kept every season of a Division I program (I can't recall one ever having been deleted). Would some type of merger be best? I don't particularly like the idea of a plain redirect as then all the details of the season is then lost; I still think we should have these details somewhere . Also worth noting that DelState is a historically black program; the white papers didn't tend to cover black teams and people all that well and the black papers of the time are almost exclusively offline or don't exist anymore. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Suggestion . The program was just getting started in the 1920s and played a total of only 10 games during the decade. I suggest merging the individual season articles into a single article covering Delaware State football "in the 1920s" or "early years" or "1924–1929". Such a solution has been followed for other programs, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1924 Michigan Mines football team (merging multiple articles into Michigan Tech Huskies football, 1920–1942 ) and is consistent with WP:NSEASONS ("In cases in which the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article."). Cbl62 ( talk ) 19:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In addition to the Michigan Tech example, a similar precedent is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1879 Swarthmore Garnet Tide football team where early seasons for Swarthmore were merged into a single article titled " Swarthmore football, 1878–1887 ". Cbl62 ( talk ) 19:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I'd be open to a redirect and merge of the info here into a new article covering this program in the 1920s per Cbl62, but waiting to see if anyone has any other ideas. Let'srun ( talk ) 20:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Delaware State Hornets football, 1924–1929 per Cbl62. Jweiss11 ( talk ) 21:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Delaware State Hornets football, 1924–1929 per WP:NSEASONS and my "Suggestion" above. Cbl62 ( talk ) 17:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Delaware State Hornets football, 1924–1929 per WP:NSEASONS . Subject is not notable enough for a standalone article per the GNG. User:Let'srun 16:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Delaware State Hornets football, 1924–1929 oer above. // Timothy :: talk 16:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I feel like I've stated this a hundred times in relisting comments but a Merge is not possible unless there is an existing target article. If you want a Merge to another article, get started creating it. Otherwise this looks like a Redirect or Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Embassy of the United States, Zagreb: Biruitorul Talk 14:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Croatia , and United States of America . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 15:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As far as embassies in Croatia go, this is probably the largest and most odd one, so it sounds like there's at least some WP:POTENTIAL . -- Joy ( talk ) 15:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That’s a fair point. On the other hand, as long as everything we currently have fits into the article on the bilateral relation, it seems like this article is not quite necessary. Perhaps a redirect is the solution? Biruitorul Talk 15:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unnecessary content fork of bilateral relations article. LibStar ( talk ) 05:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the bilateral relations article, if there is any content to merge. I find the argument that this is an unnecessary content fork to be compelling. Carrite ( talk ) 03:42, 23 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 |
Happy's Place: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 20:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indiana . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 20:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to or merge into parent station, WFFT-TV . -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 02:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I actually am slightly less gung-ho on a merge than on most articles of this kind because I've found some surprising SIGCOV in the Fort Wayne media, including after the show's run ended around 1998. The papers are in NewsBank, but several long articles were written on Happy's Place . There is also some SIGCOV on the first host, Mike L. Fry , mostly because his business career selling cookies led to a fair number of features. There are three long articles with significant info on the show and there is also a specific mention in Broadcasting & Cable magazine in 1998; the article notes that the format inspired a show on WAMI-TV in Miami! Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 17:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "HAPPYness \ - Happy the Hobo's the name. Nothing else - simply Happy, OK? That's how the grease-whiskered clown wants it. He know his "Place."", The News-Sentinel July 30, 1987 "CLOWN ABOUT TOWN HAPPY THE HOBO MAY NOT BE A BOZO, BUT THE HOST OF WFFT 'S `HAPPY'S PLACE' HAS NO PROBLEM MAKING CHILDREN LAUGH", The Journal Gazette January 23, 1997 p. 10D "No clowning around - 'Happy's Place,' a children's show that aired on WFFT, really was a happy place", The News-Sentinel October 23, 2002 p. 1F For 15 years Happy's Place was an after-school standard in Fort Wayne and the surrounding areas. The locally produced children's show, which aired weekdays on WFFT, Channel 55, boasted an audience of thousands, a two-year wait for tickets and a host - Happy the Hobo - who gave a generation of kids its first glimpse at bulging biceps. But after nearly two decades on the air, Happy the Hobo and his sidekick Froggy... disappeared. "All local, most of the time", Broadcasting & Cable January 19, 1998 It's not a new idea, [Adam] Ware acknowledges, but one that must be tailored to appeal to local viewers. He cites the example of a kids block created by WFFT-TV Fort Wayne, Ind., several years ago. Called Happy's Place, it combined Disney Afternoon cartoons with local segments hosted by a local Bozo-type character. "But in the Nielsen book it was Happy's Place. You never saw Duck Tales, and it was gigantic. They owned kids" and the transition show that followed. Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Seems to have some coverage as above, a selective merge with a paragraph in the article for the station should suffice. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:50, 15 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 |
2022 Oakland party shooting: Coverage is simply a statement of facts, crime happened, suspects arrested. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and California . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - per WP:NOTNP Grahaml35 ( talk ) 18:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . The mere fact that something was reported in newspapers is not enough to warrant an article. Events either need sustained secondary coverage ( WP:GNG ) or social/political ramifications that establish historical significance or affect a wide region ( WP:EVENTCRIT ). This has neither. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 22:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - or merge to an Oakland crime page. It affected the Berkeley and Oakland community due to their young ages and also how often do you hear about young brothers being murdered for no reason in some psycho’s rampage? BigBeefShareef ( talk ) 15:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To be honest, almost routinely now in the USA... Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It was pretty notable in the East Bay area. Ask any teens or 20s people or parents with teen kids and they most likely heard of this BigBeefShareef ( talk ) 15:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - honestly, I don't see the notability of the event. Most of the sustained coverage comes from more local sources and there's no real impact outside of a few arrests. Now this can be Redirected or Merged into the List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022 article as that mentions the mass shooting. Onegreatjoke ( talk ) 17:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to consider the possibility of redirecting or merging some of the article content. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Agree with nominator; and doesn't meet N:TEMP either. User:Let'srun 19:52, 4 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 |
Chief firefighter: The article was created in 2005 yet is a single-paragraph stub with no sources. It covers the exact same topic as fire chief but with a different name and for some reason a Prussian focus. It's also obviously inaccurate at a glance, calls North American "chief firefighters" "fire captains" despite the existence of an article for fire chief . JM2023 ( talk ) 05:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to fire chief and be done with it. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to fire chief . Should probably merge chief fire officer too. Firefighter ranks in general could probably use cleanup. - Indefensible ( talk ) 20:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to fire chief per those above. I can find no source that delineates a distinction between a fire chief and a chief firefighter. I do think, however, that chief fire officer may be something different, and UK-specific. BD2412 T 02:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Hibiscus Coast busway station: Just press releases and routine news reports of events occurring there. I propose merging to Northern Busway, Auckland I am also nominating the following related pages Albany busway station ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Constellation busway station ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Sunnynook busway station ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Smales Farm busway station ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Akoranga busway station ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Traumnovelle ( talk ) 01:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and New Zealand . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural oppose I don't think it was a good idea to bundle this nomination. At the very least, Constellation Station is notable; there's enough coverage to bring it over the GNG line. I therefore have to oppose this in its entirety. Schwede 66 07:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you can provide sigcov I'll withdraw Constellation. I couldn't find anything with a search. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 08:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge all to Northern Busway, Auckland per lack of significant coverage. If the issue of notability can be determined for individual stations then the articles can be reassessed. Ajf773 ( talk ) 10:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Bundled nominations like this require more participation than this one has had so far. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge all to Northern Busway, Auckland . Djflem ( talk ) 10:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect all to Northern Busway, Auckland#Bus stations . No objection to merge if very selectively yet best left to the bus people via redirect. gidonb ( talk ) 23:48, 5 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 |
Cầu Giấy station: After scouring the Internet, I found [48] [49] two extremely similar sources with photos of this station. I am not sure if they count toward significant coverage, but that is all I could find, and it is not enough to meet the GNG. The one source in the article [50] doesn't qualify as significant coverage either – the station is mentioned once in a quote and twice in image captions, and the images weren't even necessarily taken at this station! Toadspike [Talk] 14:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography , Transportation , and Vietnam . Skynxnex ( talk ) 14:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge the position data, etc. to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) and redirect there if sources cannot be found (they're most likely to be in Vietnamese, so do check in that language). There is no reason to delete the information present in the article which will be useful if it is expanded in future. Thryduulf ( talk ) 18:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge there isn't enough coverage (or content) for a separate article from Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) yet, but there might be in the future. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 23:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Diplomatic Academy of London: Appears to be original research, possible redirect to Joseph Mifsud ? IgelRM ( talk ) 22:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom . IgelRM ( talk ) 22:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education , and Schools . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . No sources in the article provide SIGCOV. They are primary or press releases with no depth of coverage (Azerbaijan, check if recognized, GCU, opening of new), unreliable forums (houzz, diplomacy.edu), or not even mentioned (US News, Guardian). Nothing better found in my searching. We don't have to dig into the controversy or decide on its legitimacy to determine that it's not notable. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 05:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect : I agree none of the current sources provide RS SIGCOV. I found this article in the Stirling Uni student newspaper [17] and this in the BBC [18] . The first may not be reliable and the latter might not be enough SIGCOV. There is this Guardian article which arguably is RS SIGCOV [19] . In any case all the coverage seems to be in connection with Joseph Mifsud . The Guardian article also makes clear the LAD no longer exists as does the Brig piece. In that context, it seems most sensible to me to keep it as a redirect to Joseph Mifsud . Perhaps to a section on the LAD in that article? I'd be happy to create it. Jtrrs0 ( talk ) 15:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect seems ill advised since there is no mention of Joseph Mifsud in Diplomatic Academy of London and no mention of Diplomatic Academy of London in Joseph Mifsud . ~ Kvng ( talk ) 17:36, 11 April 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 ) 00:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as WP:OR and per WP:TNT . The current article reads like an attack piece, and is full of errors which is why it should be deleted and not kept. The claims that these programs are not accredited is false. These are university departments inside respected research universities. There are several different university programs being confused, they are not the same program but multiple different university departments, many of them founded by the same academic, Nabil Ayad, who seems to have made a career setting up departments for UK research universities wanting to take in foreign students from outside the UK. The history here seems to have cobbled together these different non-affiliated programs (each university's department is separate to its own school) through a bunch of original research and spurious claims that are not cited to a reliable secondary sources. The London Academy of Diplomacy was a diplomatic studies department at the University of East Anglia for foreign students studying at the university and its diplomas are awarded through that institution. It closed in 2016. As for the Diplomatic Academy of London. It is a respectable institution/department that was for a long time housed at the University of Westminster (and still is sort of). It's listed as graduate diplomatic studies program at the University of Westminster in Bulletin - Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities . 1992. p. 109. , "Overseas". Pacific Research: A Periodical of the Peace Research Centre . 5–6 . Australian National University : 41. 1992. It was absorbed into the Westminster International University in Tashkent which is part of the University of Westminster. (see Can the Prizes Still Glitter?: The Future of British Universitites in a Changing World . University of Buckingham Press . 2007. p. 194. ISBN 9780955464201 . which lists the school as part of the Westminster International University in Tashkent in 2007.) I can't find a source, but I would imagine that it was absorbed into that school in 2002 when Westminster restructured it diplomatic/international studies programs when the Westminster International University in Tashkent was founded. As far as I can tell the school is still a department inside the WIUT and offers its courses to foreign students in London and is accredited as part of the WIUT through which its students receive both graduate and post-graduate degrees from the WIUT. I found quite a lot of citations to publications by this organization, and coverage of some of their symposiums in reliable academic journals dating back as far is the mid 1990s. For example their symposium The Information Explosion : A Challenge for Diplomacy had coverage in The World Today ,Volume 53, Issues 1-12 - page 158-159. The organization is listed as a reliable academic publisher in Behle, Sabine, ed. (1994). Publishers' International ISBN Directory/International ISBN Agency, Volume 1 . K.G. Saur . p. 708. There's WP:SIGCOV in Demut, Andreas (ed.). Neue Ost-West-Wanderungen nach dem Fall des Eisernen Vorhangs? : Vorträge und Aufsätze der Konferenz über Neue Ost-West-Wanderungen als Folge der wirtschaftlichen und politischen Veränderungen in Mittel- und Osteuropa . Lit Verlag . p. 254-255. ISBN 9783825822224 . The organization was also a partner with the United Nations for an Ocotber 25, 2002 symposium entitle The UN and the Media in War and Peace (see Ahmar, Moonis (ed.). Different Perceptions on Conflict Resolution Need for an Alternate Approach . Program on Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution, Department of International Relations, University of Karachi. p. 255. There's a lot more out there. All of this to say, we could have an article, but it's definitely not this article which is both factually wrong and a horribly unethical attack page. 4meter4 ( talk ) 02:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe keep , although I am not typically a big fan of articles on individual university departments. I re-wrote the article to remove the OR. It's a stub. I also knocked off a stub on London Academy of Diplomacy . Pinging IgelRM , David Eppstein , The Herald , the article is vastly different now. 4meter4 ( talk ) 04:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Entirely rewritten about a different topic now (good work), although I am not certain of this departments notability. Though the AFD process is a bit of mess now, maybe the previous version should still be deleted. IgelRM ( talk ) 11:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ IgelRM It's a small enough article that we could always redirect and merge to Westminster International University in Tashkent per WP:ATD . It would be fine as a subsection of that article. 4meter4 ( talk ) 16:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Redirect/merge or outright delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge the rewritten article to Westminster International University in Tashkent as suggested above. Thanks to 4meter4 for the rewrite. Jfire ( talk ) 04:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Still fairly young, but based on this page they have little to show for. The Banner talk 18:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Subject does not have sufficient notability to meet the WP:GNG . No suitable redirect per WP:ATD . Let'srun ( talk ) 16:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Westminster International University in Tashkent : we have more than enough sources to establish verifiability, and do not need independent notability for a section in the target. The Delete ! votes haven't presented any valid reason why the page shouldn't be allowed to stay as a redirect to a valid article. Owen× ☎ 20:27, 21 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 |
Myla Vicenti Carpio: Onel 5969 TT me 13:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . Onel 5969 TT me 13:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Women , and New Mexico . TJMSmith ( talk ) 13:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , WP:TOOSOON . Citation record [55] is on a good trajectory but not yet strong enough to make a convincing case for WP:PROF#C1 . She has one book, for which I found five published reviews ( [56] , [57] , [58] , [59] , [60] ); if we had that many reviews for two authored books I'd think this a borderline pass of WP:AUTHOR , but one book isn't enough. (The book could be notable itself, though.) The "awards and achievements" listed in the article are definitely not enough for notability through that, let alone the big unsourced pile of committee service assignments. And we have no in-depth sourcing about her independent of her and her employer that could be used to pass WP:GNG . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 16:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirecting to the new article on her book would also be ok. As I said above, I think the book may pass WP:GNG , but if all of our in-depth sourcing related to Carpio is for that one book, then she doesn't pass WP:BIO1E and a redirect is a good choice. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 15:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: one of her books, Indigenous Albuquerque now has an article. Keep. She is listed on the Arizona Board of Regents website [61] , as well as being the author of a notable book. Just a generally relevant career per her article. BhamBoi ( talk ) 22:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I found one more scholarly review for Indigenous Albuquerque here BhamBoi ( talk ) 22:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Being listed as a member of the faculty of a university is in no way a pass of any notability criterion. It does not help to pass WP:PROF , because it is true of all university faculty rather than being one of the achievements that we use to distinguish the notable ones from the rest. And it does not help to pass WP:GNG , because it is neither in-depth coverage nor independent. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 23:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep due to pass of WP:AUTHOR criterion 3, author of a well known piece of work, her book Indigenous Albuquerque . How well known it is is up for debate, but with many academic sources reviewing it (as per my searches on Wikipedia Library), it's well known enough for me to ! vote keep, while still weak due to my perception that not everyone will support my logic, despite the criterion clearly allowing it for one work, I know some people prefer there to be two, and some prefer the book to be very well known, and I respect those preferences, even though I don't agree with them. CT55555 ( talk ) 18:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi CT55555! The key is the work. Yes, if she had written Gone With the Wind , that is both significant and well-known. As would be any Pulitzer or Nobel prize winning work. The book, while it did receive some press is neither significant, nor well-known. I think that's the main difference for authors with only one notable work. Onel 5969 TT me 20:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just a small point of clarification, the criterion says "significant or well-known" not "significant and well-known". I do see others interpreting the guidance as having a higher bar than how I see it, but I think my interpretation of it is valid and reasonable. My assessment that it is "well-known" is about the level of academic interest rather than media reporting. I didn't see much news about it. CT55555 ( talk ) 22:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Point taken about the and vs. or. And I would say that the book is rarely cited, so academic interest is low, although it has a few reviews. As always, though, a pleasure discussing stuff with you. Onel 5969 TT me 01:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The very large amount of scholoraly reviews indicates to me that this is a ‘significant’ work: on top of the ones already cited in the article, I found four others in academic journals. BhamBoi ( talk ) 20:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes NAUTHOR. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙♂️ Let's Talk ! 09:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Author, public speaker, educator, well-cited and influential in the field of American Indian studies . Yuchitown ( talk ) 02:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Yuchitown [ reply ] Keep Notable author and academic. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 17:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Redirect . Fails WP:Prof as WP:Too soon and WP:Author . Xxanthippe ( talk ) 11:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] Keep . Passes criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR . The multiple independent book reviews in several journals that are cited in the wiki article on her book Indigenous Albuquerque are enough evidence to show the subject meets that notability indication in the NAUTHOR policy. "Well-known" is a subjective measure, and so we generally interpret that policy at AFD to mean that it if we have multiple independent publications in RS reviewing a work than it is "well-known" and the author is notable. 4meter4 ( talk ) 03:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, American Indian studies is a smaller field. The general public isn't aware of most of what is going on in Native American communities. Yuchitown ( talk ) 15:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC) Yuchitown [ reply ] Generally, if a person is known for only one book, unless the book is very significant, we do an article on the book rather than the person. -- Jahaza ( talk ) 23:15, 10 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 11:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Since the article was improved we've had 6 keep arguments and one delete. I'm surprised this was relisted. CT55555 ( talk ) 14:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per others Starship 24 ( talk ) 16:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:SOCKSTRIKE — David Eppstein ( talk ) 00:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - due to notable works Ariel Cetrone (WMDC) ( talk ) 19:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Indigenous Albuquerque unless there's a second work with reviews or SIGCOV directly about her. Jahaza ( talk ) 23:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep author of a notable book and recipient of university-wide awards. Jaireeodell ( talk ) 22:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge a brief summary (~one paragraph) of the article to a new " About the author " section on Indigenous Albuquerque . Fails GNG, BIO and BLP, but there is a nice home for a concise summary of the information at the target. Brief sourced information will be preserved and the target article will be improved with an About the author section. There are not sources to support a BLP or pass GNG or NAUTHOR. NAUTHOR states " significant or well-known work or collective body of work"; Indigenous Albuquerque however notable, is not a well known work and there is no RS showing it has had a significant impact on the subjects field. // Timothy :: talk 05:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment If someone presents multiple RS showing that this indivdual's work has had a SIGNIFICANT impact on their field, I will glady change my ! vote based on NAUTHOR#3. I've created Catherine Allgor and Edith B. Gelles as well as numerous book articles User:TimothyBlue#New Articles Created , so I've thought about the author article vs work article (or both) issue a bit. My opinion, based on BLP and NAUTHOR and related guidelines, is that a BLP should only be created when the subject is notable separately from their book (such as through NACADEMIC) or if the subjects body of work is best covered in a single article rather than multiple articles (which is the case the previously mentioned) (please no revenge AfDs). // Timothy :: talk 05:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - notable in her field of Native American Studies. The Eloquent Peasant ( talk ) 23:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - She provided her expertise in her field to Oxford Bibliographies Online , a British online encyclopedia maintained by the Oxford University Press , the largest university press in the world. It's a site that students go to when searching an annotated bibliography on a subject. I think this makes her notable. The Eloquent Peasant ( talk ) 04:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No one becomes notable just for having written something. Coauthoring an annotated bibliography is a good thing for an academic to do, but it is unremarkable. XOR'easter ( talk ) 16:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Selectively merge to Indigenous Albuquerque for the reasons that Timothy suggested. A single book is very seldom a "body of work" that implies we should cover in depth the whole arc of a person's career. In general and on balance, when there's only one book, it makes more sense to have an article on that book. We can always revisit the question if the situation changes. Currently, the article is full of CV/LinkedIn-style writing that seems to be trying hard to "sell" the subject without having any sense of what actually makes a scholar stand out (hint: being invited to be a panelist isn't it). This does not convey why Vicenti Carpio's work is interesting or why anyone should care. It serves no one and merely makes the corpus of writing on Native American studies marginally more tedious on average. XOR'easter ( talk ) 16:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and selective merge to Indigenous Albuquerque : per WP:TOOSOON . Vicenti Carpio appears to not meet WP:GNG , WP:AUTHOR , or WP:PROF . She can be covered in a section of her notable work, Indigenous Albuquerque . A standalone article can be restored in the future should there be further sigcov or another notable work. TJMSmith ( talk ) 17:15, 15 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 |
Islamic fundamentalism in Islamic Republic of Iran: Article is a less-detailed overview of the article Islamic fundamentalism in Iran and confusingly shares a functionally identical title. Not worth considering merging as the article exclusively cites encyclopedia entries and a couple American conservative media sources, nowhere near as rigorous as the existing article that already covers this topic. Dan • ✉ 04:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Iran . '''[[ User:CanonNi ]]''' ( talk | contribs ) 04:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Certainly! Here's a revised and more formal version of the sentence: Keep . Islamic fundamentalism in Iran boasts a history spanning centuries. This article primarily focuses on the period following the 1979 revolution, which led to the establishment of Iran's first Islamic state. Integrating this with the main article would result in disproportionate emphasis . The term 'scare word' is unclear; could you elucidate your argument? The term in the title of article refers to the current government's practice of an Islamic state, its official name is also Islamic Republic . Should you have any critiques regarding the title, we can explore alternative designations such as 'Fundamentalism in Post-Revolution Iran.' It is noteworthy that the majority of this article's content is not found in the main article, as it concentrates on the emergence of state-sponsored fundamentalism and its systematic implementation. Regarding the conservative source to which you allude, could you please specify? The sources utilized are balanced, including esteemed historical references such as Britannica. " I'm also expanding the article. The work hasn't finished yet. 3000MAX ( talk ) 18:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I see you were trying to make an article only covering post-Revolutionary Iran and I apologize for thinking the title was a use of non-neutral language. However, it should be noted that the already-existing article is already almost entirely about post-Revolution Iran. The lead of the main article immediately discusses how "Islamic fundamentalism" in the country is primarily connected with Khomeini, and only discusses pre-Revolution Iran in the "History" section. I'll refrain from using the term "main article" to refer to Islamic fundamentalism in Iran as I do see now that the two articles discuss completely different topics despite the similar names. The older article is about the religious intellectual movement, and discusses theology and the political relationship between the clergy and the state. This new article is primarily listing certain actions of the state that it justifies via Islam. This shows a deeper issue: this article doesn't really discuss Islamic fundamentalism at all. Islamic fundamentalism is a theological doctrine and should be discussed in an article on theological movements (as it is in Islamic fundamentalism in Iran ) and isn't really an applicable term for discussing state media censorship. Notably, none of the sources cited in this article use the term "fundamentalism" anywhere (besides of course the referenced Britannica definition of the term). Since none of the sources cited discuss the actions of the state as "Islamic fundamentalism" it seems this article is almost entirely synthesis trying to connect conservative policies to Islam, rather than just a content fork. Some of the connections to Islam fail to even appear to materialize in the prose: for instance, These ministries regulate university curricula, faculty appointments, and student admissions, ensuring alignment with Islamic values is vague and doesn't explain what part of the education might be Islamic. Enforcement of Persian-language studies has no connection to Islam, which is a famously Arabic-focused religion, and is more in line with discussion of Iranian nationalism . Also on sources: I took issue with citing to The Washington Institute for Near East Policy , which as a political think tank is non-neutral in discussion of Iran. [51] [52] [53] The Guardian article cited fails verification – there's nothing about ethnolinguistic minorities in that article. Dan • ✉ 05:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Merge it into Islamic fundamentalism in Iran , seems like a completely unnecessary fork, not sure how it would falter with WP:BALANCE as the creator of the page mentioned. Noorullah ( talk ) 05:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Adding comment: The content shouldn't differ as Dan was mentioning earlier between both pages, they should go over the same topic, meaning the Islamic fundamentalism in Iran does generally need a cleanup as well.. Noorullah ( talk ) 05:59, 28 April 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 ) 03:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Redundancy of title. "Islamic fundamentalism in Islamic Republic of Iran". What other kind of fundamentalism could there be in Iran, except Islamic? — Maile ( talk ) 04:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per WP:FORK . Bearian ( talk ) 12:49, 8 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 |
Mokujin: Reason: "Because the sources don't really talk about him and sources are just top 10 Tekken characters, top 11 Tekken characters etc." Additionally, Mokujin hasn't received any commentary at all. Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge No actual commentary found about the character and the sources don't mainly talk about him. Kazama16 ( talk ) 17:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge All primary or listicles. "28 of the most favourite video game trees ever." Yeah, no. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 20:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Tekken characters : Even though I still don't agree with these mass AFDs, I'm not seeing much for Mokujin that could save his article. He's barely even a character, just a mimic for the other characters in the series. So I don't see how someone like him could get the coverage. MoonJet ( talk ) 00:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per all. The sources support notability for the list of characters, but not individually. Some of this can be selectively moved there, per WP:PRESERVE . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 13:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . [26] Found a significant and in-depth study that specifically examined Mokujin. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 14:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I doubt a single sigcov could be enough for the article to be notable, hence still on for the Merge . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 17:31, 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 |
2-8-8-8-2: Efforts to redirect this have failed. Most material online about this are fansites . While there are mentions about this wheel-type in books, I found nothing significant. This situation is proof that Redirects are costly . Chris Troutman ( talk ) 01:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . Chris Troutman ( talk ) 01:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] {comment) Chris Troutman did simple redirecting, and I undid (opposed) his/her edit, and soon he/she did this request. This article stores the contents of Whyte notation along with other articles related to Whyte notation. (You can see these articles with Template:Whyte types .) Chris troutman's edit will confuse the structure of the article group, so it's best to keep it as an independent article. -- マイヤー式機関車 ( talk ) 02:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Triplex locomotive . I agree that this is not an independently notable configuration, but disagree with the proposed redirect target. I note that 2-8-8-8-8-8-2 points to a section of Triplex locomotive , (while 2-10-10-10-10-10-2 points to Whyte notation but is discussed at Triplex locomotive ). I see no reason why 2-8-8-8-2 (and 2-8-8-8-4 ) could not be merged and integrated into Triplex locomotive . BD2412 T 03:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 2-8-8-8-2 (and 2-8-8-8-4 likewise) is notable, in large part because it's a node within the wheel arrangement lists at Whyte notation / Category:Whyte notation and so its omission would be a visible failing for us. They're obscure , but that's not the same as non-notable. These should definitely be here as either articles or redirects to triplex locomotive . We might justify them as articles owing to strict WP:N, but as both wheel arrangements were only ever used for these Mallets they'd only end up as three triplicated copies of content that would need to be in triplex locomotive (or maybe triplex Mallet locomotive ?) anyway. Three articles to describe a physical object where there were only ever four instances of it? So I'd support merging and redirect , which would be a fairly simple editorial job. Separately, I'd also supporting splitting triplex locomotive into triplex Mallet locomotive (or Triplex Mallet locomotive , as a proper name) for the Baldwin Mallets and maybe triplex and quadruplex locomotives for the others. The existing triplex locomotive#Expanding the concept section has poor coherence between the sub-sections, the Mallets have a strongly related development history, even the unbuilt 2-10-10-10-10-10-2 , but the various turbine , steam motor and Garratt designs do not. Such a split is unlikely to happen (or at least, to be done well) as it would require deep subject knowledge in some obscure corners (something that WP has lost the ability to do in recent years). I would find it hard to justify Category:2-8-8-8-2 locomotives , per WP:SMALLCAT . Chris Troutman is wrong here on every point. This was also a very bad edit: to have this same AfD on a different article first but to not discuss it through AfD, to claim WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE , to redirect it to the wrong target and then to do what should have been a merge and redirect but skipping the tiresome 'merge' part that requires doing some editing work – that's shoddy editing. Andy Dingley ( talk ) 10:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral I can't decide whether to keep it or redirect it to Triplex locomotive . I created Triplex Mallet Locomotive as a redirect to Triplex locomotive. The split of the Triplex locomotive article was done independently of this discussion, as there was a long discussion on the Talk page of the Triplex page. There is now a new article Multiplex locomotive which includes all the old Expanding the Concept sections . The unbuilt 2-10-10-10-10-10-2 and other designs based on the George R. Henderson patent have nothing to do with a Mallet locomotive, as they have a jointed boiler. They are now also included in the Multiplex locomotive page. Pechristener ( talk ) 21:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Triplex locomotive : seems like there is ample coverage there, it's basically the same thing. Just made by different companies. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to triplex locomotive per Andy Dingley , although I'm not seeing too much that needs merging. The triplex article already covers much of the same ground. What remains are the classifications, which are unsourced... and, because only three were built in the US, I would guess that they'd be pretty hard to source. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They're not too hard to source, as people do tend to write more about unicorns. Andy Dingley ( talk ) 18:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm glad you think otherwise and hope you can find them; a quick Google search for two revealed nothing useful. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect per Andy Dingley. I also particularly endorse their final paragraph and explicitly reject the statement in the nomination that this somehow proves redirects are costly. Thryduulf ( talk ) 23:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I support the merge to Triplex locomotive . I'll also note that WP:COSTLY mostly applies to creating redirects, and should almost never be considered as reasoning for deleting history or otherwise passing up an excellent WP:ATD . — siro χ o 05:23, 2 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 |
Lake Youngs Park: DirtyHarry991 ( talk ) 02:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Lake Youngs where it's worth a mention. No merit to a standalone per my BEFORE. Star Mississippi 02:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - I agree that Lake Youngs is a good target as an alternative to deletion. Netherzone ( talk ) 05:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment this park is extremely obscure, and there is no coverage from RS. A merge could be performed, though it would just mean adding a single sentence to Lake Youngs . — Preceding unsigned comment added by DirtyHarry991 ( talk • contribs ) 06:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] leaning delete I'm seeing the same thing: I can tell the park exists, and that is all. The county website says nothing about it, for instance. 17:32, 11 January 2024 (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 |
Slovak football league system: Michael H ( talk ) 23:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Football in Slovakia and update if necessary. There's no need for two articles, and the other one is practically empty. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 01:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] idk, football in slovakia should give overview of all football related info from slovakia while this article should give an overview of how the leagues work, the problem isnt the reason but the content, theres no point in merging an outdated article Michael H ( talk ) 07:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Clarityfiend : The only reason it was "practically empty" is because the nominator of this AfD blanked it just before opening the discussion. I've reverted. Michael H, considering you were blocked for this kind of disruptive editing just last week, this isn't a good look. – filelakeshoe ( t / c ) 🐱 20:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] please stop being hostile Michael H ( talk ) 21:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep after info was restored. It seems that there are pairs of such articles for each European state (though I'm a bit dubious about Gibraltar football league system ), so for the sake of consistency, I've changed my lvote. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 03:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep so update it then? AFD is not cleanup. – filelakeshoe ( t / c ) 🐱 20:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] if the article is for current navigation trough slovak football leagues and its outdated it can seriously confuse any reader Michael H ( talk ) 21:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep (#1) i, the proposal author would like to withdraw the nomination Michael H ( talk ) 21:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Clarityfiend : Since there's no longer anyone here favoring deletion, would you be all right with a speedy keep, without prejudice against follow-up merge discussion? -- Tamzin [ cetacean needed ] (she|they|xe) 21:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Football in Slovakia as above. Happy for AFD to be closed and merger discussion else elsewhere. Giant Snowman 16:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect I also feel that the title here is a plausible search term. Govvy ( talk ) 21:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as participants are divided between those wanting to Keep the aritcle and those seeking a Merge. Policy-based arguments would be welcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is an unsourced article with a simple template, so theoretically seems easy to delete - however it's also part of a larger set of "X football league system" seen throughout Europe. It's hard to argue for keep without any sources, and I'm not prepared to adopt this, but I think a merge would be fine, as long as re-creation isn't expressly prohibited by this AfD. SportingFlyer T · C 12:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merger under stipulation - I'd be okay with a merge as long as the pyramid stays with the new page. KatoKungLee ( talk ) 20:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with no prejudice against recreation, I think the arguments for that in this discussion are quite sound. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 19:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Anga (region): Mikeanand ( talk ) 06:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography , India , Bihar , and Jharkhand . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Well, this is disappointing. I guess draftification will not be an option in this AFD. L iz Read! Talk! 01:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think Anga(region) page should be accepted as a seperate region from Mithila as it is, from ancient till modern times. The the deletion nominations are from a particular based political associations which are from Wikipedia Mithila 2409:408A:158F:D384:DD37:55FE:C4DB:CC06 ( talk ) 04:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It should not be deleted, In this Afd debate I request you not to delete the pg. Agama Triptika source 6 has also mentioned it as a seperate region. And the Hindi newschannels are also from the same country and a national-level newspaper such as Dainik Jagaran and Hindustan has also published Anga or Ang Pradesh as a seperate region.if you dont know hindi you can translate and see. 2409:408A:158F:D384:DD37:55FE:C4DB:CC06 ( talk ) 04:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Could the nom please expand on the deletion rationale. The last AfD is a mess, and the immediate move out of draft space is.. . brave. But what are the policy reasons for deletion? Pinging Mikeanand Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 08:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Sirfurboy : , Good morning. Most of the sources in the article point either to the language Angika or the historical region Anga , both of which are notable. However, the sources used for the "modern Anga region" fail WP:RS . There isn't much in Google/Books either, most of which have been used for wp:or . I believe the article needs to removed from mainspace for failing WP:GNG . Mikeanand ( talk ) 08:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It can't be draftified again so the question is going to be whether it meets WP:GEOLAND . If it does, it is presumed notable. If not then it will have to be a delete (with consideration of salt owing to the way it was rushed out of draft space). I have some reading to do here before I can express an opinion, but to confirm then: (1), it is not a legally recognised name for the region? (2) are there reliable secondary sources that refer to the region by this name now, even without legal recognition? and (3) I see the Angika language was spoken in Bihar. Was the territory of the language formerly known as Anga? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 10:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Sirfurboy : Well, to put it straight forward, it fails WP:GEOLAND . It is not a legally recognised name for the region. There was a territory called "Anga" in the history, which already has a separate article, Anga . Angika is named after the historical territory of Anga , however, there are no reliable sources to establish the notability of a modern day Anga (region) . Thank you. — Mikeanand ( talk ) 11:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Sirfurboy the different books such as Agama Triptika have recognised it as a seperate region referring to Anga Lipi 's region. Biharpro7252 ( talk ) 12:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Sirfurboy Well It passes WP:GEOLAND The answer is neither yes nor no. Yes It is recognised as a seperate region in Modern times.the sources are ABP News which is a national media channel which still shows it as a seperate modern region of Bihar during any coverage on BIhar. Its a common thing in Bhagalpur , Munger and parts of purnea division territory of Anga as popular national hindi newspapers such as Dainik Jagran,Hindustan , Prabhat Khabar have always published it as Anga region hindi ang kshetra.Shreyasi Singh a national level shooter Commonwealth games champion has said in an interview Anga as her region referring to guiness book of world record And the National party BJP in the region have always termed it as a seperate region.The local MLAs and MPs have also recognised the region as Anga. Yes ,the answer is references are there . Outlook.com an Indian weekly magazine and all the competitive books have recognised it as a language of anga region. sources are there in languages . I will try to upload more. Biharpro7252 ( talk ) 12:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well that is clear as mud :) So to question 1, the answer cannot be neither yes nor no. It is one or the other. It is a legally recognised region or it is not. From my reading thus far, I am coming down on the "not" side there. Question 2 has contradictory statements, but what matters is the sources. On the page there are a few useful sources, and one of these is [16] which has: Angika is the local dialect and is spoken by the majority. It is an Indo-Iranian language of the Anga region of India, an approximately 58,000 km2 area that falls within the contemporary states of Bihar, Jharkhand, and West Bengal. (page 272). The book is published by Springer, and has good editors but is not on the subject of geography. It is about education practice. But it is a WP:RS I believe. References in [17] on pages 95-98 appear to be primarily historical. The answer to question 3 is, by general agreement and per that second source, yes there was a historical region called Anga which encompassed the extent of the Angika language. Yes we have an Angika article, but that is about the language, and not the territory. But then we run into a problem, because the linguistic extents of different languages overlap. So an informally defined area as the extent of the Angika language is not a clearly defined region. In any case this article purports to be about a modern Anga region or Ang Pradesh. I am not convinced the article is well targeted. We have some evidence that the area of extent of the Angika language is still known as Anga. That makes sense, but it is not a legally defined name. Indeed, the area is within other specific regions. I have not been able to find enough on this to make this a clear keep, so at this stage, I am thinking it should be a merge to Angika which article has a territory section, in which we can say that the territory in which Angika is spoken is known as Anga or Ang Pradesh. If I find more sources, or more are presented, I would be willing to reconsider this. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 20:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Delete per Mikeanand and Fylindfotberserk in the previous AfD (linked in the nomination). /I am myself unsure about what could be merged, if anything, but I believe those editors who say that there is some content good for merging/ I'd particualrly like to point out that I can't verify that this is, as it is claimed, a geographical region as in a region that is bounded by natural features. About "historical region", I couldn't find any confirmation that a modern "Anga region" or "Ang Pradesh" or "Anga Pradesh" contain, as is claimed, includes the territory of the Santhal Pargana division , for example. According to our article, in 2011, ~10 percent of the people in that division spoke Angika. Yet the article seems to argue that the Anga region is the "territory" where Angika is spoken. We could construct a modern "geographic and historical region" like this for any ancient or medieval Indian state, and we'd have layers upon layers of such "regions" that overlap, intersect etc. See: Category:Historical Indian regions . Each has its own legacy and some residual, notional, presence in the modern day, but we should not make modern mirror images of these articles. — Alalch E. 20:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as per Sirfurboy . From what I understand, Anga is not a legally distinct area. It's just where Angika speakers live. However, language and culture go hand in hand so this is a point of contention. As mentioned in Angika#Relationship_to_Maithili , there is tension between speakers of Maithili (majority language) and Angika (minority language). Maithili speakers have made calls for a separate state (Mithila). Judging by how this usually goes, there is probably some level of irredentism in saying Anga exists as a region of its own for Angika speakers. On the other hand, there may be a case of Angika erasure. Either way, I feel these claims would make great additions to Angika and Anga (if properly sourced). Looking through some talk page history, it seems the article author (Biharpro7252) believes they are targeted by editors who are "all are from a specific political group and always target a specific language and page". Specifically, I think they are referring to Mikeanand who is on WikiProject Mithila. It seems this feud between Angika and Maithili speakers goes a bit deeper. Recently there were a few vandalistic AfD requests by user Proverealbiharhistory who also seems to promote Angika and dislike Maithili culture (they requested to delete Maithili_language and Mithila_(region) ) -- Klausklass ( talk ) 05:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ya you are right. Mithila too is associated with Maithili.same ways Anga is associated with Angika. There is always some tensions between the both. I too support Anga as my cultural region. 2409:408A:2C44:1B7A:0:0:AA8A:FC0A ( talk ) 16:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't dislike mathili . Mathili and angika is sister language ( same origin) but both are different.official angika is classified as a direct of Hindi and one of addition official language of jharkhand . Few years ago Some maithili start claiming angika as a direct so that came make mathili state . If we can't create anga region Wikipedia page soon anga history , anga culture , Angika language will Died . You become one of kill of a historical language. —Proverealbiharhistory ( talk ) 19:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I too can totally understand you. Biharpro7252 ( talk ) 12:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment so an editor with a somewhat partisan name, Proverealbiharhistory, urges us to either keep this article as a piece of advocacy for Anga causes or somehow share responsibility for cultural oblivion? I think that’s the most ludicrous AfD rationale I’ve ever read. Mccapra ( talk ) 09:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Sirfurboy's analysis and suggestion, unless further sources are found. We might also consider updating the hatnote on Anga — siro χ o 09:48, 27 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 |
Video games based on Slender Man: In short, the article as it stands has no sourcing overviewing the treatment of the character across multiple video games. There are also only three titles with an article of the fourteen noted, with two being from the same creator, suggesting that the treatment of this character in gaming media is not notable either beyond its appearances in those works. I don't think, at least in its current state, that the article adds value that couldn't be said in a sentence: Fourteen games have been based on the character, including the notable games X, Y and Z . Potential WP:ATD for discussion I think are worth exploring are a merge to Slender Man in a new category or move to a more discrete list (i.e. "List of video games based on Slender Man"), although the latter still has some issues re. WP:NLIST . ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 06:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 06:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge selectively to Slender Man . There's basically zero RS coverage of the non-bluelinked games, don't include them. As for the NLIST angle, I don't think there's enough here. The closest any source gets to acknowledging the set of games as a whole is Game Rant 's "The Slender Man mythos has resulted in a lot of indie games". Most other sources, even when discussing the 2023 release rumors, just reference it as a successor to Slender: The Arrival and Slender: The Eight Pages , not the previous body of work as a whole. ~ A412 talk! 10:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Unrelated to this AFD, how is Slender Man#References in media such a bad IPC section in a GA, between primary sources, references in extremely minor works, and sources to wikis of all things? ~ A412 talk! 10:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd say it's probably worth a GAR. With all respect to the nominator and reviewer, that GAN was almost a decade ago, and the review was fairly forgiving about the unorthodox structure and sourcing for the article by today's standards. The current article is better, but does wax on quite a lot to repeat the same message: the ambiguity of Slender Man's mythos and depiction makes him appealing and highly adaptable for fans. Anyway, just an aside. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 11:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Slender Man , This article is entirely messy with incorrect grammar, terrible layout and none of the sources show any good reason about the group of Slender Man games. In addition, a list of video games that Slender Man has appeared in would be fine as a section to the Slender Man article then rather its own article list. NatwonTSG2 ( talk ) 01:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as the article is not mature enough to be in its own, also noting that it is not notable enough. Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 16:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's surprising to me just how few of the video games listed in the timeline here were covered at all by reliable sources. I do think a list of Slenderman games has potential for an article (there's this VG247 source and quite a few of these games are reported upon), but this article is not looking good. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Slender was admittedly very influential in the indie scene and gave rise to a large amount of imitators and clones, but the vast majority of them were small-time indie releases with no coverage. I agree if there were more sourcing that gave coverage to them, it'd be worth keeping, so thanks for finding that source. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 20:26, 5 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 |
International recognition of Transnistria: My rationale is as follows: the useful content of this article can be summarized with, "Only three polities recognize Transnistria's sovereignty, which are themselves largely unrecognized states: Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Artsakh." All other content is already covered by the broader article Transnistria conflict . Initially, I considered merging this article with the broader 'Transnistria conflict' article. However, after reviewing both texts, I concluded that there wasn't any additional useful content to merge. Альдий ( talk ) 17:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions . Альдий ( talk ) 17:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I support a merge instead of a redirect. As the International recognition of Transnistria contains some information not found in the Transnistria conflict article, such as the positions by states that do not recognise Transnistria as independent . GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 18:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect per previous vote. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 21:33, 23 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 |
2019 Pearl Continental Hotel attack: Does not seem to have lasting coverage to meet WP:EVENT . LibStar ( talk ) 23:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Pakistan . LibStar ( talk ) 23:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There might be later coverage in whatever native language this area speaks, it's Pakistan, I doubt any post-breaking news sources would be in English if they exist. (searching in right to left languages is hard). Failing that, merge (the one sentence in the article) to Pearl-Continental Hotels & Resorts . PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 00:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Travel and tourism . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep CNN, The Guardian, Dawn, BBC and Al Jazeera covered this event. -- Ameen Akbar ( talk ) 19:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] They all covered it in May 2019, needs persistent coverage as per WP:LASTING . LibStar ( talk ) 22:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - per NEVENT coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established...a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable sometimes interpreting whether an event is sufficiently notable can be tricky. I consider merging this into Pearl-Continental Hotels & Resorts is a great ATD seeing as I otherwise would not have a strong opinion either way. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The event had an impact on human populations, as many were killed, and it was a terrorist attack. DI V I N E 04:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not all terrorist and fatal attacks get a Wikipedia article. You haven't addressed how WP:EVENT is met. LibStar ( talk ) 07:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Before you replied someone about WP:LASTING and it is clearly mentioned on WP:LASTING that it is considered notable if the human population has been impacted. And WP:EVENT has clearly mentioned that it is notable that if there is last effect it does have Lasting effect. DI V I N E 08:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] User:DIVINE , if secondary sources don't prove a lasting effect, then there's no notability. Drmies ( talk ) 18:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Did you looked sources using Pakistan/hind/urdu or you’re making your own assumptions? DI V I N E 18:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] User:DIVINE , pay attention. I didn't say there were none, I didn't say there were some. I said nothing of the kind, and I didn't look, not in any language. I'm talking about the principle. If you want to prove that there is a lasting effect, you need secondary sourcing. You're not proving that there is a lasting effect; you're just claiming there is. Also, refrain from responding to everyone--that's badgering, and your comment below to Shazback is getting there. Drmies ( talk ) 20:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I will keep that in mind and add some additional lasting sources, as I might have seen some in different language news sources. And below, i was asking about the redirect, but nothing much. DI V I N E 06:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Insurgency in Balochistan : Event does not appear to have independent, lasting impact, nor sufficiently in-depth coverage and analysis to establish notability. However, it is notable as part of the broader insurgency in the region. Shazback ( talk ) 18:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How? DI V I N E 18:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: We have no consensus and, right now, two different Merge target articles mentioned (although a mention in each might be appropriate). I was surprised not to see this attack mentioned at Pearl-Continental Hotels & Resorts which does cover another disastrous incident at one of their hotels. Editors arguing to Keep should share any sources they have found that demonstrates LASTING coverage and influence. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to any of the following: Pearl-Continental Hotels & Resorts , Insurgency in Balochistan , or Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2019 . The sourcing does not exist for an independent article. No strong preference on which is the merge target, but it wouldn't hurt to add a mention to the other two afterward. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 18:37, 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 |
Zero world government: This search only turned up 3 results for the term, none of which go into further depth on it than a definition. [2] On the other hand, the other leading term "governance without government" (which already has its own article) turned up 14,500 results, [3] while the term "governance beyond the nation state" turned up 2,110. [4] As there appears to be no substantial coverage in reliable services of the term "zero world government", I propose this be deleted and any (little) relevant information from this article merged into the article on governance without government . Grnrchst ( talk ) 20:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions . Grnrchst ( talk ) 20:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Governance without government : The article literally mentions "governance without governance" as an alternative description, yet does not expand much on the existing article. Os ari us 11:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Osarius . Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NEO . No evidence of major usage outside of Wikipedia. 130.132.173.198 ( talk ) 18:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Osarius . There seems to be hardly anything there that isn't covered in the G without G article ++ Lar : t / c 14:24, 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 |
Atton Rand: After an hard time searching for possible sources at google search that mainly talks about the character; turns out none of them are good. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 08:43, 16 December 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 Video games . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge With Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series . This is very clearly an article written by a fan before enough sources could be found to back it up, and going into extreme depth in the hopes it will give the appearance of notability. While this source is rather solid, there is not really anything else specifically about Rand, making it more of a candidate for a character list. The sources should've been considered before making the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 10:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series . Not clear that this is any more notable than any of the other characters listed there. Jonathan Deamer ( talk ) 10:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series . Real shame there aren't many sources talking about him, but agreed this was probably a fan working BACKWARD . Industrial Insect (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I originally closed this discussion as 'merge', based on the obvious consensus above. Haleth has requested the opportunity to provide new arguments to the discussion. On the basis that a) this discussion only recently closed (48hrs ago approx.), b) the good-faith request from Haleth, and c) the fact that this isn't a contentious topic area or similar, relisting in good faith to allow Haleth to argue alternate points of discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 20:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series : per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ and PTEST . voorts ( talk / contributions ) 21:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Atton Rand is an important character from a well-known game. This article should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.93.179.110 ( talk ) 19:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series - Only the one source mentioned by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ above actually goes into any significant coverage on Atton in specific, and even that is written in a fairly tongue-in-cheek style. The rest of the sources cited in the article are very trivial mentions of the character in articles or reviews on the game as a whole, with many of them being no more than a single sentence or two worth of coverage. Searches did not turn up any additional pieces of significant coverage in reliable sources on the character. Rorshacma ( talk ) 17:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Nowa Łęknica: As it says on the PL Wiki article , this is an "unofficial settlement" ( nieoficjalna osada ). This is not listed on the TERYT database (despite the TERYT database being listed as the source...) nor is any place called Nowa Łęknica (or Nowa Ł e knica) listed on the Polish regulation of place-names . From the over-head satellite pictures it appears this is just a grouping of houses in the village of Łeknica . Fails WP:GEOLAND since there is no legal recognition. You don't see, for example, a road-sign identifying this place as a named settlement, so it is not clear that the locals treat this as an existing place either - instead the sign outside the grouping of houses just says "Łeknica" . It also has to be said that the title of this page appears to be the wrong spelling for a place that would necessarily be called Nowa Ł e knica, so even if some information were found in future, this would be the wrong page for it. And even if it were the correct title, we still would be unlikely to have a page about it per WP:NOPAGE . TL;DR - fails verification, GEOLAND, WP:NOPAGE . FOARP ( talk ) 07:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland . FOARP ( talk ) 07:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete these articles in general are incredibly annoying and I would say delete all, but this one in particular Yoblyblob ( talk ) 14:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and merge to Łeknica , which pl wiki states this is an "unofficial extension" of. Not in TERYT. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and merge to Łeknica per Piotrus . Another bot-generated bogus town. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Reimu Hakurei: WP:BEFORE shows zero WP:SIGCOV unfortunately. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 12:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Video games , and Japan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Merge. I feel the article generally has enough information to be a viable article, but the things mentioned in the Reception and Legacy section are generally lacking in notability outside of a few exceptions. Some of the stuff they link to lack articles or redirects entirely. I feel it's a few good sources away from being kept without any debate, but unfortunately, in its current state, I feel it should be merged into the List of Touhou Project Characters article. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to character list. There’s got to be SOMETHING worth keeping out of this huge article (though obviously the existence itself is ridiculous when Marisa is clearly best girl [ just kidding ] ). Dronebogus ( talk ) 01:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Searching didn't find anything that really merits the character having an article that I found. It's surprising to have no touhou articles on wikipedia, but at the same time this ain't it. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 04:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak merge . There is some interesting stuff regarding Internet memes, but nothing in the aricle right now strikes me as meeting WP:SIGCOV , it's pretty much fancruft+collection of trivia. Do let me know if any serioius (academic or non-fansite journalistic) sources are found and I'd be happy to reconsider my vote. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the list of characters - Wikipedia is not Wikia, no matter how much effort is expended on an article it is up to the creator to prove it passes WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:GNG . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 09:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dont Merge. If characters like Bridget are notable enough to be seperated from the List of Guilty Gear characters , Reimu is absolutley notable enough to be seperated from the List of Touhou Project characters . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyt44 ( talk • contribs ) 17:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please see WP:OSE . The sort of coverage Bridget has received is entirely different. Your stance is thinly-veiled whataboutism . Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The thing about attempting to look for sources is that when attempting to look for sources, the most I found were from sites that are either deemed unreliable or from user-generated fan sites. The lack of non user-generated reviews for the main series games don't help either, at least from what I've found so far. That being said, I'll attempt to find the final references later in terms of overall reception and also trim some biographical information. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk ) 18:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The key is not to force the creation of an article when sources aren't out there. Gather up the sources first before even trying to write it and ask yourself whether they would hold up if its notability is challenged. Otherwise you end up with articles that are probably better being done on FANDOM. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 23:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Zxcvbnm : Thing is that this is currently the fourth fictional character article I've written here and from what I've gathered from prior discussions are that protagonists generally have less requirements for notability then say, a side character. This isn't even mentioning that prior articles had notability issues... despite having a sizeable amount of content regarding notability. Regardless, I'll be looking to expand it once more for final thoughts to be made. Either that or I'll probably continue to work on it on my sandbox if it gets relegated to a redirect once more. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk ) 02:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not certain that protagonists have less leeway, just that they are more likely to pass it than non-protagonists. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 02:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So I recently spent the past three days attempting to find references and results were pretty scarce when it came to non-user generated reviews with the few reviews I could find often times focusing purely on gameplay and music rather than story. Despite this, I did gather enough sources to give the Reception section its own area, creating a new section for popularity. I still don't know if this is enough to justify a standalone article but given reliable sources for gaming were already used and further expanded, potential sources for new titles both official and fangame as well as outside commentary, I believe that the article at its current state at the very least qualifies for WP:HASPOT . Unless I'm missing something and fictional characters require at least two paragraphs for their reception section, I'd say that Reimu has more going for her own article than some other fictional character articles I've used as reference when initially creating it. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk ) 06:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The legacy and popularity sections have merit, but the reception is pretty light. I'd encourage you to keep at it in a user subpage or a draft and continue working on it. I can, at least, help clean it up when I have time. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 08:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . I'd like to see a Reimu article, but as it is, the article simply does not have enough notability. It's not the worst I've seen by any means - I mean, the fact that a flower was named after her is not nothing - but it's not there yet. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 01:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . She looks like she has barely any more notability than any other character in List of Touhou Project characters . NegativeMP1 ( talk ) 16:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge there just isn't enough WP:SIGCOV to support this article. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 22:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Merge while keeping open the possibility of a standalone article in the future. Much of the current article is fancruft. Partofthemachine ( talk ) 14:36, 3 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 |
Chutnification: Perhaps under style or reception. (I hope this is the right way to go about this) Moritoriko ( talk ) 04:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . Moritoriko ( talk ) 04:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Midnight's Children per nom. Neocorelight ( Talk ) 04:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun ( talk ) 09:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Midnight's Children per nom. The vast majority (if not all) of Google Scholar hits for the term are about the novel or use it as the primary example. Jfire ( talk ) 13:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as above. This is a Rushdie-ism and at most belongs in the Midnight's Children article. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 13:37, 24 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 |
Absheron Museum of History and Local Studies: Boleyn ( talk ) 15:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] if the sourcing in the interwiki links isn't sufficient, add a mention and redirect to Baku#Museums which lists the city's other museums. Star Mississippi 16:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge a properly sourced summary to Baku#Museums . Found nothing meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. If sources develop, the history will be here, if someone finds WP:THREE, ping me. // Timothy :: talk 22:32, 18 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 ) 02:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 03:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Per the lack of coverage in secondary sources. There are also some formatting errors in the article; I wonder if it might be better draftified but the subject itself doesn't seem to be independently notable. GuardianH ( talk ) 14:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Vijayaditya II: Sources in the article and BEFORE and mentions, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth . A basic genealogy expanded into a non-notable article. No objection to a redirect to Kirtivarman II // Timothy :: talk 02:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Royalty and nobility , India , and Karnataka . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Kirtivarman II . No indepth coverage. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 13:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
List of ESPNews personalities: Let'srun ( talk ) 02:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Television , Sports , and Lists . Let'srun ( talk ) 02:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to ESPNews . There are no grouping sources on the subject, but the WP:NAVIGATION purposes are still there, so the ATD is better at the main. Conyo14 ( talk ) 18:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge to ESPNews per WP:ATD . A list that is useful being a category but not as a list, which is entirely unsourced. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 21:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or redirect to List of SportsCenter anchors and reporters ; unsourced and the target articles generally describe people as SportsCenter hosts rather than being specifically associated with ESPNews. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 22:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Two different Merge target articles suggested here Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - This is the function of categories, not articles. Carrite ( talk ) 15:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd prefer to Merge or Redirect this article given the current status of the discussion but folks haven't settled on a target article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to ESPNews Article is frozen in time from 2014 when all original programming it carried was phased out, and ESPNews and SportsCenter up to 2014 were generally completely different in tone and direction. Nate • ( chatter ) 17:22, 14 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 |
2007 Cricket World Cup warm-up matches: Lots of the text and sources in the "Preparation problems" section is mostly about the WC in general, with only tangential references to the warm up matches themselves, the largest coverage being complaints about a pitch in one warm-up match: [26] . Being listed as an FL in 2008 is not a valid reason to keep this article, when it doesn't meet the current standards WP:NLIST and WP:GNG . Selective merge to 2007 Cricket World Cup#Warm-up matches would be acceptable in my opinion, as we did for CWC Qualfier warm-up match articles previously . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 11:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket , Lists , and Caribbean . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 11:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I am also nominating the following related pages because it's the same style of warm-up matches prior to another Cricket World Cup event: 2011 Cricket World Cup warm-up matches ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 11:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh , Sri Lanka , and India . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 11:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I know the other AfDs closed as delete, but I'm not so sure. This seems to be a valid WP:SPLIT as this information could be on the main World Cup article but is better presented as a stand-alone. SportingFlyer T · C 12:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question: how does it meet WP:SPLIT ? There's 19k of text in 2007 Cricket World Cup and 10k of text in 2011 Cricket World Cup , and WP:SIZESPLIT says that that is not long enough to justify splitting. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 14:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Tend towards delete or a very partial merge to the parent article. There's really not the coverage of this sequence of matches as a united whole for me. Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 19:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Selective merge to relevant parent articles I'm not sure these articles should exist as main articles, and the majority can be covered in a small section on each relevant page, however some of the detail in here should be included in the main articles. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I see no consensus here just a variety of opinions so far. Considering how many editors we have here who focus on cricket, I'm surprised that there isn't more participation in discussing this article and what should happen with it. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm not averse to a selective merge. Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 14:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ditto for me. Some sort of merge is better than keeping. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 15:03, 28 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 |
Veronica Porché Ali: Nswix ( talk ) 02:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge content across the articles for her 3 relatives - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. If you are seeking a Merge, please state what the Merge target is. Closers shouldn't have to guess. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It would be to Muhammad Ali , Carl Anderson (singer) , and Laila Ali . Right now this is a nice connecting article between those 3, but I agree that she does not seem to meet notability on her own. - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've never closed an AFD to Merge to more than one article. I think I'd leave that to some other closer. L iz Read! Talk! 07:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete outright on account of subject distinctly lacking sufficient independent notability , an attribute that cannot be inherited yet is necessary for a Wikipedia article. Whatever little can be salvaged, i.e. is appropriately sourced , could be merged away, though it appears that our subject's already present in the suggested three lemmas. - The Gnome ( talk ) 14:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. Merge (officially) into Muhammad Ali but of course reference her as necessary in the articles of other close kin. Stefen Tower s among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 23:31, 24 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 |
1918 Alabama Crimson Tide football team: Gazingo ( talk ) 03:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Alabama . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Merge to History of Alabama Crimson Tide football : Subject does not meet the WP:NSEASONS , per previous consensus we don't keep articles for teams which didn't play any games. Let'srun ( talk ) 17:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd (at the same time it was sent to AFD) so Soft Deletion is not an option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Alabama is one of the most important college football programs. Not sure where else this info would go. ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk ) 04:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] History of Alabama Crimson Tide football already says the team cancelled the season due to World War 1. There aren't (to my knowledge) articles for any other teams that didn't play any games. Gazingo ( talk ) 17:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that [ [21] ] and [ [22] ] were deleted for the same rationale as is being presented here. Let'srun ( talk ) 01:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Patriarca12 : @ Jweiss11 : The two of you are the biggest contributors to this article. Thoughts on its notability? Cbl62 ( talk ) 09:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or Merge to History of Alabama Crimson Tide football and/or 1919 Alabama Crimson Tide football team . There's certainly detail here should should be kept on Wikipeda. Jweiss11 ( talk ) 17:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What details in particular do you think need to be merged? History of Alabama Crimson Tide football already mentions that the team suspended play during the war. Let'srun ( talk ) 01:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All the details in article, like Noojin being appointed head coach, Moore as captain, the schedule that was never played. Jweiss11 ( talk ) 23:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All of which can be covered in History of Alabama Crimson Tide football . Changing my vote to merge there. Let'srun ( talk ) 16:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or Merge per Jweiss11. Cbl62 ( talk ) 19:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Editors divided between those arguing to Keep versus those advocating a Merger. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to History of Alabama Crimson Tide football per the above as an WP:ATD . This standalone article only serves to mislead readers into thinking a season existed for this school, when it didn't. -- MuZemike 11:29, 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 |
Sons of the Covenant Monastery: The article is predominantly reliant upon primary sources . It is also not clear as to whether the monastery relates to the structure, which fails the requirements of WP:NBUILDING or the religious order, which fails WP:NORG . Dan arndt ( talk ) 09:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Religion , Iraq , and California . Dan arndt ( talk ) 09:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Chaldean Catholic Eparchy of Saint Peter the Apostle of San Diego#Monasteries, convents and seminaries . I found nothing in NewspaperArchive.com via WP:TWL , and the local newspaper for El Cajon, California doesn't have anything obvious online (though I doubt that they have older papers online). Searching is difficult because the literal translation of the much larger organization, B'nai B'rith , is the same as the name of this monastery. WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 19:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 12 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 |
Big Slough (Kingsbury County, South Dakota): Boleyn ( talk ) 21:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Silver Lake (Kingsbury County, South Dakota) . Both are notable because they feature prominently in the enormously popular Little House on the Prairie books, and a quick google search turns up numerous proposals by local governments to further develop them as tourist attractions on that basis, which I will add to the article. Silver Lake and Big Slough are hydrologically connected (an article in the Brookings Register even refers to Big Slough as "the upper part of Silver Lake." No cultural or geographical reason to have them in two separate articles IMO, but it shouldn't be completely deleted either. Jbt89 ( talk ) 21:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and South Dakota . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Jbt89. The articles in the article demonstrate notability for Silver Lake, but not necessarily enough for a stand-alone article for Big Slough yet. SportingFlyer T · C 23:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as per Jbt89 would indeed be the best choice, since Silver Lake is notable enough. TH1980 ( talk ) 02:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Geographically, I suspect from the poor sources that I've encountered (non-experts quoting an unidentified third party) that it's the other way around: the lake is just how far the slough happens to be filled up at the time. I've looked for documentation on the Madison Wetland Management District and the more local Waterfowl Production Area, and I've yet to find anything concrete about the hydrology of the slough at all, or the lake for that matter. This robotic import of geographic data is ludicrous sometimes, by the way. The coördinates for Silver Lake (Kingsbury County, South Dakota) robotically added in Special:Diff/501168550 are in the middle of De Smet and not of the lake at all. Uncle G ( talk ) 02:38, 14 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 |
Anthology Editions: Efforts to redirect this have failed. Typically, publishers of thought are not themselves the subject of other's thoughts. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 16:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Companies , and New York . Chris Troutman ( talk ) 16:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Mexican Summer , no coverage besides initial press release and trivial mentions as publisher. Anthology Recordings might be a better redirect target, but it doesn't seem independently notable either. ~ A412 talk! 18:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Mexican Summer . The previous redirect attempt was absurd. The target, Anthology Recordings , had a far worse WP:NCCORP deficiency, being supported by only one primary ref. There should be a proper merge to the parent ( Mexican Summer ) rather than a WP:BLAR -out of content. Dl2000 ( talk ) 19:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above. In a cursory search, did not find any other significant coverage about the publisher independent from the books. If the article needed to exist as a list to house content related to books that would not otherwise warrant their own page, we could entertain that, but not seeing much written about each book. czar 18:25, 25 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 |
Robbery Under Arms (1943 radio adaptation): Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 05:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Australia . Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 05:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Robbery Under Arms § Film, TV, or theatrical adaptations as WP:ATD . Perhaps rename the target section to just "Adaptations". — siro χ o 06:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as Siroxo suggests. We shouldn't be removing information currently in a notability-requiring pigeonhole when there is another pigeonhole it can usefully fit in instead. Thincat ( talk ) 13:56, 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 |
Inspector Henderson: We have just a plot summary and list of appearances, and my BEFORE is showing just some mentions in passing but nothing substantial. Media likewise has just plot summaries with an occasional comment on casting in TV show or such (ex. [37] ). Unless anyone can dig up anything I missed I suggest redirecting this to List of Superman supporting characters per WP:ATD . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Police . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: H in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 18:54, 14 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 |
Vin Populi: All are written like advertisements, as is the article. This article was created too soon. There's no evidence that this is notable in the long run or at the present time. In addition, the sources lack WP:SIGCOV ; the only acceptable coverage is in one source , which contains a few sentences about the history of the location before the restaurant was established (which also happens to be an interview), yet lacks anything meaningfully usable about the current restaurant. (side note: this was established by the same couple who established No Mafia ). Nythar ( 💬 - 🍀 ) 12:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies , and Australia . Nythar ( 💬 - 🍀 ) 12:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Balthazar (Perth restaurant) may have the same issues. Gjs238 ( talk ) 01:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete lacking WP:SIGCOV , we rarely create restaurant articles for new ones based on a few reviews. Perthisok.com seems a local source. LibStar ( talk ) 06:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Emma Ferguson and Dan Morris#Vin Populi . Deckkohl ( talk ) 20:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question: shall we redirect No Mafia (which was recently deleted then recreated) and Balthazar (Perth restaurant) as well? Gjs238 ( talk ) 00:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete "The interior of the restaurant has exposed plaster walls, mosaic-tiled floors, linen valance curtains." Oh, good GRIEF. WP:AUD; fails WP:GNG. Hyper-local interest, see no claim to any enduring or major impact on the culinary arts. The others should go as well, IMHO. The redirect idea would be kind. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 15:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep or merge to Emma Ferguson and Dan Morris#Vin Populi . FWIW, the SMH review seems to meet WP:PRODUCTREV with a national audience. PerthNow review does not seem to be national, but may qualify as regional. — siro χ o 19:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Emma Ferguson and Dan Morris#Vin Populi per several editors above, as a valid WP:ATD . CycloneYoris talk! 04:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Hyper local sourcing, simply consisting of "new place opens", nothing for GNG. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Emma Ferguson and Dan Morris#Vin Populi , which needs the sources. Agree that SMH counts as national coverage, but it doesn't seem like there's really adequate article material here. -- Visviva ( talk ) 03:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Emma Ferguson and Dan Morris#Vin Populi , entire present contents of the article are already at the target. I have not checked if history is required for attribution purposes. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 04:31, 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 |
HOTA: Rs chen 7754 18:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom . Rs chen 7754 18:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Speed camera . Not independently notable, but a key aspect of speed cameras in the United Kingdom. Thryduulf ( talk ) 21:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This title should redirect to Hota (disambiguation) (that I've just created), so if kept the article should be moved to Home Office Type Approval . Thryduulf ( talk ) 21:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Traffic enforcement camera . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Speed camera as per Thryduulf. No evidence of notability to warrant an article but certainly some salvageable bits can be merged in to the aforementioned article. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:59, 23 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 |
Ronda, California: No indication this was a notable settlement, 1907 map has nothing but a name on the railroad https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ht-bin/tv_browse.pl? id=b1e243f82f9d569792e98834cc4986b5 Reywas92 Talk 20:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . Reywas92 Talk 20:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Another non-notable railroad waypoint, no evidence this was ever a settlement of any kind. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 21:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I found a 1913 tourist guide telling us that these (Ronda, Zamora , Brentona ) were all railroad stops for local farmers. The difference is that there's a Zamora Historical Research Society that appears to have written a little bit about Zamora/Black's Station. ☺ (Our article is sourced to "Mast family" at one point, though.) Uncle G ( talk ) 01:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, Zamora has its own exit from I5 and a couple of businesses, whereas (for what it's worth) I had never heard of Ronda until today, despite having grown up in the area. It disappeared from maps in 1915 and even then had no buildings in USGS topos.... this is a no-brainer. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 04:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 00:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into the Yolo county California article. WP:Geoland#Settlements and administrative regions states that only legally recognized places are presumed notable. Non-legally recognized places such as Ronda, must meet WP:GNG in order to be considered notable. In particular Ronda fails Wikipedia:Notability#SUSTAINED , I also believe that previous discussion indicates that Ronda fails WP:NRV as well. policy guidance given in both WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND are that such articles should be merged into the article that covers the notable administrative area that contains it. I'm willing to do the merge, but let me know as I might not be paying attention. James.folsom ( talk ) 01:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Yolo County, California : per above. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 23:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
2023 Syria helicopter accident: (The article was proposed for deletion ( WP:PROD ) and the creator of the article contested the proposal. ) JBW ( talk ) 22:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Military , Transportation , Syria , and United States of America . Skynxnex ( talk ) 05:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge (without prejudice) into List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2020–present) . 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 one sentence on the accident and needs all three sentences and sources. Thank you, JBW , for nominating! gidonb ( talk ) 20:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Military occurrences are far more common than civilian ones, so the threshold for inclusion is higher. This one in particular seems to be a relatively minor mishap without fatalities: an example of WP:RUNOFTHEMILL in military operations. -- Deeday-UK ( talk ) 18:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Deeday-UK ! How do you feel about going from 1 to 3 sentences on the accident here plus adding missing sources through a merge? The article would still disappear, as you suggest, while adding quality elsewhere. gidonb ( talk ) 23:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions . gidonb ( talk ) 21:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – not very notable in a war. Grahaml35 ( talk ) 19:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Grahaml35 ! Did you also consider WP:ATDs ? gidonb ( talk ) 13:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It has already been added to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2020–present) and I believe the information on that article is sufficient. Therefore, I do not believe a WP:ATD is necessary. Grahaml35 ( talk ) 13:49, 29 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 |
Birds in Meitei culture: Pepper Beast (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Disagree According to WP:SYNTHESIS , in case of A + B = C, there should have explicit A and B but C cannot be explicit. I don't find any type of statement that is claiming to be such things that are not published. Many things are significantly represented in many mythologies. To summarize those things in a article have many examples, such as Birds in Chinese mythology , Ravens in Native American mythology , etc. I am just curious, why it seems to be WP:SYNTHESIS . Nokib Sarkar Poke 18:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Per Nokib Sarkar, can you point out which ideas you believe are synthesis, PepperBeast? I don't see it either just yet. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 23:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In our discussion of Plants in Meitei culture, PB established that they believe the author synthesized a connection among all birds with Meitei culture and that what we'd need is sources saying "Birds in Meitei culture" is a discrete idea that has already been recognized by sources. While I was looking for sources on plants in Meitei culture, I was in Google Books. Here's what I got for birds: Google Books . Not as clear as with plants or ethnobotany, but it's not nothing at all. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 15:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not seeing any sources in the first two pages that might be relevant here, could you clarify which, if any, you feel is relevant? Brusquedandelion ( talk ) 01:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge . Not every element of Meitei culture needs to have its own separate article when there is already page on Meitei culture where these segments can be merged to. Additionally, unless independent sources are discussing "Birds in Meitei culture" as a conjunct, such an article does not seem to be in the spirit of the notability rules/guidelines. Brusquedandelion ( talk ) 01:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : All the information are cited by independent reliable sources in English and Indian languages, which anyone can scrutinize. There's no synthesis of anyone. Everything is supported by the citations. -- Haoreima ( talk ) 17:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The nominator should answer counter-claims to the SYNTH claim. Geschichte ( talk ) 08:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The nominator has not seen any sources on the topic of Birds in Meitei Culture or similar, and believes that the author of the article has patched it together from disconnected elements of Meitei folklore. If multiple, independent, reliable sources can be found on the topic of Birds in Meitei culture, then this is a reasonable article topic. Otherwise, it's just sparkling synthesis. Pepper Beast (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Meitei culture ; had a look and I just don't see the sources. This isn't about birds in Meitei culture, it's just a bunch of Meitei folk tales and myths that happen to involve some kind of bird. The OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is also rather weak; the Chinese mythology article is about a much more prominent mythology with (more importantly) more sources, and the ravens one is about a specific kind of creation tale as far as I can tell. AryKun ( talk ) 13:01, 21 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 |
Blue, White and Red Rally: BEFORE shows very little, as does the article itself. Seems that this organization was either short lived or did not achieve much outside generating a little media buzz when it was founded. I don't see what makes it meet WP:GNG - perhaps it should redirect Jean-Marie Le Pen , as is done on fr wiki? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and France . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I am finding some French sources that appear to be about the party or its creation, ( Le Journal de Dimanche , ici , RFI , Le Monde , Atlantico , L'express ), but my ability to search more contextually is limited by my weak French, as "Bleu Blanc Rouge" is also used to name the French flag. Someone with French knowledge might want to dig into this, because there may well be sources there. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:29, 27 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! 05:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] According to Jean-Marie Le Pen's frwiki article, he envisaged founding this new party but never went through with it. Certainly the only sources in French all seem to relate to an announcement, not to any actual activities by this party. I would suggest merging to Jean-Marie Le Pen (which will require a bit more research to add text to his article) or, failing that, deletion. Rosbif73 ( talk ) 13:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] merging to Jean-Marie Le Pen as frwiki D.S. Lioness ( talk ) 17:51, 3 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 |
Manning Community School District: PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 03:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , United States of America , and Iowa . PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 03:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The navbox found in the article is full of redlinks. That suggests a topic area needing expansion, not scaling back. The nominator's rationale is misleading in that the article is orange-tagged for needing expansion, not for lacking sources. Anyway, Merge to IKM–Manning Community School District . The article on the other pre-merger component of that district is also light on third-party sources. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I will check Newspapers.com to see how many sources I can find about the pre-merger district. WhisperToMe ( talk ) 11:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I found several newspaper article sources about how the creation of the district was legally disputed in court by another school district (the Iowa Supreme Court ultimately upheld the creation of this district). Additionally there was a legal dispute in regards to two areas being moved into this districgt. This is certainly not routine coverage by any stretch of the definition, and so this should secure notability of this topic. WhisperToMe ( talk ) 12:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - to IKM–Manning Community School District . Historic predecessor districts should be covered in the current district's article unless WP:FORK becomes a concern. Even with additional content, size is not a concern here. The other predecessor district's articles should likewise be merged, possibly dividing the history section at the target article into subsections to do so. By all means, this title should remain as a redirect. 4.37.252.50 ( talk ) 01:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - However if WP:WEIGHT becomes too much for a particular section (for example, the weight of the information about the former Manning district, which operated from 1959 to 2011), then that former district should have its own article. I'm still finding content about the 1959-2011 period, and I think that there may be enough for this district to have its own article. Also there is notability by being a populated, legally recognized place (as per Wikipedia:Notability_(geographic_features)#Settlements_and_administrative_regions ). Various former municipalities in Japan, which have since merged into larger ones, would count as being legally recognized places. Former school districts are also legally recognized places. WhisperToMe ( talk ) 22:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ●Merge - Based on everyone elses statements, I think a merge would be a better idea PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 04:14, 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 |
Civil Police Officer: Mentioned in Constable#India . CPO and Constable are the same, difference is only in the name. CPO is the designation/post name of cops in the rank of constable in Kerala state. Similarly, in Kerala, the Superintendent of Police (SP) ranking officer holding the post of head of a police district is designated as District Police Chief (DPC), while in other states the post is synonymous with the rank itself, the Director General of Police (DGP) is also designated as State Police Chief (SPC). As per this 2011 Kerala govt circular , the designation of members of Kerala Civil Police Officers of the rank of Constable serving in the District Police is changed as "Civil Police Officer" and those of the rank of Head Constable serving in the District Police is changed as "Senior Civil Police Officer". As per another circular (H) , Any person appointed in the ranks of Constable and Head Constable in the KCP will, while working in District Police, be designated Civil Police Officer and Senior Civil Police Officer respectively . Additionally, the article is also largely based on WP:OR , with scarce WP:SIGCOV on the internet. The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 11:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Police , and India . The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 11:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Civil Police Officer article should not be deleted from the Wikipedia article because the Constable rank, colloquially known as CPO, is prevalent in the latest movies, articles, and news. There is confusion among non-Keralites regarding CPO or Civil Police Officer, and this article helps primarily non-Keralites. In popular culture, the term CPO is more commonly used, making it relevant for inclusion on Wikipedia and should not be deleted. Many people conduct Google searches for information about CPO, and the article is very helpful in that regard.Lastly, the Civil Police Officer is distinct from other state police forces, and it is more standard and modern than colonial terms. For your information, the Kerala Public Service Commission also uses Civil Police Officer (CPO) in their recruitment notifications. There are various ranks in the force, such as armed police constable, police constable (telecommunication), police constable (commando), etc. The Government of Kerala also uses the term Civil Police Officer. Therefore, please consider not deleting this article.Thank you.The Civil Police Officer article should not be deleted from wiki article, because the Constable rank colloquialy known as CPO. In latest movies, articles, news the Civil Police Officer is more prevalent. There are confusions to non-keralites on CPO or Civil Police Officer. So this article will helps mainly non keralites. In Popular culture, the term CPO is more used. So this should be on Wikipedia and should not be deleted. There are so many Google search for information about CPO. It is very helpful those. Lastly the Civil Police Officer distinct from other state police forces and it's is more standard and modern than colonial terms. For your information, the Kerala public service commision also uses Civil Police Officer (CPO) in their recruitment notification. There are various ranks in the force like armed police constable, police constable (telecommunication), police constable (commando), etc. the government of kerala also uses Civil Police Officer. So please consider, not to delete this article. 1) [36] , CPO notification 2) [37] CPO notification by PSC 3) [38] Police Constable (Armed Police) notification Pls check , this is a recruitment notification for Police Constable (Mounted Police), Thank you. 2409:4073:2010:DE72:0:0:266F:F0B0 ( talk ) 16:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Even a Police Constable posted as a Civil Police Officer in District Police (Local Police) is officially known as a Civil Police Officer throughout their entire career. Just look at units like State Crime Branch (CB-CID), State Special Branch, State Crime Records Bureau, Headquarters, Coastal Police, Railway Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), etc. In these units, they are recognized as Civil Police Officers and Senior Civil Police Officers, not Constables and Head Constables. So, during their service term, they are officially designated as CPO and Sr. CPO, not PC and HC. Therefore, it should be treated as a rank and a post." So it doesn't"Even a Police Constable posted as a Civil Police Officer in District Police (Local Police) is officially known as a Civil Police Officer throughout their entire career. Just look at units like State Crime Branch (CB-CID), State Special Branch, State Crime Records Bureau, Headquarters, Coastal Police, Railway Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), etc. In these units, they are recognized as Civil Police Officers and Senior Civil Police Officers, not Constables and Head Constables. So, during their service term, they are officially designated as CPO and Sr. CPO, not PC and HC. Therefore, it should be treated as a rank and a post." 2409:4073:2010:DE72:0:0:266F:F0B0 ( talk ) 16:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Constable#India and Kerala Police as appropriate. No need for a separate article. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 20:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 00:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Necrothesp. Giant Snowman 15:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge seems ok, I don't see notability otherwise. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as per Necrothesp would indeed be the best course of action regarding this page. TH1980 ( talk ) 00:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Necrothesp. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 06:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I recieved a message on my talk page asking me to particpate here. I don't think it constitutes canvassing, as it was neutrally-worded and seems to have been sent indiscriminately to established ppl, but worth noting. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️⚧️) 16:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
KESHER: Non-notable arm of a larger movement, has been defunct for 15 years, with no WP:SIGCOV that would justify a stand alone article. In the previous AfD discussion , editors suggested the existence of WP:RS that could enhance the article. I did a WP:BEFORE , finding none of import. Longhornsg ( talk ) 17:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions . Longhornsg ( talk ) 17:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge somewhat selectively and without prejudice into Union for Reform Judaism#History . Kudos to nom for nominating (even though nominated 2 years ago – usually not a good idea, this time it was) and suggesting an ATD. This SPINOUT is yet another example of excessive fragmentation! Previous debate was as usual down the rabbit hole of notability. People forget that we also govern information through AfDs :-( gidonb ( talk ) 17:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I objected to the merge-without-discussion based solely on the article's content making some claims of notability--didn't see the previous AFD at the time. Indeed it's (still) hard to find sources due to the name itself and its fading into the past. Found a few details: Had national conventions. [6] Not an independent source, but sufficient for the claim and demonstrates that the group at the time did at least some major things. Was the only formal Reform-centric outreach/project for the approximately-college-age demographic. [7] Independent ref that specifically makes that analysis ( New Voices (magazine) is itself a notable publication), and the fact that this commentary focuses on it adds notability itself. I'm torn, as it seems to have some but not major notability, and that is mostly as a project or sub-organization of URJ. Given that it morphed from "part of URJ" to "fore-runner of, or remnants absorbed by, Birthright Foundation" (each of those has own article), it's an intersection-topic. I tilt towards keeping such pages as stand-alone because it increases navigability and prevents it from gradually getting discarded altogether from the merge-target. So I see "barely keepable" on notability grounds and "somewhat useful to have" on editorial grounds. DMacks ( talk ) 17:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . This debate is also down the rabbit hole of notability. gidonb ( talk ) 01:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a Merge. If you oppose merging, then please offer what you think should happen with this article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Godzillus: This article was created back in 2012, when at the time the subject was getting attention in the press for being a "mystery fossil that stumps scientists". After that, however, almost nothing new has been written about it since, except a 2016 study by the fossil's discoverer and other scientists discussing its possible true identity. Alternatively to deletion, this article could be merged into Kope Formation instead, since the fossil was discovered from that formation in the first place. Monster Iestyn ( talk ) 12:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Organisms . Monster Iestyn ( talk ) 12:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as per nom. I was able to find several articles in RS from the time of discovery, including the CBC and Columbus Dispatch, so it did attract attention. But there hasn't been much since then and doubtful there will be. WP:NOTNEWS . — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk • contribs ) 14:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: A glance at Google Scholar indicates the subject is still being researched and published about, with a new paper coming out every two years. Maybe this material could be incorporated into the article. -- dsprc [talk] 15:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Dsprc Careful, some of those papers listed on Google Scholar may be referring to a crustacean with the similiar name "Godzill i us", not the subject of this article. Those that are referring to this subject only mention it in passing, with the exception of the article from 2016 I already mentioned which as far as I can see is the only one actually discussing it. Monster Iestyn ( talk ) 16:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Good point. At least these two journals discuss this specific subject (not the similarly-named one): doi : 10.2110/palo.2016.028 && doi : 10.1080/08912963.2020.1755281 . I've zero interest in digging through paleontological research papers that are dryer than a fossil, however. Thus, YMMV on the others. -- dsprc [talk] 16:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as per nom. Having easy access to Meyer et al. (2016) and Retallack and Broz (2021), I looked both of them up. Meyer et al. (2016) is undecided about whether Godzillus is a true fossil or a pseudofossil that is a Microbially induced sedimentary structure . Retallack and Broz (2021) mentions only in passing that Godzillus is regarded to be an a Ediacaran multilobed frond. This paper neither describes nor discusses it any further, except to note that Godzillus is preoccupied by the "orthographic variant Gozillius robustus, a remipede crustacean." It is too soon for Godzillus to have its own Wikipedia article as this time. I would recommend that this article be merged as a paragraph in the Kope Formation . References: Meyer, D.L., Brett, C.E., Dattilo, B.F. and Fine, R., 2016. Inverted trilobites: key to complex preservation of an organically textured surface in offshore siliciclastic mudstone and carbonate facies: Kope Formation (upper Ordovician), Kenton County, Kentucky, USA. Palaios, 31(10), pp.453-462. Retallack, G.J. and Broz, A.P., 2021. Arumberia and other Ediacaran–Cambrian fossils of central Australia. Historical Biology, 33(10), pp.1964-1988. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul H. ( talk • contribs ) 19:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I support the merge. I haven't been able to expand the article. -- Auric talk 19:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I have looked extensively using various databases and not been able find any addition publications that discuss Godzillus in addition to Meyer et al. (2016) and Retallack and Broz (2021) Paul H. ( talk ) 20:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , it 's a no brainer. Clearly it fails GNC and cant survive as a stand alone article. Cinadon 36 07:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I agree with what’s been said. Merge. Go4thProsper ( talk ) 10:47, 26 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 |
NAIA Road: The guideline states: " Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject. " The only two sources used here do not support the article: from DPWH ( non-independent ) and from the Philippine Star (does not mention NAIA or MIA Road even once, only references the proposed rehabilitation of the airport that gave the road its name). JWilz12345 ( Talk | Contrib's. ) 02:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Looking for news sources on Google is of no help too: 2014 Pilipino Star Ngayon article : only mentions about the road as one of the areas of frequent cutting-trip actions by jeepney during 2010s. Less weight on the roads, more weight on the behavior of jeepneu and tricycle drivers and their impacts to the commuters. 2018 Pilipino Star Ngayon article : mainly talks about Puliscredibles film as an entry of the Metro Manila Film Festival, with the road being mentioned once as part of the parade float's route. 2019 Philippine News Agency article : " NCRPO director, Maj. Gen. Guillermo Eleazar said joint operatives of the Bureau of Immigration (BI), NCRPO's Regional Special Operations Unit (RSOU) and the Armed Forces of the Philippines in coordination with the Chinese embassy, swooped down on the Golden Unicom Technology, Inc. 7th Floor, Millennium Building on NAIA Road on Wednesday night. " (Brief "cameo appearance" of the road in the article as the address of the incriminated Chinese-operated establishment). This is also the same case as the Inquirer article of the same news . 2018 photo essay article of the Philippine News Agency : not strong enough to provide GEOROAD compliance of "NAIA Road" article. Also the case for this 2022 photo article of the same news outlet . 2015 Philippine Daily Inquirer online article : only about a traffic rerouting advisory with NAIA Road as among the roads mentioned once. 2024 tabloid story of Remate : only about a crime incident that occurred along the road. 2023 GMA News article : only mentions a severe traffic congestion along the road as a result of a nearby fire 2016 article of Philippine Primer : mostly about NAIA Expressway with a single, fleeting mention of NAIA Road: " In a report published by Business Mirror, the newly completed NAIA Expressway’s Phase 2-B, link from NAIA Road to NAIA Terminal 3, Villamor and the Skyway System, will be toll-free. This will be from Decemeber 21, 2016 to Jan. 10, 2017, a representative from the Department of Transportation said. " 2018 Philippine Star article : only mentions the road as where a tricycle driver disgusing as a law enforcer was arrested. 2015 Philippine Daily Inquirer online article : only mentions the road as among addresses impacted by a temporary power interruption. 2014 GMA News article : more on the damaged electric pole than the road itself (where it is located). The rest of the sources, includes some foreign sources about unrelated matter (from Malta et cetera), strangely.
_ JWilz12345 ( Talk | Contrib's. ) 03:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography , Transportation , and Philippines . JWilz12345 ( Talk | Contrib's. ) 02:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Ninoy_Aquino_International_Airport#Ground_transport per WP:ATD -- Lenticel ( talk ) 08:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Ninoy Aquino International Airport#Ground transport per Lenticel . HueMan1 ( talk ) 23:48, 22 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 |
Abby (Doctor Who): A BEFORE turns up no sources that indicate separate notability, and the current sourcing state is remarkably weak. She's listed at the Companions article, so a redirect there could work per ATD, but I just don't see her having enough to justify a full article. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 23:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy . Pokelego999 ( talk ) 23:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Blank and redirect to List of Doctor Who supporting characters § with the Fifth Doctor . This article fails to establish why the subject is notable. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 05:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why blank. .? It is not going to hurt anyone seeing this information... DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 00:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete due to failing WP:GNG . It's a really unlikely search term, but I suppose you could still push for a redirect. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 03:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List_of_Doctor_Who_supporting_characters . Mooonswimmer 15:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect per above. I would advocate to keep, but this way someone can recreate this article when there are sources DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 00:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Shield Knight: The AFD from 7 years ago was kept because of the few sources within the article, most of which are passing mentions or sources that cannot contribute to notability. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 18:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Fictional elements , and Video games . QuicoleJR ( talk ) 18:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to parent game Shovel Knight , or weak keep for the Reception section's sourcing alone (better-quality refs may be needed). -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 18:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Shovel Knight - minor character with only trivial mentions. I had proposed a merge last year, but it was contested and closed as no consensus. I still feel the same way about its notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge reviewers have occasionally tipped hats to her clever toying with tropes but I don’t honestly see why we need a whole article on this character even if there are more sources because there’s not a whole lot here to say. Dronebogus ( talk ) 06:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom. OceanHok ( talk ) 13:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Shovel Knight . The content can be added to a new section Characters or be a part/sub-section of Plot . -- Mann Mann ( talk ) 03:17, 24 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 |
Nicholas Postgate Catholic Academy Trust: C&P move from draftspace. Kleuske ( talk ) 15:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Education , Christianity , and United Kingdom . Kleuske ( talk ) 15:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] please identify if it is not suitable to be an article, I believe it is suitable U15627r473 ( talk ) 16:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ U15627r473 : That's basically what an AfD nomination is. The organisation in question did not receive any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and is hence non-notable . Kleuske ( talk ) 16:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Sources are all primary sources, no independent coverage, agree it does not meet WP:NCORP . Have looked for sources to add and only found this article about nursery and reception children during COVID-19 , which is fairly trivial. Tacyarg ( talk ) 16:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep there is some independent coverage from the Mirror and Teeside Live in the article and the number of schools and a college in this trust makes it something we should be covering if possible, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This should just be a list page instead of an article I think. Sources are not really enough to support the article but maintaining just the straight list could still be helpful. - Indefensible ( talk ) 01:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Bold third, final relist for more input Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 06:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Middlesbrough as a new L2 Schools section, per [35] . Ironically the diocese navbox currently has better coverage of its schools than the diocese article. A Schools section could also be expanded (or tagged for expansion) to cover St Cuthbert's Roman Catholic Academy Trust and Ampleforth College as well. As an encyclopedia we need some coverage of the system of which the various individual schools are a part, but per NORG that is probably better handled at the diocese level than the trust level since there isn't much information we can provide about the trust as such. -- Visviva ( talk ) 01:36, 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 |
Hero of the Luhansk People's Republic: Rsk6400 ( talk ) 12:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Ukraine . Rsk6400 ( talk ) 12:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: I notified WikiProject Ukraine ( Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ukraine#Articles_for_deletion_discussions:_Hero_of_the_Luhansk_/_Donetsk_People's_Republic ) and Talk:Luhansk People's Republic of this discussion. Rsk6400 ( talk ) 13:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , not a notable award. It can be mentioned in articles on recipients. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , This article and the similar Hero of the Donetsk People's Republic needs to be expanded and not deleted. Hero of LPR even finds an article with Reuters when Kadyrov was awarded with it. Chechen armed forces assemble to honour Putin and his ally Kadyrov . Shaan Sengupta Talk 15:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't think that the Reuters article passes WP:SIGCOV . Rsk6400 ( talk ) 15:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and merge Non-notable, but there should be a couple sentences on it somewhere. North8000 ( talk ) 17:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Delete not notable on it's own right. Maybe we can make an article along the lines of "Russian Separatist Awards" and include Hero of the Donetsk People's Republic and other even less notable awards. Scu ba ( talk ) 19:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : probably to Luhansk People's Republic . Deletion is not preferred per WP:ATD since this is a valid target. Curbon7 ( talk ) 06:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The nominator should have checked for Russian-language references. The corresponding article in Russian ru:Герой Луганской Народной Республики has four references and a list of recipients. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 11:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem with Russian-language sources is that there is no freedom of the press left in Russia. Notability cannot be established by sources that are unreliable because they are controlled by the Kremlin. The last of the four sources (Кавказ.Реалии) seems to be reliable, but it doesn't contain more than a statement about the winners of that award. Rsk6400 ( talk ) 14:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Award serves to prop up Russian propaganda claims to a region of Ukraine and award is emblem of occupation and not notable on it's own right. Could create new page on Russian attempts to assert administrative control. Stoptheprop ( talk ) — Preceding undated comment added 18:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Reliable sources simply do not write about this, as it’s fake symbols of a fake country. How is this not obvious when even its creators dropped all the pretences over a year ago? — Michael Z . 04:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above Parham wiki ( talk ) 17:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete non-notable. Polyamorph ( talk ) 09:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as redirect and merge to LPR main article (probably in the "Recognition and international relations" section). Possible search term and some of the content is useful (demonstrates the close relations between LPR and Chechyna officials, for example). Dan the Animator 19:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Just because it is award of an internationatly unrecognized entity doesn't mean it isn't notable, we have articles for Artsakh awards. Nor does the lack of SIGCOV in English sources mean anything, there is lots of SIGCOV in Russian and Ukrainian sources. Kursant504 ( talk ) 12:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete . Award serves to prop up Russian propaganda claims to a region of Ukraine and award is emblem of occupation and not notable in it's own right. Could create new page on Russian attempts to assert symbolic/administrative control. Stoptheprop ( talk ) 28 October 2023 (UTC) Note: Duplicate vote. Already voted above. Shaan Sengupta Talk 12:51, 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 |
Altaïr Ibn-LaʼAhad: I tried to do BEFORE at google, but unfortunately I have found nothing valuable at all. 🥒 Greenish Pickle! 🥒 ( 🔔 ) 22:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . 🥒 Greenish Pickle! 🥒 ( 🔔 ) 22:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters . The significant coverage doesn't appear to exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 00:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the Science fiction and fantasy . 🥒 Greenish Pickle! 🥒 ( 🔔 ) 23:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Notability tag was just added a week ago. The Polygon source gives solid development background. The various listicles in Reception ("Top 50 XBox characters," etc.) are... not terribly strong... but they're something to show that he wasn't a nobody. More generally, while Altair certainly isn't as famous as Ezio, he's still one of the main characters of a gigantic franchise that has had a lot of content made about it. I'd want to see the opinion of some Assassin's Creeds experts here, because Altair not being notable would be very surprising. SnowFire ( talk ) 05:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Great job for discovering the polygon source, but that's the only sigcov, while others don't really help notability. 🥒 Greenish Pickle! 🥒 ( 🔔 ) 05:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Polygon source is also an interview. Significant, but not secondary, which are what is needed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as per zxcvbnm's statement. MKsLifeInANutshell ( talk ) 17:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak merge I'll be honest I've been iffy about several of the Assassin Creed character articles, and this exemplifies a lot of those problems. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 19:38, 22 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 |
Azerbaijan Anti-Corruption Academy: There is no coverage of this organization from sources that are independent of the Azerbaijan government. If there is any content worth keeping, it can be merged with Corruption in Azerbaijan . Thenightaway ( talk ) 19:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Law , Organizations , and Azerbaijan . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect , to Corruption in Azerbaijan per WP:ATD-R . I also did not find any coverage that was independent of the government of Azerbaijan. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:09, 5 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 |
Robam Neary Chea Chuor: I have spend reasonable time trying to locate reliable sources in English and Khmer (second one using translation tools) and came up empty. Викидим ( talk ) 20:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions . Owen× ☎ 23:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I can't find anything on it even in Khmer, except this and a brief mention here . Lots of videos on YouTube, TikTok and Facebook which would indicate cultural notability but we do need sources... This is about Thai students singing a song of the same name. Perhaps try different spellings and variations in searching? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 04:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (numbers correspond to the order of sources in the previous reply) More or less the same text as ours, indeed (with a different spelling,). Considering that the text on Internet is from May 2021 and ours is from 2007, I would not call it WP:COPYVIO , as it seems that the source has copied our text wholesale and thus cannot be considered a WP:RS . Precisely "“Neary Chea Chour” is a Cambodian Classical dance piece featuring song lyrics about beautiful young women dancing in a row." (no "Robam", and, yes, I have already learned during search that "robam" means "dance"). No costumes, no "traditional", no neighboring countries - nothing that is in the text. Videos on Youtube appear to not contain any information that can substantiate our text, much less even a small article I can also point to few more sources in Khmer that described some songs with similar names that have pretty modern authors. It does not substantiate our text about dance , again. All said, we are left with #2 that I did indeed miss. I will add it to the lists of Cambodian dances as a source. But surely an article cannot be written based on this source alone. Perhaps, the current text can be transferred to Dance in Cambodia and replaced by a redirect? Викидим ( talk ) 07:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah I think a merge to that would be best. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please do not Redirect or Merge this article while this AFD is still open. The closure has yet to be determined. L iz Read! Talk! 23:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Dance in Cambodia . Google translate (របាំនារីជាជួរ) gives (Women's line dance). It seems to be a generic name for dances where several women in traditional costume dance in a line, not a specific dance. Perhaps something could be said about the genre, but my search only gets videos. Aymatth2 ( talk ) 18:16, 28 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 |
Titan Magazines: Appears largely written by conflict of interest author. IgelRM ( talk ) 17:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions . IgelRM ( talk ) 17:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I think a merge/redirect to the parent company would make more sense than deletion here. ★Trekker ( talk ) 12:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, merge into Titan Publishing Group ? IgelRM ( talk ) 15:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Given that the article is unlikely to be retained - merge/redirect is the equivalent of delete - I have already merged the information in this article into the main Titus Publishing article to ensure that the salient content from this article is not lost to Wikipedia. Therefore there is now no need to retain this as a separate article. Rillington ( talk ) 09:08, 11 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! 23:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect with Titan Publishing Group in order to retain information and as a better alternative to deletion. Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 18:29, 16 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 |
Social policies of Phyllis Schlafly: Relevant info can be merged into Phyllis_Schlafly#Viewpoints but there isn't enough to justify its own article. मल्ल ( talk ) 14:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Politics . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete - no independent reliable sources for the subject. - Altenmann >talk 19:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I see a number of books listed as references, Feminism and the New Right and such. These are all primary sources? I wouldn't think that the political policies of one activist would merit an article separate from the article about that person, but if people have seen fit to write this much about them... It looks like the issue is notability. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 20:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete She herself is clearly notable and significant, but this page does not meet Wiki requirements for the additional focus on policies. Go4thProsper ( talk ) 12:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge This is an appropriate subarticle of Phyllis_Schlafly#Viewpoints . While primary sources are not prohibited from this type of page, there are also independent sources for appropriate coverage. If a standalone article is not appropriate, the main article should be expanded with some of this. Reywas92 Talk 15:21, 19 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! 21:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Almost entirely sourced from Schlafly's own book. Her Wikipedia bio Phyllis Schlafly does a much better and concise coverage of her life and political advocacy, and is appropriately sourced. — Maile ( talk ) 23:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or merge to Phyllis Schlafly per nom and above, doesn’t really make sense to be a standalone. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 09:49, 23 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 |
Enquiry (disambiguation): I'm thinking that perhaps it needs to be merged with Inquiry (disambiguation) , which can include Enquiry in the intro. Or...??? Laterthanyouthink ( talk ) 07:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator - per comments below. Laterthanyouthink ( talk ) 11:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I think in such a circumstance a WP:BOLD merge is almost always acceptable especially if you're not pruning too much. I leave this as a comment because you could feasibly withdraw and do that if you feel comfortable doing so. — siro χ o 09:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks Siroxo . I was going to do that, but thought I might be missing something. I will do as you suggest, and as supported by Clarityfiend Laterthanyouthink ( talk ) 11:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Just add the one entry to Inquiry (disambiguation) . None of the See also books and report should be transferred over, as they are simply (very) partial matches. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 09:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 09:53, 25 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 |
Indian Wireless Telegraph Rules: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Insignificant stub with zero indication of notability. Kerberous ( talk ) 12:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 . These rules are delegated legislation made under the powers conferred by section 7 of that Act. We normally redirect statutory rules to the Act under which they were made, if the rules are not themselves notable. There is some coverage in Google Books and the Internet Archive. James500 ( talk ) 14:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Merge Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the Act as suggested seems fine, I don't see the need to have the rules spelled out otherwise. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:33, 1 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 |
Controversies involving the Indian Premier League: The "Other scandals" is in violation of WP:BLPCRIME , by accusing people of things that they haven't been charged for, the "Rule Break" section is just a couple of minor, arbitrary incidents, "Incidents of physical assaults on players" section is about players and not really related to the IPL itself. Any encyclopedic content can be added to other IPL articles, but we don't need this article with tons of absolutely non-encyclopedic content. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Cricket , and India . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose How can you say that the assault and bullying controversies are individual and not related to IPL? The player's sequrity is IPL's responsibility amid IPL, It was happened during IPL. If you don't agree with sub-headings you can change it. main article already too lengthy and if we merged this stuff in it, it'll be more lengthy. Rock Stone Gold Castle ( talk ) 14:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A selective merge of a very small amount of encyclopedic content would be fine. Must of this article is WP:NPOV junk that should be deleted. WP:NPOV and WP:BLPCRIME override WP:ILIKEIT . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 20:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Very selective merge to Indian Premier League . There's some information here that can be merged, but most of it is excessive and violates WP:NPOV . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 10:01, 25 March 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! 16:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose , Hi, If anyone feeling that something in this article breaking WP policy, then you should open a discussion here on talk page. We'll remove or alter it after reaching analysing. I think the intrested editors do not that someone is trying to delete or merge this article in IPL. You should paste notices at 'Wikiproject IPL, Cricket, IPL article about it. Let them know, many of them will discuss, vote here. Rock Stone Gold Castle ( talk ) 08:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It has been appropriately listed in Sports , Cricket , and India , and appears in the article alerts for WikiProject Cricket: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Article alerts . Hi, If anyone feeling that something in this article breaking WP policy, then you should open a discussion here on talk page. We'll remove or alter it after reaching analysing. is not how AFD works. The article has to demonstrate the need to exist, as per WP:GNG and WP:SPLIT , and the WP:BLPCRIME issues in this article are also unacceptable. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 21:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support Liz's suggestion of a very selective merge to Indian Premier League . This article has no good reason to exist. By shoving all the "controversies" over here, we give undue weight to smaller ones, and may keep larger ones from receiving proper coverage in the main article. Also relevant to this discussion may be the guidelines on point-of-view forking . Wracking 💬 22:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support , Now I also think it should be de deleted or merged. Rock Stone Gold Castle ( talk ) 05:52, 7 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 |
List of Invader Zim characters: Sources are blogs, IMDB, a single fanzine and a 404 error.
Little value in merging into Invader Zim as no evidence of any encyclopaedic value here. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 13:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Velella Velella Talk 14:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions . Velella Velella Talk 14:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Television , and Comics and animation . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to the main article for now, due to complete WP:OR sourcing. However, no prejudice towards recreation if sources are incorporated into it, as it could certainly be a viable list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as wholly unverified to reliable secondary sources. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge the character bios to the main page in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE per @ Zxcvbnm : . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 01:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect as compromise. Editors can find the right level of coverage at the main article. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 15:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Clarifying that "main article" means Invader Zim . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 16:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can those arguing for a Merge/Redirect provide a specific target article/section they are advocating? L iz Read! Talk! 06:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I had to add a character section for the merging in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . Have all the information sent there if the outcome is merge. -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 17:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There seems to be consensus forming for merge or redirect as an ATD, but no consensus for either yet. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts ( talk / contributions ) 01:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Invader Zim#Characters - While not all of the unsourced cruft needs to be moved over, the main characters and cast should absolutely be listed on the main article for the series, and so should be merged. The "Recurring" and especially the "Minor" characters should not be merged to the main article, though. Rorshacma ( talk ) 23:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Invader Zim#Characters . Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 01:35, 12 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 |
List of statistical mechanics articles: Statistical mechanics is the article about statistical mechanics. (It's not even linked here!) Wikipedia is navigated by wikilinks and Wikipedia:Summary style , not by a table-of-contents as this article seems to be. The article is not useful. An overview of statistical mechanics should be in Statistical mechanics . Johnjbarton ( talk ) 15:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is an index , which navigates articles related to a field. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 15:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Renamed to match convention. Might not exactly be an index, though: it's not alphabetical like a lot of the rest. Mrfoogles ( talk ) 16:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (@ Johnjbarton posted a comment and then deleted it again, check the history) Forgot that moving was part of AFD discussions, figured that if the AFD hadn't been going on I would have just up and moved it anyways, because it seemed to fit. I can move it back and just vote for "Move to Index of statistical mechanics articles" instead if people feel like it's necessary. I figured if it survives it would probably move there anyways, and if it's deleted it doesn't matter what the name is. Mrfoogles ( talk ) 20:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mrfoogles I deleted my comment because it was incorrect. I thought you had mistyped. Your move is an improvement. I still think the article is pointless. We should put our energies into statistical mechanics . Johnjbarton ( talk ) 22:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy , Mathematics , and Lists . Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 21:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also vote Keep . Large enough subject to have index for given the established pattern. Probably can be linked in the See Also of statistical mechanics: serves a minor purpose and doesn’t hurt anything. Does need to be alphabetized but not deleted. Mrfoogles ( talk ) 23:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , redundant to Statistical mechanics . - Samoht27 ( talk ) 17:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * Keep Category:Statistical mechanics shows how many things should be here. If there was a column listing year of discovery and other stats, would it be more useful? Or a description of what each thing is? D r e a m Focus 03:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Isn't the index exactly redundant with Category:Statistical mechanics ? If we add information to the index as you suggest aren't we creating a summary article exactly as I advocate we should in statistical mechanics ? Johnjbarton ( talk ) 03:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Would all of those relevant entries fit in the other article? D r e a m Focus 04:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Are they related to "statistical mechanics"? Then yes. Otherwise they don't belong in the index either. Johnjbarton ( talk ) 14:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Moving the article in the middle of an AFD was also inappropriate; if someone wants to make it into an actual contextual list beyond just pointless bullet-pointed links, the original "List of" name was better. Still, they should be linked in the main article, Template:Statistical mechanics , Template:Statistical mechanics topics , and Category:Statistical mechanics as appropriate, but this serves no additional purpose so Delete or merge . Reywas92 Talk 03:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The columns and information I added shows its a valid navigational list, it allowing more information than the category does. Far more useful for people to find what they are looking for. D r e a m Focus 04:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Make it a section in the main article then. You added empty columns, and a basic list of links this short doesn't need a standalone page. Otherwise draftify. Reywas92 Talk 13:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have reverted the change as a bad edit (explanation in edit summary). 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 16:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Violates WP:SELFREF , and important topics can be covered in the main topic article much better than a list of random links can provide. Anyone who's interested can also make a sidebar for main topics if they want. 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 15:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also changing my position to Delete or Merge , given the important links are probably already in Template:Statistical mechanics, etc. It wasn't really a very good index with only 20 articles anyways. Mrfoogles ( talk ) 20:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral Right now the article is useless. That doesn't mean someone can't create something useful later on who is familiar with the topic. D r e a m Focus 18:04, 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 |
Self-organising heuristic: Tooncool64 ( talk ) 06:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 08:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Self-organizing list . Seems logical: A self-organizing list is a list that reorders its elements based on some self-organizing heuristic... . We can create a section for self-organizing heuristics there. Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 08:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to self-organizing list per Deltaspace. There's not really anything to merge , but this does seem like a logical subtopic from what I can find in academic results on Google. HappyWith ( talk ) 21:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The right topic name is self-organizing data structure , and it encompasses more than lists, which are a sub-topic of this rather than the other way around. For example: Splay trees […] are a so-called self-organizing data structure . In self-organizing data structures and item x is moved closer to the entry point of the data structure whenever it is accessed. […] — Luisa, Bozzano G. (1990). Algorithms and Complexity . Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science. Vol. 1. Elsevier. p. 321. ISBN 9780444880710 . Ironically, much of this article is correct and directly sourcable to that very page of Luisa 1990 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLuisa1990 ( help ) , which goes on to talk about move-to-front and transposition just like this article does. | merge |
Amazon Live: Deauthorized . ( talk ) 12:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . Deauthorized . ( talk ) 12:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Amazon Inc. : per nom. '''[[ User:CanonNi ]]''' ( talk • contribs ) 14:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising , Websites , and Washington . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep' it's better to merge to Amazon Prime. -- FightBrightTigh ( talk ) 10:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Blocked for spamming. MER-C 09:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ FightBrightTigh : Keeping and merging are mutually exclusive outcomes. Which one are you suggesting is best? jlwoodwa ( talk ) 19:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge FightBrightTigh ( talk ) 10:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. It's not possible to Merge this article with Amazon Inc. as this page is a Redirect. This should show up for you as a different colored font. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Only 2 sources 1 is primary, so not worth it's own page. It's better for this page to be merged into Amazon Inc. EternalNub ( talk ) 17:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Amazon Inc. per nom, doesn't pass WP:GNG . Suonii180 ( talk ) 22:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Amazon Inc. per nom, references unable to establish independent notability. HighKing ++ 12:33, 28 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 |
Economy of Gilgit-Baltistan: No objection to a consensus merge. // Timothy :: talk 06:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Gilgit-Baltistan#Economy and resources per nom. - Indefensible ( talk ) 18:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I support Indefensible's idea. -- Nimorinka ( talk ) 12:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Lapras: The older AfD was withdrawn inappropriately, since it was a WP:SUPERVOTE by nominator despite half the votes calling for a redirect. After checking the sources, I am heavily under the belief that Lapras is non-notable fancruft. Any major coverage is related to Lapras becoming a regional mascot, a publicity stunt that also applies to numerous other Pokemon. WP:NOTPROMO . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 10:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Video games . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 10:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of generation I Pokémon#Lapras (and perhaps merge some of the info about its status as a mascot into the section). Not that I want this article removed, but it's clear that outside of character's position as symbol for Japanese prefectures, there isn't much commentary of Lapras itself outside of short summary listicles. I've checked myself and could find much. And as mentioned by the nominator, the previous AFD was pulled as super keep, despite half of the respondents calling for the article to be redirected. And since then, the regulations and qualification standards for what can pass for a video game character article has significantly changed per the founding of the Video game character task force, meaning the keep votes from the 2021 AFD don't hold the same weight as they once did. Captain Galaxy 12:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per nom. Personally I think the promo contributes to notability in this case, but even then there just isn't enough to bolster a whole article. Ping me if sources are found but otherwise I don't think there's enough here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 18:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect with no predjudice to recreate if notable later I feel as time has gone on more sources have been found to give notability to some subjects on here, and often AfD is a deterrent towards that. At this time, after a thorough WP:BEFORE , there's not enough material here for notability. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 23:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep or merge . Some sources mention him in the heading. At mimimum, merge - no referenced detail should be lost. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 23:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep or merge , as there is some coverage, and concurring with Piotrus that nothing is gained in loosing referenced, encyclopedic information in a pure redirect. Daranios ( talk ) 11:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or merge there isn't enough for WP:SIGCOV . A limited merge at the target is fine. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 20:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
June 2015 Monguno bombing: Not a subject of WP:SUSTAINED coverage or secondary analysis. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 17:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Seems to have reasonable coverage and to be an important event. I'm a firm believer that an event in the present day requires different sourcing standards than one that happened 40 years ago, in the same vein if this event took place in the USA or western Europe there would be significantly more coverage, as it is you have two high quality sources covering it and that feels appropriate as a keep given the geography. BHC ( talk ) 09:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events , Terrorism , and Nigeria . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 17:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or merge to Boko Haram or something. 1 sentence in the "campaign of violence" section about how a bomb went off at an abandoned camp of theirs. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 04:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - as is always an issue with crime article AfDs, I must stress, notability ≠ death toll. Yes, several people died, but there is no other information available on this, and by all accounts I can't even tell if this was on purpose or not. It was never covered or mentioned after as far as I can tell. Add to the section Boko Haram#Campaign of violence - there is nothing else to say besides this one paragraph so we are losing absolutely no information. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 01:56, 17 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! 07:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Significant event which meets WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:17, 8 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! 07:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : Two sentence article. I think the best target is Timeline of the Boko Haram insurgency but Boko Haram#Campaign of violence would also work. // Timothy :: talk 02:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Boko_Haram#Campaign_of_violence : And also, list at Timeline of the Boko Haram insurgency#2015 Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 07:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Editors are divided between those arguing to Keep the article and those pushing for a Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Boko Haram#Campaign of violence . Drowssap SMM ( talk ) ( contributions ) 02:22, 23 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 |
Swell Investing: Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California . Skynxnex ( talk ) 01:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge what can be salvaged into Pacific Life to expand the coverage there. - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Pacific Life seems the most practical option for this short-lived company. — Maile ( talk ) 02:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
Skeen Rocks: Geographical features that appear on maps are not necessarily notable and WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt ( talk ) 07:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Antarctica . JMWt ( talk ) 07:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - No indication of notability, appears to be an extremely minor feature. – dlthewave ☎ 12:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete A geographic feature that wasn't even named until 1963 is probably not significant, and with no sourcing, WP:NOTEVERYTHING indeed. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 13:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Merged it into Avian Island, worth a mention. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Avian Island . The information on coordinates and name origin can be held there, in line with WP:GEONATURAL . Aymatth2 ( talk ) 16:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Avian Island . This is easy for the closing admin: Dr. Blofeld has already added the info to the Avian Island article. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 01:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Avian Island per Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) , which says "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river." Espresso Addict ( talk ) 20:56, 31 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 |
2016 Corpus Christi Fury season: Only three games were played before the team ultimately folded with no explanation. At most, I found sources with a few sentences mentioning the team's disorganization like this or this . Not much on Newspapers.com , either. JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Texas . JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to to Corpus Christi Fury : The article doesn't pass WP:NSEASONS or WP:GNG , as mentioned by the nom. Instead of outright deleting I'd like to propose it be merged to Corpus Christi Fury . Several other articles in Category:2016 American Indoor Football season were merged to the team articles in 2017 (though not through AfD). If not merge then I'd suggest a redirect to Corpus Christi Fury#Season-by-season . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 00:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | merge |
No. 674 Squadron AAC: PercyPigUK ( talk ) 15:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Aviation , and United Kingdom . PercyPigUK ( talk ) 15:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep or merge as it appears to be notable but heavily relies on a single sourcing from RAF . So It could have been a strong keep only if there were more sources for this article. Although merging in Royal Air Force is always an option. Based Kashmiri TALK 10:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to RAF Barkston Heath . The squadron has only existed there, so its history forms part of the history of the station. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:15, 24 May 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! 04:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to RAF Barkston Heath . User:Hamterous1 ( discuss anything!🐹✈️ ) 18:24, 1 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 |
WWE & Company: I also checked the sources of the article on zh.wp, and there are only PRs. Maybe Chinese-speaking users can find independent reliable sources where I couldn't. Broc ( talk ) 18:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Fashion , and China . Broc ( talk ) 18:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Websites . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Apart from press releases, there seem to be passing mentions in reliable/independent sources. I can’t find anything that supports WP:GNG here. TLA (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to The Wharf (Holdings) . IgelRM ( talk ) 04:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why? It is not a fully owned subsidiary and it is not even mentioned in that article. Broc ( talk ) 07:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is a joint venture, although Christopher Lau might be better redirect according to jingdaily . WWE & Company is mentioned and linked in history? With company names, I think it is generally helpful to redirect to something associated. IgelRM ( talk ) 07:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Selective merge/redirect to Christopher Lau , a co-founder, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion . The article about Christopher Lau doesn't currently mention WWE & Company. A very selective merge using the source IgelRM provided will address that. Cunard ( talk ) 10:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there are multiple Redirect/Merge targets being suggested here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Christopher_Lau#WWE & Company : per source presented by IgelRM 94rain Talk 09:23, 21 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 |
Broccoli slaw: WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV . BaduFerreira ( talk ) 23:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions . BaduFerreira ( talk ) 23:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Coleslaw#Variations_and_similar_dishes . Substituting one ingredient for another doesn't make it a separately notable concept needing a stand-alone article. Reywas92 Talk 13:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Selectively merge and redirect as suggested. Bearian ( talk ) 16:08, 30 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 |
List of places named Sokil: I initially merged the content to the disambiguation page Sokil but was opposed by Bkonrad due to the lack of any blue links. As an WP:ATD , I still support merging this content into that disambiguation page but in any case don't think this topic is notable enough for its own stand-alone article. Dan the Animator 16:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography , Lists , and Ukraine . Dan the Animator 16:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Sokil – the oblast links make up for the villages being red links, as WP:DABSTYLE says the link can be in the description if the entry is red-linked or unlinked . RunningTiger123 ( talk ) 19:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Most if not all of the entries fail both WP:DABMENTION and WP:DABRL and would be removed if merged. As such, merging is functionally equivalent to deletion. older ≠ wiser 19:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and Bkonrad. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 21:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 21:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The formatting of that statistics website is weird, but if I get it right, it expresses the population numbers in thousands of people, so this is a number of villages with population in the hundreds, and at least one over a thousand? That's completely normal WP:POTENTIAL , so they should be listed in their higher level administrative unit article and these entries merged into Sokil (disambiguation) . The Ukrainian interlanguage link from Sokil shows that they are included there and mostly have articles. -- Joy ( talk ) 07:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . No policy reason to delete. This page is no less notable than any other in Category:Set index articles on populated places in Ukraine . Shhhnotsoloud ( talk ) 20:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Runningtiger. Agletarang ( talk ) 10:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It doesn't really matter - this is a valid disambiguation page and all of those villages could potentially have articles written about them, so any possible option as long as we don't lose the information. SportingFlyer T · C 15:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per RunningTiger123. This should just be a DAB for Sokil, and we already have that. I'm not sure if the redlinks should all be included ( WP:DABMENTION ), but this page should be redirected to the existing DAB at Sokil. Toadspike [Talk] 22:05, 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 |
Battle of Dvorichna: In other areas we've gotten messy articles such as Battles of Bohorodychne and Krasnopillia and Battles of the Donetsk suburbs . Also, this article is pretty short, the battle part only covers three paragraphs that can be easily integrated into Battle of the Svatove–Kreminna line . I also follow invasion news and there haven't been many reports of intense fighting at Dvorichna, these are minor skirmishes. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 08:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia and Ukraine . Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 08:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. The battles in the body of the page are just the Russian capture of Dvorichne in the spring, and the skirmishes in Dvorichna are half-plagiarized from ISW sources or talking about unrelated battles across the frontline and claimed goals of Russian forces. The sourcing for the skirmishes in Dvorichna should be moved to the Svatove-Kreminna line page. Jebiguess ( talk ) 22:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree for several reasons. Here, for example, The Battle of Orihiv was deleted last year because your colleagues had the same opinion as you regarding this article. They even deleted the blueprint (Draft: Battle of Orihiv). I can't think of spending time on Orihiv again until Russian forces go on a counteroffensive, and only if the Ukrainian counteroffensive launched on June 4 fails. If there was a theoretical battle for the city itself (as some colleagues pointed out), then it could be considered that the Russians never approached the city and therefore the battle for that city never existed. But, since there was a strong front that was consolidated on March 8 of last year, and if my article at the time was corrected to the Battle of the Orihiv Front, then on June 11 of this year, Ukraine would be considered to have won that battle. , which is one of the smaller successes for the entire war, but for part of this current Ukrainian counteroffensive, it is certainly a victory that pushed the Russian forces ten kilometers to the south and thus the front was moved to the first Russian defense line near the town of Rabotyno, which the Ukrainian forces have not yet reached arrived. Orihiv is certainly not a topic anymore, but we should focus on the cities and places where a strong front was formed on both sides, and that is certainly Dvorična (on the Kupijanska direction). What is much more important for this small place is that it is the first landing of the Russian army across the Oskil River, from where they were completely pushed to the left bank by the Ukrainian Kharkiv counter-offensive in September of last year, where a strong Russian defense line of Svatove-Kremin was formed fifteen kilometers east. What happened on June 1 of this year is that the second line of Ukrainian defense on the Svatove-Kreminna line was breached, and for the first time since September of last year, fighting is again taking place on the right side of the Oskil River with the aim of cutting the supply line between Kharkiv and Kupyansk , as well as to encircle the Ukrainian forces on the left bank of the Oskil River and completely destroy them on the Svatovo-Kremina line, and of course to create the conditions for an attack on the strategically important city of Kupyansk from that direction, because if that city falls, all Ukrainian successes in Kharkov counter-offensives will be nullified. Another reason why I attach importance to the battles for this small town of Dvorichna is that the Ukrainians fiercely defend that town and have an extremely strong defense line, the collapse of which would give the Russians an opportunity for a wider penetration to the west towards Kharkov and in the south towards Izjum, which were lost last autumn without much fighting and fatal escape. I hope you understood me from the examiner's article. I will propose to open some new articles for new battles for very important and strategic places like; Battle of Torske Battle of Krasnogorovka Battle of Pyatihatki The place of Torske is not a small town at all, and especially not a village. On July 11, Russian forces broke through the Ukrainian defense line and occupied some eastern parts of that city. Any place where there is a line of contact and where tens of thousands of soldiers have fallen on both sides is worth a separate article unless there is a battle for a large city near it, such as Klescheyevka and Kurdiumovka, which are part of the battle for Bakhmut, and those two small places do not have room for a separate article. Belohorivka is a very important place that divides Donetsk and Lugansk regions, it is located between the two strategically important cities of Siversk (controlled by Ukrainian forces) and Lysichinsk (controlled by Russian forces) and of course it is located across the Donets River, where the the great battle near the Svatovo-Kremina line. Baba Mica ( talk ) 22:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You created a page for the battle of the city of Dvorichna. This deletion discussion is stating that despite known fighting in Dvorichna, there is so little sourcing and knowledge about the situation that it doesn't merit it's own article. Going on a spiel about previous unrelated pages about battles in Orikhiv, Torske, and P'yatykhatky doesn't aid your point at all, it's just a description of the war in Ukraine since June and how everything vaguely connects. I also keep track of the war, and I have since the bulk of the invasion in February 2022 - there's no need to bring up other frontlines, much less other towns. Even if the known target of Russian forces is Kupiansk, unless you can find a reliable source stating "the objective of the Russian forces in the battle of Dvorichna is to reach Kupiansk", then it cannot be stated in the article. Your sources, all ISW, mention there is fighting in Dvorichna on several occasions, but do not show evidence of a single, continued battle with noteworthy results. This is why the fighting in Dvorichna is relegated to the Svatove-Kreminna line page - the battle in Dvorichna is no more or less significant than the battles in Novoselivske-Kuzemivka, Chervonopopivka, and other places along the line. Maybe the battle will become more important years from now, but that will be when the battle ends and survivors, witnesses, and governmental organizations publish more information about it. For now, there is so little information to merit an independent article, much less one describing it as a continued clash like Bakhmut, Marinka, or Avdiivka instead of a series of skirmishes and occasional frontal assaults that's part of a frontline-wide occurrence. Jebiguess ( talk ) 04:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] First of all, I had very little time to look for more detailed sources. However, you could have at least made a draft like Battle of Vuhledar, Battle of Orihiv (which was deleted before, and I had a lot of background material and preludes), but you didn't, which is not OK. You can arrange that very easily and help me and we will monitor whether the place of Dvorichna will have the role of the new Soledar, and Kupiansk the role of the new Bahmut. Secondly, those two cities are connected by the umbilical cord and the central vein by the river Oskil and they are located outside the Svatovo-Kreminna line. Similarly, the Bakhmutka River connects the cities of Soledar and Bakhmut, just as the Donets River connects the town of Bilohorivka with the city of Siversk. Soledar was an outpost and fortress that was the defense of Bahmut. Bilohorivka is a strong Ukrainian fortress in the defense of the city of Siversk and a springboard for the attack on the city of Lysychinsk. Avdeevka, Piski, Marinka, Vodianoe and since July 17 Krasnohorivka are strong fortresses for the defense of Kurakhovo or for the attack on Donetsk. Vuhledar is a strong fortress in the defense of Kurakhovo from the south and a springboard for the attack on Mariupol from the north and Volnovaha from the west. New York is a strong fortress in the defense of Toreck and Konstantyaniivka. The place of Popasnaya was an outpost and a central point of resistance in the defense of the city of Sieverodonetsk. All isolated points where major battles take place with a large concentration of military forces and equipment deserve attention and a separate article, especially the longer the battle lasts and the more people die, the more significant that place is. The difference between the town of Dvorichna and the town of Dvorichne is that they are on two different banks of the river Oskil and the town of Dvorichne is that the Russians took this place on the left side as part of the Battle of the Svatove-Kreminna line on May 15 as part of their winter-spring counter-offensive. As for the town of Dvorichna on the right side of the Oskol River, the Russian landing parties landed successfully on June 1, unlike the disaster on the Donets River near Bilohorivka in May of last year where they suffered a disaster and terrible losses. The Russians are entrenched in that small area of 4km on the right bank of the Oskil River and until the Ukrainian forces destroy them or drive them back to the place of Dvorichne on the left bank, it means that the battle is going on because both twitter and telegram channels on both sides claim that the Russians are attacking the place of Dvorichna by land from the south and landing from the east. Another thing is that the media from the Ukrainian, Russian and Anglo-Saxon sides are silent and pay little attention to the fighting near this place because the Ukrainian summer counter-offensive, the Wagner Group Rebellion and the NATO summit in Vilnius totally blinded the world's attention. If something radical does not happen in the north of the front, the article should by no means be deleted, but a draft should be made and contours left for further continuation, which will depend on the development of the situation. The Russians really stepped up their attacks on that front after the NATO summit and especially after the Ukrainian successes on the southern flanks of Bakhmut. As for sources from ISW, of course I will use their sources as relevant because they follow the front minute by minute. Who should I use if not them? What I skipped because I didn't have time were the Ukrainian and Russian sources, and for that I need a perfect knowledge of the Cyrillic alphabet. Baba Mica ( talk ) 14:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Now let me turn to the article Battle of Krasnopilia and Bogorodichnoe. That battle was extremely important above all for the Ukrainian army because that battle was the door to perhaps the main objective of the Russian army, which is the strategically important city and military center of Sloviansk. The battle was absolutely frontal and the fact that these two small places are geographically and demographically small does not detract from their military importance from a strategic point of view. The front near Krasnopolia and Bogorodichnoe served the Ukrainians just enough to defend the gates of Sloviansk, which is only 15-20 km from those two places. And for the battles in those two places, you have many more sources than for the Battle of Dvorichna, because I followed the events day by day, hour by hour, since the summer of last year, because then everything seemed that after the Battle of Lysychinsk, the Russians would go full force to finally break through the strong Ukrainian defense line at these two small and well-fortified places to begin the Battle of Sloviansk. However, the Russians began to relax and send their army on vacation, thus underestimating Ukraine's real strength while the Ukrainians heavily armed themselves and mobilized multiple times. The Russians were hit hard on the fronts near Dovhenka (Kharkov Oblast) and Krasnopilia and Bogorodichnoe (Donetsk Oblast) by the Ukrainian breakthrough near Balakleya, which started the great Ukrainian Kharkov counter-offensive on September 6, which broke the Russian partial siege of Sloviansk from the north. From the positional battles at those two places, the Russian pressure on Sloviansk during the 9th and 10th of September broke up with a panicked flight towards the town of Liman. The Ukrainian victory at those two places will certainly be among their greatest victories in this war, regardless of what its final outcome will be, because it was at that location that they stopped a much stronger enemy in the defense of Sloviansk. Last year, from April to July, battles were fought for many larger places with the aim of putting pressure on Sloviansk (Kreminna, Liman, Izhyum and Svyatogorsk) and they all fell like pears into Russian hands and very easily, but those two villages held their own and they were convenient for the defense of Sloviansk just enough to buy three months from June 7 to September 6 for the Ukrainians to arm themselves, train and send additional reinforcements, which happened. The siege was broken, and the enemy was pushed back over 100 km to the east. Let me look back once more at the place of Dvorichna (on the right bank of the river Oskil and not on the line Svatove-Kreminna) and the place of Dvorchne (on the left bank of the river Oskil and located on the line Svatove-Kreminna). They are not the same place, but they have a similar name. The place of Dvorichne was occupied by Russian forces back in May of this year after the start of their semi-counteroffensive on January 27. By moving to the right bank of the Oskil River on June 1, Russian forces broke through the Ukrainian defense line and began the first combat operations (at least positional battles) on the other side of the bank. Otherwise, I was very hesitant to write an article related to this small place, which before the Russian invasion of Ukraine demographically had more inhabitants than, say, Marinka near Donetsk, for which heavy fighting has been going on for a year and a half without stopping and it was literally burned and leveled with earth. Will the town of Dvorichna (in the Kupiansk reon) have the same role and fate as the towns of Marinka, Avdeevka, Soledar and Vuhledar (in the Donetsk region), Popasnaya (in the Luhansk region) and Pyatikhatka (in the Zaporizhia region) and will be razed to the ground in severe fighting will either play the role of the villages of Dovhenke, Krasnopilia and Bogorodichnoe and be the line of defense of Kupiansk, Izhyum and Kharkiv or will be surrendered without major battles to the Russians like the initial Russian captures at the beginning of the war of Russian surrender in Kherson and Kharkiv last fall, time will tell. Of course, those geographically and demographically small places can never be as important as the cities of Sieverodonetsk Lisichinsk, Sieversk, Bakhmut and Mariupol, but that does not mean that they have no military-strategic importance in this war. What will happen if the place of Dvorichna is taken by the Russians? Do you think I will stop there and not go to Kupiansk, Izhyum and Kharkiv? That I will again spend hours and hours staring at the screen and looking for sources again and creating a new article as you did to me with Vuhledar several times until the Russians finally launched a zero general assault on the city on January 24th? Believe me it doesn't cross my mind. But I certainly will not forget the importance of places like Krasnohorivka (in Donetsk region), Pyatihatka and Staromayorskoye (in Zaporizhia region) and Torske (in Luhansk region) because they are all extremely important places where the issue of the Ukrainian summer counter-offensive in the south and the Russian winter counter-offensive emerges in the north of the 800 km long front. — Baba Mica ( talk ) 00:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry, Baba Mica , but no one is going to read these walls of text to try to understand what you are arguing for. Please try to make a concise argument based on Wikipedia policy. L iz Read! Talk! 06:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete per WP:NOTNEWS . This obsession with recording every little element of the war as if it were Gettysburg or D-Day or Operation Market Garden is war correspondent writing, and not encyclopedic. Mangoe ( talk ) 02:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge info back into Svatove-Kremmina line article- if that info is there already, delete . Btw you mentioned the Battles of Bohorodychne and Krasnopillia , and there was a consensus to merge it into a new article, Sloviansk offensive , which I've made a draft for already. I'll get to working on that now, but yeah, doesn't need to be an article on its own rn - presidentofyes , the super aussa man 18:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge partially into the Svatove-Kremmina line phase as per HappyWith. Jebiguess ( talk ) 22:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge the notable, verifiable information back into Battle of the Svatove–Kreminna line per nom. I'd like to note that the Svatove-Kreminna line article had (and maybe still has) severe issues with verifiability and taking liberties with what the sources - usually ISW reports - actually said, and this article has very similar writing mannerisms. If there is a merge, I'd recommend to the merging editor to check over the claims to make sure they aren't copying over unverified stuff. HappyWith ( talk ) 20:36, 30 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 |
Craig Powell (musician): Not opposed to a merge as suggested. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England . Shellwood ( talk ) 14:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above. nf utvol ( talk ) 17:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No sources to establish notability. @T.C.G. [talk] 18:25, 23 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 |
Subsets and Splits