Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 30

< November 29 December 01 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was disambiguate‎. I see a consensus against keeping this as a standalone article, but the distinct meanings of the term makes it a poor candidate for redirect or merge. I'm moving LEvalyn excellent draft DAB into mainspace. Owen× ☎ 14:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Textblock

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

Single sentence dictionary definition cited to a dubious non-sigcov source that does not help notability. I don't think this is the kind of topic that can possibly be its own article. Not opposed redirecting somewhere but no idea where - maybe some kind of glossary of publishing terms, but IDK if we have that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There would be some overlap... A redirect here is difficult though, because essentially the textblock is the main body of a book. This is a term that should be covered in the book article itself (which interestingly doesn't currently name the different parts of a book which I think is a fundamental content gap), as fundamentally books since the time of the codex can't exist without a textblock unless its a scroll. It's such a fundamental concept that to put it into the book binding article alone doesn't seem the right way to cover this.4meter4 (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair but it's not like there's any content to merge here, and it shouldn't have its own page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I created this page, it seemed to me that there should be some place on Wikipedia that covers this significant type of object, but I also was not sure the best way to do it. Something like a glossary or significant chunk of the bookbinding page seems fine to me. Dingolover6969 (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is support for a merge redirect, decent arguments have been made that that would not serve our readers, so that could probably do with a bit more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There's no linkage currently to this term, except one via the redirect "book blocks" as a not-to-be-confused from block book, however usage can be seen at book block, textblock and text block (noting that there are at least four different senses for "textblock"/"text block" - a/ the "textblock" pages; b/ an actual block used for a block book; c/ the text area on a page (possibly printed using a block); d/ a chunk of text, particularly in desktop publishing). Ultimately, there should probably be either multiple disambiguated redirects and a DAB (to guard against mislinking); or a soft redirect to wikt:textblock and an expansion of that to cover the various usages. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 01:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Bookbinding, but the “Terms and techniques” section. After a perusal of academic sources in Google Scholar I really don’t see anything about textblocks that would support an article. (I just see descriptions of particular book objects, which mention their textblocks the same way they mention eg whether the pages are paper or vellum.) But we could explain the term next to where Bookbinding explains the related terms of codex and signature. I’m happy to execute a selective merge if that’s the way it goes, just ping me. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LEvalyn, I'm not sure this is a good idea, given the multiple-definitions problem identified by @Hydronium Hydroxide (and me) above. We could create a DAB, but that itself would just be a collection of dicdefs; we could soft-redirect to wikt, but they've only got one of the four senses identified so far (I'm not confident there aren't more). -- asilvering (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, that is a fair point. The "main chunk of a codex" definition was the only one I could see a sliver of sourcing for, which is why I was treating it as the "main" meaning -- but on reflection, maybe that's the same as saying the matter isn't clear enough for a redirect to go straight to Bookbinding. I took a moment to try to sketch in a usable DAB at Draft: Textblock DAB. I'd now argue to either keep as DAB or delete. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:39, 7 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gunpowder weapons in the Bahmani Sultanate

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

Not enough independent significant coverage to warrant a standalone article. Sections are just filled with images and no contents whatsoever. Garudam Talk! 23:01, 30 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 06:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2M (DOS)

2M (DOS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: GNG. I could not find sources to support notability, but I did find a failed merge proposal for this page as well as some baseless assertions that the subject is notable.

To be clear, if you're voting Keep, we need to see specific citations to reliable sources. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 30 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Panama City#Education. Liz Read! Talk! 07:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford International School (Panama)

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL,should be redirected to The Oxford School (Panama) as an article already exists. Jinnllee90 (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I think User:WhatamIdoing is arguing for a Redirection of this article. Is this true?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, I think that a procedural keep of all this sock's noms might be in order.
Whether it's best to keep the article or redirect it needs someone who can read Spanish. I don't think that deletion is warranted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing, if the AFD nominator is a sockpuppet and no one has argued for Deletion, I could have closed this as a Speedy Keep. But an editor is arguing that this article should be deleted so the AFD has to run its course. Liz Read! Talk! 05:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Procyon117, I agree with you that it should not be redirected to The Oxford School (Panama). However, I wonder how you would feel about redirecting it to the city/location? WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES indicates that this is a preferred outcome for non-notable schools, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure#Education says that every article about a city ought to have a section on ==Education==. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing, after reading WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, I can support your suggestion. Putting it under an education section will indeed be preferable. Procyon117 (talk) 11:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something very brief, I think. Perhaps turn "Most private schools are bilingual (English and Spanish)" into "Most private schools, such as the Oxford International School, are bilingual (English and Spanish)"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that seems good. Nothing else I can find about it, so I think that will be sufficient. Procyon117 (talk) 14:45, 2 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article given the changes made and sources found. It sounds like additional work is called for so I hope those editors arguing to Keep can make some time to improve thi one. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Free Internet Chess Server

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

The references that are presently in the article aren't reliable sources, and I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I can find mentions in, for example, Nature ([10], "The Glicko system [...]. It is used by [...] Free Internet Chess Server") and in the New York Times ([11], "The Free Internet Chess Server (freechess.org) says that it has more than 300,000 users."), but nothing more substantial. toweli (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Internet, and Websites. toweli (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it looks like Linkrot has slain several of the URLs proposed in the prior AfD 14 years ago. Were you able to find anything for those using the Internet Archive? Jclemens (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only the beginning of the New Straits Times article is visible ([12]), where FICS hasn't been mentioned yet, and I wasn't able to find the article outside of the HighBeam website. The ChessBase article ([13]) doesn't contain significant coverage of FICS. freechess.50webs.com isn't a reliable source, and the rest of the links aren't specific, just being search results. toweli (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is going to be a tough one. The subject is an internet service that started in the earliest days of the web, for which a lot of the sourcing would be web-based, but which reached peak popularity in the era most affected by linkrot. For a bit of history, first there was the Internet Chess Server. The ICS effectively split in two when someone decided to try to commercialize it, forming the subscription-based Internet Chess Club. FICS was started by ICS developers/users who wanted to commit to having a free place to play chess on the internet (this was long before chess.com, lichess, etc.). In the late 90s and early 00s, both ICC and FICS were known by basically every English-speaking internet-connected chess player, and it would be shocking if there weren't enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG, but linkrot is indeed a concern. In addition to various brief mentions, presence in lists, etc., I see it's been used for several studies e.g. dois 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008367, 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005961, and Picussa, J., Ferreira, M. V. R., García, L. S., Direne, A. I., Bueno, J., & Hallberg, G. B. (2007). A User-Interface Environment for an Online Educational Chess Server. Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference on WWW/Internet, 252–257 (no DOI), which are all available through TWL. Also, I'm not sure Chess Life and other prominent chess publications have ever been fully digitized/searchable, and they would certainly have a few articles that deal with it. At the end of the day, we need notability based on extant sources but we also need enough accessible sources to write an article. While my sense of the subject leads me to !vote Keep, I'd generally add that if accessible sources can't be find, this is at least a Not delete for being an obvious candidate to merge into the Internet Chess Server article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. This is precisely what I was suspecting/getting at with my above questioning, although I've never been an online chess player. Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Though not easily searchable, Chess Life is available on line. I haven't found a better way to search it than googling "site:uscf1-nyc1.aodhosting.com" + search term. Googling "site:uscf1-nyc1.aodhosting.com FICS" yields a few hits but also a lot of false positives. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:SIGCOV. Just a note that it is important to search in chess source by the acronym FICS as well as by the complete name to see all text referring to the Free Internet Chess Server. There is coverage in the following books (some are in snippet view but the "FOUND INSIDE" view on the search page was promising) and journals: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], etc. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Source 19 and the Sage journal are inaccessible in their entirety. Could you give an overview of what their contents are? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 4meter4's slapdash citing of trivial coverage is precisely not how AfDs are supposed to operate. Rather than saying there are WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, we should confirm which ones, if any, are significant. From that list it is not confirmable whether SIGCOV exists, and the fact that most are clearly trivial makes me lose faith in whether 4meter4 has actually checked before making that claim. People are free to recreate the page afterwards as a redirect if they add some info from a reliable source to Internet chess server, but there does not seem to be anything to merge. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about Rhodo's sources? Plus, I sampled 4 sources, and all of them had a few paragraphs of significant coverage. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Being used for studies" does not constitute significant coverage. Whatever the study is researching is what is being covered there, rather than the tools used to accomplish the research. As for the SIGCOV it would help if you said which specific sources, since almost everything I noted was trivial or I could not access enough to determine whether there was sufficient content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I misread Rhodo's sources, sorry about that.
    [8], for example. 3 paragraphs describing what it is (and in a major instructional book). It addresses the subject directly and in detail enough to extract the information without OriginalResearch, thus it is SigCov. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, if I want to provoke you into a delete !vote, all I have to do is cite a bunch of random trivial mentions? I'm sure that's not really the case, but it sounds like you're objecting to what you consider to be an undisciplined source search rather than the notability of the topic. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you cite 20 trivial mentions, then I'm probably not going to read through all of them and pick out what few, if any, are significant. People are not required to check every single source carefully before !voting. The admin can determine whether someone is being negligent with their vote and discount it, but frankly they're not likely to bother either because the burden is on the article creator, not them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I made several edits to the page, adding some citations, reorganizing, and removing a lot of the poorly sourced how-to material. Some of the sources aren't going to help notability, but a few are, so I'll draw your attention to (a) a recent book, The Chess Revolution, where it looks like FICS comes up on several pages. My Google Books preview is limited, but it's clear it's more than brief mentions. (b) an article in The Chicago Chess Player is exactly the sort of thing we'd see more of if this weren't in the early/pre-web era. Most chess publications at the time would've had articles on FICS, either on its own or as part of the ICS/ICC saga or in the context of internet chess more broadly. If folks have archives of Chess Life or the various regional publications, it would be worth a scan of issues from the latter half of the 90s. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Chicago Article appears to start on page 9 Aaron Liu (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of comments:
  • Chess Life is indeed available online, at [32]. It can be painfully slow to load, for example, the issues for one year (such as 1996), but once loaded, they are easily searched. I am a subscriber, and I don't remember reading anything about FICS in it from back then, but that was a long time ago. I heard about FICS on the forums, where the drama of the split between ICC and FICS played out. I do not play online chess, but you couldn't miss that if you were on chess forums.
  • This AfD looks like a follow-up to, or precursor of, the recent AfD of Free Internet Backgammon Server (FIBS), which ended in deletion. If we end up keeping this one, perhaps we should apply the same search techniques to find more substantial sources for the other one. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is another example of what could be called "internetism", a strain of deletionism that asserts that if something cannot be easily found on the internet then it isn't notable. FIBS was indeed a significant early backgammon site and still functioning today. Afd's such as this one only add to Wikipedia's inherent WP:RECENTISM bias, in which for example recent sports events are given significantly more detailed coverage than earlier ones. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article in The Chicago Chess Player includes an interview with Daniel Sleator by "Tim Krabb" [sic], "for an article in New In Chess magazine about Internet chess (which will appear mid-May". So if anyone has access to 1996 issues of NIC, that looks like an excellent place to look Bruce leverett (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while I agree there seems to be some concerns over the depth of coverage, I do have to concur with Zx that 4meter4's sources are a bit hit or miss. A large chunk just briefly mention the server as a host for something, or the fact it exists. A few sources seem promising (Such as a few of the book sources) but those I'm unable to access in their entirety, so I can't gauge their depth of coverage properly. I won't vote one way or the other just yet since I'd like to see some more research be done into some of these sources, but I do feel this discussion would benefit from a more thorough BEFORE. If nothing else springs up in the next few days, I'll take a look myself. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Rhododendrites. To be sure, this kind of early-web topic is tricky to source with sources Wikipedia considers reliable, but while borderline, it does appear that this is on the keepable side of the line to me. I wouldn't exactly use this AFD as precedent elsewhere but it seems like there is sufficient coverage, even if I wouldn't hold my breath for this becoming a FA. SnowFire (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which sources, exactly, compelled you to !vote Keep? Given the lack of explanation from others with the same opinion, apparently taking the WP:LOTSOFSOURCES standpoint, it would be useful to know, as I might even do the same if I saw some excellent sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, I agree with you that we lack excellent sources. Just that sometimes 20 weak sources or passing references can be enough. It's not optimal, but it's workable. SnowFire (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mentioned previously that Internet chess server does exist, and information about it can easily be expanded there unless better sources are found. Given that the exact same info would likely be in both places, do you believe this to also be inadequate? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a tough case but the book sources from 4meter4 and Rhododendrites appear to have enough about this subject to meet the WP:NBASIC as the coverage is just beyond trivial. At the very least some of this info should be included in Internet chess server but I think this ought to be kept as its own article. Let'srun (talk) 13:36, 7 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. This no consensus close is a recognition that there are a variety of opinions on this article but also a movement to address some of its issues editorially, rather than through a page deletion. Discussion about changes can continue on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jelping-Ja-Oyka

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

As far as I can tell, this is a hoax article. I can find no source for Jelping-Ja-Oyka and the ones I did find use this article as a source. Additionally, the link listed in the article, aside from not looking reliable, does not even mention "Jelping-Ja-Oyka". Article has been marked as unsourced since 2021. Jaguarnik (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hoax (unless a very deep one, several decades old) – rather just a case of an obscure topic in a language which does not use the latin alphabet for writing. The name(s), in Russian, seem to be 'Консыг-Ойка' and 'Ялпус-ойка'. Here's the Russian: wikipedia page for it. The source it uses is this (last column on page 545). Endlesspumpkin (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are linking to a figure that uses a completely different name. Konsyg-Oika and Yalpus-Oika are not the same thing as "Jelping-Ja-Oyka", that is the hoax. The source you provided does not list the name "Jelping-Ja-Oyka". Nor does that figure Konsyg-Oika apparently have anything to do with Mir-Susne-Hum as the article claims is the case for "Jelping-Ja-Oyka". Jaguarnik (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jelping-Ja-Oyka is how Alex Fantalov is transliterating the name, no? I'm not claiming him as some great authority (nor saying he's unreliable), but his page predates wikipedia, so it's certainly not the case that the information originated here. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has no basis in the text written on that site in Russian: "антагонистом Мир-Сусне-Хума был Консыг-Ойка - “Когтистый Старик”, дух Медведя. (The antagonist of Mir-Susne-Hum was Konsyg-Oyka - the "Old Man With Claws", spirit of bear.) Jelping-Ja-Oyka seems to be something invented by the translator. Jaguarnik (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this just shows that these two are clearly the same, no? And that "Jelping-Ja-Oyka" is just Fantalov's transliteration? This would be like deleting a page on "Akhilleus" because we can only find sources talking about "Achilles"; they're just different transliterations. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not. First, there is no indication that Alex Fantalov (or the site provided) is a reliable source. I've looked for who he is in both Russian and English and as far as I can tell he primarily works as an artist (the whole site is dedicated to his art). Second, the translation of that source is not good at all, there are multiple errors and additions that don't exist in the Russian original. The translation cannot be considered reliable. Third, "Akhilleus" and "Achilles" are far more similar to each other than "Konsyg-Oyka" and "Jelping-Ja-Oyka" are. The comparison does not work. Jaguarnik (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I wouldn't suggest that Fantalov is a reliable source, nor that we ought to be citing him in the article, so his reliability or lack thereof isn't really important. All I was saying is that his website explains where the name "Jelping-Ja-Oyka" is coming from; it's just Fantalov's transliteration of "Консыг-Ойки", which is the actual subject of the article, no matter which transliteration is used, and is the same figure referred to in the dictionary given above, so the figure clearly isn't a hoax. "Konsyg-Oyka" and "Jelping-Ja-Oyka" are both just transliterations of "Консыг-Ойки", just as "Akhilleus" and "Achilles" are both transliterations of "Ἀχιλλεύς", so the comparison is apt. Unless you're suggesting that "Jelping-Ja-Oyka" isn't Fantalov's transliteration of "Консыг-Ойки"? But the Russian, containing "Консыг-Ойки", is given just above. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, you disagree with the wording of "hoax", so I won't insist that it's a hoax. But there's no clear evidence that "Jelping-Ja-Oyka" is truly part of any mythology and wasn't just made up by this one person. I could also write on some website that Achilles is also transliterated as "Panteleimon" and insist on making an article for "Panteleimon", but that wouldn't make it a valid transliteration because it's a completely different name with no basis in the original. The same way "Jelping-Ja-Oyka" isn't a valid transliteration of "Консыг-Ойка", because it's a completely different name with no evidence and no basis.
If there's enough coverage of "Konsyg-Oyka" then I don't mind moving the article and rewriting it, but I haven't been able to find enough coverage to be convinced that it passed WP:SIGCOV. Jaguarnik (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, we don't actually disagree on anything meaningful here. Unless I'm mischaracterising your position, we seem to agree on the following two points, which are really the only significant ones: we shouldn't have a page under the title "Jelping-Ja-Oyka", and the current page seems to have come from (though it has mangled things, due to a poor source) the actual figure of Konsyg-Oyka, who is deserving of encyclopedic coverage, assuming we have sourcing passing WP:SIGCOV. It is certainly somewhat mysterious as to how Fantalov gets the exact name "Jelping-Ja-Oyka" from "Консыг-Ойки", but this is surely the figure he's referring to, given the Russian directly above, and the existence of this figure in reliable sources ("Yalpus-Oika" and "Jelping-Ja-Oyka" also aren't worlds apart). We could argue about technicalities until the cows come home, though; moving and reworking the page is what I'm suggesting, and this just requires finding sourcing which passes WP:SIGCOV, which is probably time more usefully spent. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the page should be moved then. But you agree that the actual mythological figure is the same, right? – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only if more reliable sources can be found. If it's just one paragraph in a dictionary I would delete the page. Jaguarnik (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, fair enough. I think Endlesspumpkin's point was just that the page is not a hoax. Now that we know it isn't, the question is one of WP:SIGCOV. I think I've found this figure elsewhere, though, since the sources are in languages I don't speak, I want to make sure they're referring to the same figure before listing them below (which I'll hopefully do shortly). – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep per comments below. Not that there is anything to be preserved in the article itself, but this discussion is useful. 84.251.207.6 (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the article. 84.251.207.6 (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any good reason for deletion. Yalpus-Oika is deserving of encyclopedic coverage, and is I think fairly clearly where "Jelping-Ja-Oyka" comes from. Deleting this page, rather than moving it to a more appropriate title and adding these sources, only worsens our coverage of a religion which is probably already poorly covered on Wikipedia. Unless the idea would be to delete this page, and then create "Yalpus-Oika" (or "Jalpus-Oyka")?, which seems a largely pointless exercise to me, when we could retain the current page, with its page history, and the context of this discussion. – Michael Aurel (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support the idea of renaming the page and adding the information from these sources as there seems to be enough reliable coverage of Yalpus-Oyka/Konsyg-Oyka. Jaguarnik (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Jaguarnik, given your last comment in this discussion, would you like to withdraw this nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since it would be more efficient to rename the page rather than deleting and making a new one, then yes, I think withdrawing the nomination is best. Jaguarnik (talk) 10:43, 1 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Capital (radio network). Liz Read! Talk! 07:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hit Music Network

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

I stumbled across this article, which cites no sources and contains large dollops of apparent WP:OR. I tried to find some sources to back up the information presented, but couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV in the UK press, nor the specialist media press. There are a few passing mentions of the Hit Music Network on Radio Today, but no significant coverage specifically about it. The very generic name doesn't help, as there's a lot of coverage of other "hit music [radio] networks" worldwide, but I'm not sure this relatively short-lived "network" warrants an article beyond the articles for the stations contained within it. Flip Format (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Wallace, Cathy (3 October 2008). "Global rejig creates comms opportunity". PR Week. pp. 18–19. ProQuest 217589779.

    Global Radio is set for the biggest rebranding exercise in commercial radio history. The owner of the Heart ,Classic FM, XFM and Galaxy brands has decided to scrap its 42-station One Network. Stations such as Chiltern Radio, Power FM and Southern FM will all fall either into the Hit Music network, which will be headed up by Capital FM, the Heart network, or the Galaxy network. Four further networks based on standalone brands—Classic FM, XFM, Gold and LBC—will make up the seven pillars of Global's new structure. Stations coming under the Hit Music network will keep their current names and the amount of networked and syndicated programmes these stations carry will be minimal.

  2. Bintliff, Esther (14 September 2010). "Capital to go national in radio shake-up". Financial Times. p. 24. ProQuest 750491962.

    By January 2011, the Capital brand will replace the six Galaxy stations across the UK, as well as the Hit Music Network stations Red Dragon, Trent, RAM and Leicester Sound, bringing Capital's audience to more than 6.3m. Local breakfast and drivetime shows will remain locally produced.

  3. Woods, Adam (18 December 2010). "The New Capitalists". Music Week. p. 15. ProQuest 818785339.

    The creation of Heart was never going to be the limit of Tabor's modernising zeal. The dissolution of The One Network threw up a handful of spare stations with a pop slant that would temporarily become the Hit Music Network, as well as one - Power FM in Hampshire - that was added to the Galaxy stable.

    "The other stations that were left, people would say, 'OK, I get Heart, but I don't quite get what these are.' And it got to a point where we said, 'Look, these stations are all playing the same records; they are all driving the same hits through the charts - they ought to be one network.'"

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

The result was delete‎. As was hinted at in the last relist comment, a good share of the comments are not based on policy, and are therefore lent less weight when determining consensus. On the whole, the delete camp made more/better policy-based arguments. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of last survivors of historical events

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

This list is a good example of what Wikipedia is not about. Per WP:NLIST, a list should only exist "if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." While there are a few sources of dubious quality that list general groups of last survivors together, these seem to rely on the existence of this Wikipedia list, as many include Eliza Moore, a once erroneous entry on this list. When her name was removed here, she stopped being referenced in these near Wikipedia mirrors.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Given the woefully broad inclusion criterion of this list, this list is. Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely associated topics. This list is, as it contains entries as broad as the last living player from the 1950 World Cup to the last living Currier and Ives staff member. WP:CROSSCAT also applies. Per WP:LSC, "as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of lists should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence." schetm (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The idea of last survivors discussed as a group is mentioned in reliable sources (see below) that don't seem to be mirrors of this page. We have many articles on people who are solely known as a last survivor (such as Ivan Martynushkin, Sun Yaoting), and this article is a meaningful grouping that is reported on in RS, even though the scope is indeed too broad. If the list is cut down only to notable people and has a higher bar for significance of the event (sinking of the Titanic instead of the 1911 Indianapolis 500), it merits inclusion.
https://www.amazon.com/Last-Leaf-Historys-Last-Known-Survivors/dp/161614162X
https://irl.umsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1408&context=thesis
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Last_Survivors_of_Historical_Events.html?id=9Nc4QQAACAAJ&source=kp_book_description
https://www.aarp.org/politics-society/history/info-07-2010/last_leaf_photos_of_history_last_survivors.html
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Last_Leaf.html?id=TeXlURw0-w8C&source=kp_book_description PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, first: three of your links are the same book and/or a review of the book. Next, the second source is a bachelor's thesis (hardly a reliable source). Last, The Last Survivors of Historical Events, Movies, Disasters, and More is a trivia collection intended as a coffee table book (it says right there in the description.) Put simply, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. wound theology◈ 07:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of last survivors is regularly reported on, showing that it is a topic of general interest. The Last Leaf writes about them as a group, and few months there is a new obituary about "the last survivor of X". Examples:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/05/19/viola-fletcher-tulsa-race-massacre-survivor/
https://www.npr.org/2024/04/03/1242430911/lou-conter-uss-arizona-pearl-harbor
https://english.elpais.com/culture/2022-11-07/the-manhattan-projects-last-survivor.html
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/dec/19/zora-neale-hurston-study-of-last-survivor-of-us-slave-trade-to-be-published
I think this shows RS see this concept as notable, as they put it in the headline for such people. There is, no doubt, a problem with this article; but that is its cruftiness in including every random event with non-notable people. If we stiffen the criteria for inclusion, this article has a place in the encyclopedia. Also, as @4meter4 wrote, there are many examples of last survivor narratives from RS and in academic writing (such as for the slave trade and Holocaust events), showing that this is a noteworthy topic. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:NLIST per PlotinusEnjoyer. Like it or not, humans have a fascination with "last survivors"; even to the point that there is curriculum built around the concept across multiple unrelated events. The Last Leaf is clearly a solid book treating this as a discussed group. Interestingly enough this list became the subject of a piece published by the AV Club. Theres also lots of these sort of lists floating around the internet which (while not great sources for our purposes) show a general interest in this as a unifying concept, like [33], [34], [35]. Being the last survivor is also reported on routinely, so sourcing this list isn't an issue. We as humans record these things, which is why this list has so many WP:RS materials. There are also historical research publications that talk about last survivor narratives broadly which I think bolsters the concept of this being discussed as a group or set. One example is the excerpt: from a journal in google scholar Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a bit of a tangent, but I would not use Medium as evidence here. It's not a WP:Reliable source (see WP:MEDIUM), but more than that it has been known to plagiarize Wikipedia, so it becomes kind of circular to say that it demonstrates that there is interest in a topic. TompaDompa (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think I already pointed out that it wasn't usable for our purposes as WP:RS in my original statement. The Medium (website) platform itself has a distribution on social media that is unlike wikipedia, and it selects content based on what they think its users will be interested in. That was really my point (it wasn't a sourcing based argument to include it). Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I know you weren't suggesting to cite it (not great sources for our purposes), but my point is that since they sometimes rip off Wikipedia, their decision to have an article on a topic can reflect the existence of such an article on Wikipedia more than a general interest in the topic. I know that they have plagiarized low-traffic Wikipedia content before. TompaDompa (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if you've actually read the links you've provided here. The "curriculum" has nothing to do with last survivors of historical events but is related to a documentary about the survivors of genocides in Darfur, the Congo, Rwanda, and so on -- something very different from being the last surviving member of an Alaskan board meeting and the sort of thing tabulated on this page. The "journal in Google Scholar" similarly has nothing to do with last survivors of historical events, but talks about the literary trope of being a "last survivor" of a nation or race or species (I Am Legend is cited as an example in the paper.) Other than The Last Leaf, nothing you've provided here is a solid source; furthermore, evidence that people show a general interest in a topic does not mean we should have an article on said topic. Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia.
    The simple fact of the matter here is this list is far too broad to be of any use and the major examples that are note worthy are given elsewhere. wound theology◈ 01:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wound theology You don't need to WP:BLUDGEON the process.4meter4 (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As it happens, one of my great-grandfathers was the last known survivor of the Indian Mutiny, and his unmarried daughter was the last known person to receive a pension from the Honorable East India Company. Does that make either of them notable? Of course not. It just means that they lived to great ages (99 in his case, 80 in hers). Athel cb (talk) 09:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In a different context I'd vote to keep but seeing how it's hopeless to set standards here, I don't think the page can be salvaged. @PlotinusEnjoyer just deleted the entry for the Immortal Seven but Charles Rangel is still here. News flash: a group of men behind the Glorius Revolution are more of a historical event than a loosely grouped of politicians. Killuminator (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should set standards that people agree on. I will stop deleting until editors can agree on that. I was just trying to save the page; as I agree the majority of the entries on the list have no place here, but the article should still exist. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we deleted every article that was a trivia magnet, we'd lose half of Wikipedia.Bkatcher (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Without getting too personal, this list is one of my favorites. I believe lists like these are very informational and can help us learn more about history, which is what Wikipedia is about. As mentioned prior, it is a very curated list. I've seen additions be taken off before which were fun but not historic (such as: last surviving Golden Girl main cast member). I believe last survivors give us an insight into the past and help us understand what the events were like for people that lived through them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennyboy1999 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see a policy-based consensus here. Its popularity as an article should not be a consideration, but a focus on whether or not it meets WP:NLIST is.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:TNT and start over. The vast majority of the entries are for trivial, so-called "events", e.g. "Last (original) member of the Taft Commission", "Last Currier and Ives staff member". What event was survived by the "last castrato"? Last survivors of wars, the Titanic, Custer's Last Stand, the Alamo, etc. are noteworthy, but this list is so clogged with rubbish, it needs to be blown up and started afresh. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:47, 1 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. I find most arguments to keep lacking basis in P&G, while those arguing for deletion (with the exception of "weird and yucky") generally based on our guidelines, requiring the constituents of a list article to be covered as a group in RS. Owen× ☎ 14:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of youngest fathers

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

Not an encyclopedic topic for a list. Previously deleted at AfD (WP:Articles for deletion/List of youngest birth mothers). Highly misleading in its current form, which only cherry picks mentions among mostly historical figures and would seem to suggest that this was somehow associated with royalty, and as per the AfD, would be grossly inappropriate if expanded and populated. Not to mention that it's purely WP:original synthesis from sources that mention nothing about youngest fathers, and that the arbitrary age cut-off is nothing special, probably satisfied by millions of people. Paul_012 (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have arguments for Keep, Delete and Redirect here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The fact that some people father children at a young age is real thing in the world. The list selection criteria are pretty obvious: about 14 or younger, blue links only. That latter can make it seem "arbitrary" and "cherry picked", but it also makes it very easy for editors to comply with WP:BLP1E and similar rules. The List of youngest birth mothers was deleted because editors felt like it was also a "List of child rape victims", which is not relevant for anyone that is (or should be) in this list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are there any reliable sources at all that actually discuss these people as a grouping, which are needed to satisfy the notability requirement for standalone lists? My quick Google search only revealed Oldest.org[36] (doesn't seem reliable), Discoversoon.com[37] (site down, likely also unreliable), and Mumcentral.au[38] (which is mostly about contemporary cases and mentions only a couple of historical ones, referencing Wikipedia, thus again unreliable). --Paul_012 (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The subject of the proper age for undertaking parenthood is of course discussed everywhere, and this is, in that sense, just a subtopic of that, rather than a separate, stand-alone article. There are also more individual cases. For example, Havelock Ellis notes in one of his essays that Archibald Napier (landowner), father of John Napier, was 16 at the time of his son's birth; this seems to have been a common observation in eugenics texts on the ideal age for fatherhood.[39] This scholarly book is about young fathers and might have an 11-year-old father participating in a research program. Individual cases turn up in the news (e.g., [40][41]) and some, such as this one about the youngest known father in India, include some secondary source material comparing the age of the youngest fathers in various countries, or, this one, which compares it against similar cases in the same country. Some are ordinary people, and some are notable people like Dillian Whyte.[42] The lists tend to run tabloid-y or listicle, with a few magazines.[43][44] WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The List of youngest birth mothers was deleted because editors felt like it was also a "List of child rape victims", which is not relevant for anyone that is (or should be) in this list. What the fuck? JoelleJay (talk) 02:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Did you ever see the List of youngest birth mothers? It was basically a long list of "Five year old, impregnated by her step father; six year old, impregnated by her grandfather; eight year old, impregnated by her uncle, nine year old, unknown father but probably a much older man known to the family...". There were a couple of same-age boyfriends and a couple of same-age husbands (especially older versions of the list, which included some of the older mothers), but it was pretty much a list of incest and violence committed against these girls.
      The overall theme for this list is much more like "Royal adolescent married young": Crown Prince Jingmu has a child by his legal concubine at age 12. The last king in the Sasanian dynasty took the throne at age 8, got married, and started having children at age 12. Merovingian king Dagobert III produced the future king Theuderic IV at age 13, and died three years later. There are about two dozen names in the list, most of them are long-dead people, and of the few from the last century, there is only one that is widely recognized as an abusive relationship. All the others are cases of a youth getting his same-age girlfriend pregnant, which is not normally considered child rape. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For clarity: I would support the list-selection criteria completely excluding any "youngest father" whose partner has been convicted of statutory rape or about whom reliable sources indicate that there is at least a credible belief that child sexual abuse was involved. AFAICT that means removing exactly one entry from the list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Then literally the majority of the sources you linked fail to cover this topic, unless, as seems apparent, you genuinely don't see how anyone might suspect CSA for those 9–13-year-old boys having kids with 15–36-year-olds. JoelleJay (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clear absence of RS discussing this topic as a grouping, which is the requirement. Articles about individual "youngest fathers" are not evidence of coverage as a list topic, and one-sentence mentions of "other youngest fathers" in those articles are far from SIGCOV. References on "young fatherhood" in general are decidedly irrelevant. And certainly illiterate listicles like this one cited above, with passages like He able to be a father at age of nine. he based in china and he was fathering for four children two girls and tow boys during the 1019s., or un-bylined slop like this one from above, are not RS at all. JoelleJay (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the precedent was clearly established at WP:Articles for deletion/List of youngest birth mothers. Looking at the list itself, many of them have iffy ages. This is just weird and yucky. And I don't see any encyclopaedic value. What's next "List of largest bowel movements"? Nfitz (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we have to rely on WP:YUCKY. Liz Read! Talk! 07:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:Articles for deletion/List of youngest birth mothers

    No. Please read,
    --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:07, 8 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Hazen

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

A big reason is that it fails WP: V; there are only two citations and neither are third party. In addition, it probably fails WP: N. According to his PGA Tour page, it looks like Hazen has only been a member of the third-tier PGA Tour Latinoamerica for one season (2016). Prob not enough to warrant notability. Chief disambiguator (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Chief disambiguator[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:NGOLF and hasn't received significant coverage. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 08:45, 2 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of references to seer stones in the Latter Day Saint movement history

List of references to seer stones in the Latter Day Saint movement history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST ―Howard • 🌽33 21:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Latter Day Saints, and Lists. ―Howard • 🌽33 21:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    -delete
    Hello, new to this but wanted to put in my two cents in case this was still a concern. I was looking for information on Peep Stones in general and was a little frustrated the most readily available/ centered information was about Mormonism - which is one instance of someone using a 'seer/peep' stone. I don't know the guidelines of Wikipedia as well to know what goes into deciding whether a topic gets a whole page or just a section on another page. It does feel a little annoying that there is a page dedicated to ONE example of a specific use of peep/seer stones being the main entry for them on wikipedia, rather than a page detailing the general topic with a list of uses throughout history. Lots of people used seer/peep stones for a lot of different things, and they deserve to be included in an article on the topic. Why is there a whole page dedicated to one specific seer stone and not a page for the topic of seer stones in general? If there needs to be an entry on seer stones, maybe the best place to put it is in the scrying page, as an expanded section. does that make sense? hope this helps. :D 173.230.37.78 (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. Here are the guidelines for stand alone list articles from WP:NLIST: "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; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been" Here is a sample of books that "discuss the topic as a group," specifically eyewitness accounts of seer stones.
    • Davis, William L. Visions in a seer stone: Joseph Smith and the making of the Book of Mormon. UNC Press Books, 2020. (specifically chapter 7)
    • "The Joseph Smith Revelations: Text and Commentary" H. Michael Marquardt, (along with several other books by H. Michael Marquardt).
    • "MacKay, Michael Hubbard. Joseph Smith's seer stones. Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 2016." Discusses eye witnesses in detail, literally as a chapter that is just a list of eye-witness accounts.
    • ST. JOHN STOTT, G. "The Seer Stone Controversy: Writing the" Book of Mormon"." Mosaic: A Journal for the Interdisciplinary Study of Literature 19, no. 3 (1986): 35-53.
    • Lancaster, James E. "The Seer Stone Article Reprised." The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 25 (2005): 107–13. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43200211. Discusses lists of seer stone references in detail as a group.
    • Bushman, Richard Lyman. Joseph Smith's Gold Plates: A Cultural History. Oxford University Press, 2023. Several large sections discussing eyewitness accounts of Seer Stones in mormonism.
    • Quinn, D. Michael. Early Mormonism and the magic world view. Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1987. Several sections, but page 113 in particular begins a section discussing references to seer stones as a group.

There are more, but I will stop there for now. Epachamo (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm not quite yet decided but I do find myself wondering if this particular list is at one plane of consideration too high. Something like 'seer stones in Mormon history' is definitely a notable topic, as the secondary sources that Epachamo lists indicate. (And so a "list of seer stones in" etc. article would pass WP:NLIST.) But all extant references to such seer stones? I worry that that's maybe getting too meta. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps a better way forward would be WP:LIST "... editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." In other words, pare down this list to the more notable items. Epachamo (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, leaning delete. My thoughts are similar to Hydrangeans. There is already an article on seer stones in the Latter Day Saint movement, as previously stated. However, including every journal entry or similar reference to a seer stone seems too unwieldy. Rollidan (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR, WP:SOAP, and WP:FORK. There’s an awful lot of primary sources and information that appears entirely sourced to correspondence. I’m also concerned that it's of POV fork of Seer stone (Latter Day Saints) pushing one side in some sort of doctrinal dispute. Bearian (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As the primary contributor to the article, EVERY item on the list came from a reliable secondary source. I put the primary sources there as a convenience. I'm unsure what POV you feel this article has been pushing. Can you elaborate? What item in WP:SOAP is being violated? Clearly the subject has been controversial in the past, but not so much anymore. Can you show an example where you feel an item would be considered POV? Epachamo (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification: the primary sources were placed as a convenience for the reader, not for myself as an editor. Epachamo (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete around two levels removed from something that would be of use to a general encyclopedia. As an aside, "I could have cited every item to the type of source explicitly favoured on Wikipedia, but I chose to put inferior citations instead because it was more convenient" is not really that convincing of an argument, Epachamo. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My wording was awkward, my apologies. I meant convenient for the reader, not for myself as an editor per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. I should have specified. My point being, Primary sources were NOT used to establish the notability of the article and that this article is NOT WP:OR. That said, if OR is the criticism, removal of the OR should be the solution, not delete the article. If poor citations is the criticism, the solution should be to improve the citation quality, not delete the article. If POV is a problem, then POV should be removed from the article, not delete the article. Really, the primary point of discussion should be if the topic is discussed by reliable secondary sources.
    Epachamo (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per LISTN appearances of seer stones themselves must be independently notable for a list like this (at least from the two sources in the above list I could access, I didn't see that distinction made) but beyond that this just fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Cataloging every mention of reference to religious artifacts is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmmm... do you mind telling me which sources you looked at? Believe it or not, this not every mention. Just the ones that have appeared in secondary sources. Epachamo (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not sure what the heck this is. A universal cataloging of references? I'm sure it is of some scholarly utility to someone, but it is not an encyclopedic list. Whatta we say, NOTDIRECTORY, maybe? Carrite (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In certain academic circles, each one of these citations is dissected, picked apart and argued about ad naseum. I still think it is notable, but agree it is a very niche topic. Epachamo (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Should this close as Delete, be sure to allow the creator a chance to copy this over to their own computer to preserve the massive and impressive work done here. Carrite (talk) 05:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Already done. Thanks for looking out for me. I'll find some other outlet to make it publicly available. Epachamo (talk) 15:06, 5 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shingo Shibata

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

The claim to notability, playing 16 football games (and probabaly not full games) is weak. The sources are not enough to rectify that, and as such he fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Sources in Japanese Wikipedia are either trivial/primary or do not work. Geschichte (talk) 21:49, 30 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teppei Uesugi

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

The claim to notability, playing 16 football games (and probabaly not full games) in Singapore is weak. The sources are not enough to rectify that, and as such he fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Sources in Japanese Wikipedia are either primary or not in-depth. Geschichte (talk) 21:51, 30 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Revision3. as an ATD and it seems acceptable to some participants. Liz Read! Talk! 21:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Prager

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

No independent sources found since article creation in 2006. No indication of notablity. Hipal (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are two separate issues here: notability, and sourcing.
I would Keep on the basis of notability. This would be on the basis of his role in founding Revision3 (we have articles on the other two founders). Being the son of Dennis Prager is certainly interesting, but doesn't convey notability. I'm sure his prominent parent was a help to his career, but I don't see it as crucial enough for a "famous son" article.
Poor sourcing would still be a reason to delete, so I'm neutral on that one. Although I'd be surprised if it can't be improved to an acceptable level. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And who told you that sourcing and notability are two separate issues? A lack of quality sources implies that the subject isn't notable. It doesn't matter whether the other founders have articles, because they're not the subjects of this AfD. I also don't see why I should care about what companies he's affiliated with, because notability is not transitive. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject fails WP: GNG, can't find good sources either. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:47, 2 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz Read! Talk! 21:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saidullo Abdullaev

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

Non-notable BLP. StartGrammarTime (talk) 21:05, 30 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Library. Liz Read! Talk! 21:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Library branch

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

I think that this article and Library system should be merged into Library under a "Systems" heading under "Functions" before "Internal Organization" JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 20:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I think that the articles have very little merit on their own and could stand to be deleted, which is why I brought them here. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 20:46, 30 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Library. Liz Read! Talk! 21:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Library system

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

I think that this article and Library branch should be merged into Library under a "Systems" heading under "Functions" before "Internal Organization" JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 20:36, 30 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Dennis Clark

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

Industrial scientists don't generate much coverage that we can use to determine their actual influence in their field. This expert on zoom lenses has a single monograph with 80 citations reviewed in Optics & Laser Technology and a self-published book about his own physics theory. Doesn't meet NPROF and I can't find any in-depth coverage that would meet GNG. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:10, 30 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Dunst

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

Non-notable as not meeting WP:SINGER. I couldn't find a secondary source. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In music, his works like the albums Vibrations (2023) and Sex Marathon (2024) showcase his development as a recording artist. Furthermore, his presence on platforms like SoundBetter, with positive reviews highlighting his unique voice and artistry, adds credibility to his professional profile.
While secondary sources and broader media coverage may be limited, the outlined accomplishments suggest a basis for notability, particularly if additional independent verification or media coverage is sought. Jomajor8 (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, ChatGPT. EEng 06:34, 6 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dunszt Kft.

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

Non-notable as failing WP:GNG. I couldn't find any secondary sources. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is your problem and also that you are trying to delete all the articles that I wrote (almost) ... azt meg hozzatennem, hogy tudom, hogy magyar vagy es nem relevansak a kifogasaid!! Jomajor8 (talk) 13:03, 2 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn‎. The Bushranger One ping only 06:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

II Corps (Grande Armée)

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

I orginally proposed this as a merger but upon further notice I realized that the article should be deleted and its content should be merged into the other article. The post was as follows:

I propose that this article is merged in to the 2nd Army Corps (France) article for two main reasons: WP:Consistent and WP:Overprecision. The 2nd Army Corps wasn't just involved in the Napoleonic Wars but also was involved in World War I, and World War II. These periods are all part of the same unit should be reflected in one article as a continuity of the same unit. This will help the information be consolidated into one page as having separate articles for each time period is unnecessary for each page is not even that long to begin with. Due to both pages not being too long in size currently, it would not be breaching WP:TOOBIG. This article is currently less than 240 words according to the page size gadget, but it would be better to approximate it to 500 words as it is not considering all of the words for some reason.

Merging the articles ensures that all relevant information is easily accessible. With the current split, each article is too niche/specialized which reduces the chances that a broader audience would stumble upon it. A single, comprehensive article increases the likelihood that people will find the information they are looking for when they search for the 2nd Army Corps (France). I also recommend this due to Wikipedia:Article titles.

As for concerns about it becoming too big which I briefly touched on in the first paragraph, this wouldn't really happen in the current state of both articles. The article I am proposing to merge into is 477 words according to the page size gadget, but as previously mentioned, it isn't counting all the words so it is about 500-600 words in size. When II Corps (Grande_Armee) is merged into the 2nd Army (France) article, the combination of both articles would be approximately 1,000 to 1,100 words in size. As stated per Wikipedia:TOOBIG, for any article below 6,000 words, its "length alone does not justify division or trimming."

If the 2nd Army (France) article is to ever become too big, the article can always be re-split. However, as it stands at this current time, the article doesn't warrant a split into two different article as when the two articles are combined, the size is well below the 6,000 threshold.

TLDR: I propose this article is merged into 2nd Army (France) for the following reasons:

  1. Wikipedia:Consistent: Although it states in the policy that "it is not considered important for article titles on the English Wikipedia to be consistent with titles used by the corresponding articles on other language versions of Wikipedia." which in this case I'm referring to 2nd Army Corps (France) on French Wikipedia for the reason of consistency. In this scenario, it doesn't logically make sense to have the army from the Napoleonic and WW1/WW2 era to be different.
  2. WP:Overprecision: This article is way too precise and is not logically going to be searched by this title unless an expert was looking it up and was aware of the correlation.

(Note this is not for music. I wrote M thinking it meant merge but I was wrong. I apologize.)

Reader of Information (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion, agree to merge. You should have just kept it as a merge, that way the previous link to II Corps (Grande Armée) would automatically become a redirect to 2nd Army Corps (France). +JMJ+ (talk) 20:16, 30 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Muñóz

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

No indication of meeting WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:GNG. Played 731 minutes in Mexico's second league. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Player is not notable and a search yields no reliable sources supporting his notability. Madeleine961 (talk) 19:57, 30 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Sources found. Liz Read! Talk! 21:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Safari

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

Non-notable film. Unreferenced. Withdrawn. Multiple reliable sources with significant coverage have been found, thereby making the subject notable. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 17:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Faust, M. (1998). Grant, Edmond; Fox, Ken; Joseph, Andrew (eds.). The Motion Picture Guide. New York: CineBooks. p. 187. ISBN 0-933997-00-0. Retrieved 2024-12-03 – via Internet Archive.

      The review notes: "The true star of Hollywood Safari is Muddy the dog, who saves the Johnson boys from innumerable scrapes but manages to avoid preposterousness. Muddy aside, Hollywood Safari can be recommended for a family evening chiefly on the basis of its pacing; it doesn't stay stuck in any one place for too long, even when it should. The screenplay keeps plunging forward without looking back to see where it has been, leaving too many loose ends. Much of the dialogue is also clumsy, as characters argue simply because the plot requires that they be in conflict, even though they fail to address what would seem to be the relevant issues. But young viewers will be no more bothered by these flaws than they will by the minor part taken by martial arts star Don "The Dragon" Wilson. (Wilson proves to be quite flat with the few lines of dialogue he has.) What may upset some tots is an early scene of a boy being attacked by a cougar; adults will spot the obvious fakery, but the length to which it is dwelled upon is excessive. (Violence.)"

    2. Connors, Martin; Craddock, Jim, eds. (2000) [1991]. Videohound's Golden Movie Retriever. Detroit: Visible Ink Press. p. 428. ISBN 1-57859-042-6. ISSN 1095-371X. Retrieved 2024-12-03 – via Internet Archive.

      The review notes: "Hollywood Safari 🦴🦴1⁄2 1996 (PG). Jane (Boone) and Troy (Leisure) Johnson train animals for the movies. But Kensho the mountain lion escapes into the woods after a transport accident and is eventually captured by the police who think it's the wild cat that recently attacked a local teen. The Johnsons try to prevent the sheriff's deputy (Savage) from having Kensho killed before they can prove their claims, but their best defense would be to find the renegade cougar. It's a pleasant enough time-waster, with Muddy, the Johnson's dog, providing some fine heroics. 89m/C VHS. John Savage, Ted Jan Roberts, David Leisure, Debbie Boone, Ken Tigar, Don "The Dragon" Wilson; D: Henri Charr; W: Robert Newcastle; C: Guido Verweyen."

    3. Martin, Mick; Porter, Marsha (2006). DVD & Video Guide 2007 (12 ed.). New York: Ballantine Books. p. 514. ISBN 0-345-49332-X. Retrieved 2024-12-03 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Hollywood Safari ★★1/2 A family of animal trainers tries to find their escaped mountain lion before it is killed by a trigger-happy deputy eager to substitute it for a lion that has been attacking local tourists. Adventure aimed at kids, who may not mind the jumpy plot and cheapo special effects. Rated PG for mild violence. 89m. DIR: Henri Charr. Cast: Ted Jan Roberts, Ryan J. O'Neill, David Leisure, Don "The Dragon" Wilson, Debby Boone. 1997 DVD"

    4. Myers, Randy (1997-08-08). "Get a kick out of pair's martial-arts movies". The News-Press. Knight-Ridder News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-12-03. Retrieved 2024-12-03 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: ""Hollywood Safari": Better title would have been "They're Framing the Wrong Cat." A hotheaded deputy pursues a tame mountain lion thinking he's the one terrorizing the locals. To save the good beast, T.J. and his family of Hollywood animal trainers must contend with a trigger-happy lawman (John Savage). T.J. is good as one of the brothers intent on restoring a sense of justice to the animal kingdom by clearing the big cat's name. But the real star is the family dog, Muddy. He shows spunk, spirit and ingenuity that the lumbering big cat lacks. Get this dog a series. Good family fun, with some genuine suspense and laughs. (PG: Some mountain lion violence.) Grade: B."

    5. Desjardins, Doug (1997-05-18). "PM Launches Video Label for Family Movies Has formed the Sun Valley Home Video label for family-oriented films". Video Store. ISSN 0195-1750. Factiva vdeo000020011009dt5i0004q.

      The article notes: "In an ongoing effort to diversify its image, PM Entertainment Group will launch a new label in August dedicated to family-oriented films.PM will introduce the Sun Valley Home Video label with the Aug. 5 release of Hollywood Safari, starring John Savage, Debby Boone and David Leisure. The film prebooks July 18 and carries a suggested retail price of $59.95.Hollywood Safari, about a pet mountain lion that escapes from its trainers, is a departure from PM's usual emphasis on action-adventure. ... Hollywood Safari follows the adventures of animal trainers Jane and Troy Johnson. When their prize pet mountain lion, Kensho, escapes, he is mistaken for a wild cat that recently attacked a young boy. Jane and Troy become involved in a desperate quest to protect their pet."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hollywood Safari to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Noted. Thank you for finding sources for this article. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 15:59, 3 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Sinclair

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

Seems quite promo and does not appear to have WP:SUSTAINED notability backed up with WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How should I change it to make it less promo, please? Tomahawk Tasmania (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few adjustments to the tone and added a source Tomahawk Tasmania (talk) 19:29, 30 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girijananda Chowdhury Institute of Management and Technology

Girijananda Chowdhury Institute of Management and Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The institute does not meet WP:NSCHOOL. Wordings are promotional WP:PROMO. No independent reliable sources WP:RS. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Charlie (talk) 16:30, 30 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 16:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving image formats

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

Contested PROD. My original rationale was: This is an essay based on original research, and cannot be rewritten into an an encyclopedic article. If someone wants to write an encyclopedic article on "Moving image formats" (which would be a WP:BCA, not a personal essay reflecting on the topic), this should be deleted and a new article written. There is nothing in the page history of this uncited personal reflection on moving image formats that is worth saving. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I'd say keep a stub, but given this would be a broad-concept article it would probably not be helpful that way. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:56, 30 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 16:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MyPhone myA1 Plus

MyPhone myA1 Plus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Of the given sources, two are from the brand's website and one is a YouTube video. The only other source, [47], appears to be a specs sheet rather than the kind of in-depth covering we'd expect from a reliable source. From a WP:BEFORE, I could only find [48], from a website which is explicitly a self-published blog. All in all, doesn't look like the product meets WP:GNG. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:25, 30 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Amador

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

Biography sourced only by IMDb. Cabayi (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Nothing here of substance. Nothing on an internet search or anything else. The Imdb sources look like he might have had a very minor "reporter" role. Reporters on TV come and go, but this one doesn't show up anywhere. — Maile (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article is almost identical to his biography on IMDB. Since there are no other sources for this article, maybe it was created from the IMDB info. Or not. No way to find out who copied who in this one. — Maile (talk) 17:02, 4 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 11:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Gonzalez

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

The subject fails the notability guidelines for WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPROF. The sources cannot establish that the subject passes the General notability guidelines. The first source is a Linkedin page, the second source is an interview and the last source is a personal website. Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been corrected with plenty of external sources. The point of this entry is partly to bring light to a highly accomplished & important figure. 2601:195:C480:DFB0:5166:6B4B:96EF:DC75 (talk) 21:06, 30 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tararam

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

Mostly unreferenced topic, with unclear notability. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Have you actually seen the Hebrew sources? "SAP Israel concluded a year"??? "SanDisk celebrates Bar Mitzvah"??? Every time they've played at a corporate shindig? Every corporate campaign that uses them? The article about "a unique internet campaign for Cellcom" doesn't even MENTION Tararam? No SIGCOV, no hit record, no chart placement, no major tour, no major media recognition. There's literally nothing here beyond a local ensemble often hired by tech corporates to play at their junkets. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:31, 30 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Lancaster, Lancashire#Primary schools. If an editor is unhappy with this Redirect option, feel free to discuss in on the talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 07:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lancaster Steiner School

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this primary school and added some references. There is very little secondary coverage, however, and all that I have found is local. Given the small size of the school, currently 13 pupils, I think it is unlikely that other coverage exists which would demonstrate its notability. I don't think it meets WP:GNG, WP:NCORP or WP:NSCHOOL. There was a discussion on the article's Talk page in 2012 about notability, which resulted in sources being added at that point. Tacyarg (talk) 07:28, 30 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Baloch wars

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

This appears to be an inappropriate content fork of the First Anglo-Afghan War (and Siege of Kahun), the Second Anglo-Afghan War and Operations against the Marri and Khetran tribes for the three "wars" herein though there are also glaring inconsistencies such as a year of 1917 herein v 1918 for the operations and the one google scholar source for "Anglo-Baloch War of 1839" does not correspond with the date herein for the first war. I do not see anything of value to be merged with these other articles. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per above editors, "Anglo-Baloch wars" gives no results in Scholar. PadFoot (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, et al. However, do merge citation cleanup I did, to the extent any of the sources used in this erstwhile article (or moved by me to its talk page as unused in the present text) are also used in the "parent" articles and might need cleanup there. I would also suggest poring over the actual content and making sure no specific sourced details in this piece cannot be sensibly merged into one of the others.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A content fork of four pages? No, there's a legitimate topic here. Balochistan was never in Afghanistan. Still, this probably qualifies for TNT given the errors the nom points out. Srnec (talk) 02:12, 4 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survivalism in fiction

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

Survival fiction is a notable topic, but it is just a redirect here. What we have here is a very poorly referenced indiscriminate laundry list of works that violates MOS:TRIVA, WP:IPC and WP:LISTN. WP:ATD-R suggests that for now, we could just redirect this to Survivalism#In_popular_culture and wait for someone to create this one day. PS. Given we live in the age of AI-aided listicle churnalism, I expect we could find sources to save this - but given abysmal referencing, WP:TNT is another salad letter consideration to keep in mind. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:30, 30 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kudamuck

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

Subject does not appear notable. Searching for "Kudamuck" on Google returns literally zero reliable, independent sources. Also, the last sentence of the article arguably meets the "patent nonsense" criterion for speedy deletion ("There are many castes, religions, depart here"). Stephen Hui (talk) 06:15, 30 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chemxpert Database

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

Apparent WP:PROMO violation. Article contains no third-party sourcing at all; external links provide some third-party interviews but nothing independent of the subject. On running the usual searches, I have not been able to locate anything that is even minimally suggestive of independent coverage in reliable sources, on which an encyclopedic article could be based. So I'm not sure this even meets WP:V, let alone WP:GNG, let alone WP:NCORP. (NB: there is also a "ChemXpert" software product that does not appear to be related to this company, which comes up in some Google Scholar searches.) Visviva (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All extrenal links are removed from article. Pharmadatabase (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am rather against the deletion of articles on Wikipedia but this is clearly a page used to promote this service, no reliable source found after some research and almost all the sources of the article are primary, I think that the article was even eligible for speedy deletion. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 15:09, 3 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zack D Films

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

Non-notable YouTuber. No reliable sources present, and all sources online are about one of his videos, not him in general, so no significant coverage. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reliable sources to back up notability conpared to any other YouTuber. Urchincrawler (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly sourced and written almost like an ad. Fails GNG with no reliable sources on a search. Madeleine961 (talk) 20:05, 30 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shamayim "Mama Shu" Harris

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

Article fails general notability guidelines Nxcrypto Message 00:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:32, 30 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted‎ per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any Means Possible

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

Fails GNG. Little significant coverage in reliable sources. C F A 01:45, 30 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete‎. (non-admin closure) JFHJr (㊟) 01:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CaseOh (streamer)

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

Still fails GNG. Little significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. C F A 01:37, 30 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz Read! Talk! 01:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Functionality Equivalence Verification

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

Stub was redirected to software testing years ago, but term is not described there or anywhere else on enwiki. Google suggests the term is related to equivalence checking, or it's possibly related to functional equivalence, but the use of this specific term is unclear. Deletion should be considered unless a proper redirect/merge target can be identified. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This fails WP: GNG, and I regrettably can't support either redirect target. Equivalence checking appears to be a little too focused on hardware for this article to be a good redirect target in this case, and functional equivalence is a disambiguation page. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:23, 1 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. It looks like the nominator has changed their perspective on the nominated article and other participants have located sources to help establish notability but, for some reason, didn't specifically argue to "Keep". It would be great if these sources could find their way into the article. Liz Read! Talk! 00:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sýn (media corporation)

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

Fails WP:NORG. The first reference cites Sýn's website, the second one its own media outlet Vísir.is. All publications I found either contain trivial info or are news about acquisitions or sales of the company's assets. In brief, the company does not meet WP:ORGCRITE and is not inherently notable, according to the same guideline. Ur frnd (talk) 00:57, 30 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination has been withdrawn, The possibiity of a Redirect can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beck (EP)

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

EP has zero coverage found in a WP:BEFORE. As for the citations present, 2 are database sites (no notability inherited from them), and the third is basically a press release announcing the release. Other language pages do not have any citations other than databases either.

I had previously redirected the page, but it was reverted. Reason give for the reversal was "This is a release by a major artist and therefore notable. Changing it to a redirect broke a bunch of links includlng the Beck chronology." We know that notability isn't inherited, so it doesn't matter how famous Beck is, if this release cannot stand on its own then it does not need to exist and can be mentioned in the Beck article. As for the reason that redirecting it "broke links", that is not a reason for keeping an article. Links can be fixed. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly fine with it being redirected to Beck discography, but it was redirected to Beck (musician) which was very confusing and felt like an error. And yes, broken links can be fixed, but it's not nice to just casually break obvious ones.
Ixat totep (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As it might not be obvious to all, I'm the one who un-redirected it, so if that makes this a disputed deletion, I'm happy to un-dispute it as long as it goes to Beck discography and not Beck (musician). [EDIT: But now someone added much better and more notable citations so I think it should be kept]
Ixat totep (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could have just fixed the redirect to go to the discography and not the musician, just saying. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Donaldd23 I honestly thought there would be a lot more about it to cite. It's mentioned in a bunch of places like it's an important release (or at least as important as other EPs that aren't in danger of deletion). I was surprised I couldn't find more - that's why I left the "notability guidelines" flag up. If we're going to do "you could have..."... Albums are always in chronology carousels, and it's obvious that redirecting one will completely mess up the carousel and make them impossible to use to navigate the discography properly. That's the other reason I un-deleted it. I was clicking through releases and found myself back on the artist page trying to figure out wtf happened and it ticked me off enough to not fully research the page. I wanted the chronology to work and found zero talk page discussion about deletion so it seemed strange. Ixat totep (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Donaldd23 I just went to look at the page to see what to move elsewhere and volunteer to sort it out, but it looks like someone came along and added a bunch of much better citations, including print sources. So now I'd say keep it. Ixat totep (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the new sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:52, 30 November 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.
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_November_30