Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< December 17	December 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

List of pre-nominal letters (Sweden)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sign of Notability. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 16:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 16:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this page by copying entries from Lists of post-nominal letters#Sweden where they were cluttering a list of lists. Other lists of post-nominal letters are deemed notable, and this page is essentially no different from any of them. To quote essay Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments: "the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". The page does require improvement though. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For one, I don't think these "titles" are ever used when referring to a person's name in Sweden. Furthermore it is not really encyclopedic information – it is rather a key to reading old biographical dictionaries where these abbreviations are used (for conciseness). The page therefore fails the policy WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTHOW. Geschichte (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We're not a key to every way that one country lists honors. If this were a list of ranks in the military or parliament, it would make sense, but this doesn't. Bearian (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Mostly a procedural keep, since I believe that all similar articles should be considered at the same time. Sjö (talk) 08:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is currently no consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bengaluru City Police

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Filled with primary sources and fluff. A few secondary sources go to dead links. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like the Karnataka Police, this may be a case of presumed notability where the article needs massive work but the subject is notable given this police force covers a city of 8M+ people. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only because of the size of the force, but right now it needs a major update and neutralization going from the article body saying the force's required cell phone is a Blackberry; most of the sources are PRIMARY as-is. Nate • (chatter) 23:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Can this be merged with its parent page Karnataka Police, much of the content (especially Insignia) seems redundant. Some of the content or references need over-haul or could be specific to State police at hand. For example Template:Indian Police Service Officer Ranks used at this page derives references from Maharashtra Police, Kerala Police or Odisha Police sources Nisingh.8 (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rammstein Festival Tour 2017

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NTOUR, article relies on primary sources. मल्ल (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Events. मल्ल (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NTOUR. HorrorLover555 (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Redirect and also because no Redirect target article was identified here. Please always do with with Merge and Redirect arguments in the future.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirous Ahmadi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

2 google news hits and nothing in Google Books. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Being an immigration consultant hardly adds to notability. LibStar (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Iran, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:AUTHOR. Herinalian (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He passes GNG because of significant coverage by different sources. Also he was a member of Iran national canoeing team (IRNA) and won the third place in Asian Canoeing Championships in 2004.(IRNA). Ali Pirhayati (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both the sources you have supplied are 1 line mentions and do not meet WP:SIGCOV. I don't see him meeting WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added the sources for his canoeing to the page. His record-setting has been covered by several media as well. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 10:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you declared your connection to him? duffbeerforme (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have any connection to him. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That photo you took of him? How then did that come about? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very good question, duffbeer. Please answer the question. There's a potential conflict of interest here. LibStar (talk) 08:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the pictures of hundreds of people to Wikipedia; do I have a connection to all of them!? Sometimes I try to access copyright-free pictures of the subjects for whom I created a page through emailing them. In this case too, long after I created his page, I received a copyright-free picture. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So are you now saying that you lied about taking it? And that your are not, as you claimed, the copyright holder? duffbeerforme (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the copyright-holder, like this one and many others. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you're the copyright holder of a copyright free image that you created yourself and was supplied to you by someone you have no connection to. Makes sense. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. specially that part about being a member of Iran canoeing team. he was just a member but never won anything major. the page creator claims he won a medal at the Asian Canoeing Championship and provides a source for that. but that's not correct. the source says it was the Central/West Asian Championship not the main Asian Canoeing Championships. Sports2021 (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ottoman mosques in İzmir

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is links to 5 articles enough for a list? If so I think the mosques without articles should be cited Chidgk1 (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Lists, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either List of mosques commissioned by the Ottoman dynasty or List of mosques in Turkey. Reywas92^Talk 17:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like this will likely close as Merge but is there a preference for a Merge target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton Wilborn

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of WP:SUSTAINED notability here. Amigao (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sudbury Downtown Master Plan

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article that was previously soft-deleted at AFD due to limited participation, and was then WP:REFUNDed following a request by its creator, but has not actually seen any further improvement to actually address the reasons why it was deleted in the first place: it's still not properly referenced as passing Wikipedia inclusion criteria for this type of topic.
Things like this might be valid article topics if they were well-referenced, but are not "inherently" notable just because they exist -- but except for one "article" (really just a reprint of a press release) in Canadian Architect magazine, this is otherwise still referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as content self-published by the city and content self-published by the Ontario Association of Architects, with not a single new source having been added since the refund to strengthen its notability at all.
We already have articles about many of the individual buildings involved here, which can already cover off virtually any content we would actually need about this, but the "master plan" itself would need much better sourcing than this to become notable enough for its own standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, it never went anywhere... [1]. I can confirm the Superstack is being torn down (I have family in Sudbury, so hear about it from time to time), but this "master plan" was really only ever a big idea. Downtown still looks exactly the same as it did before the Plan happened, and nothing has happened since it was "dusted off" in the article above. If you want to add a few lines to the main Sudbury article, that's fine... Ten plus years on, this thing never happened, so I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD before, not eligible for Soft Deletion again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Pangal

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested BLAR so bringing it to AfD with a proposal for a consensus redirect to Deccani–Vijayanagar_wars#Qutb_Shahi-Vijayanagara_conflicts. I don't see sufficient WP:SIGCOV of this event in reliable, independent sources for a standalone page per WP:GNG. The sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS (paragraph or less in full-length books) of this battle. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Telangana. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only two sources that provide a few lines (not more than five to even consider a redirect) of coverage are dubious, as one was authored by an Indian civil servant of the British administration and first published in 1900, which falls under WP:RAJ, while the other was first published in 1927. This may explain why the event has not received attention in recent academic works. I would not support the proposal for a redirect unless there is sufficient coverage from reliable sources. Garuda ^Talk! 17:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Brown (pregnant man)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I feel like this is a BLP1E. This person doesn't seem to have been notable before they got pregnant, and the only coverage is of their appearance on a magazine cover. Valereee (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sexuality and gender, and United Kingdom. Valereee (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OP. This article is barely a stub, and effectively only says "this exists." WP:BLP1E is absolutely relevant, there's nothing else this article could expand to with the current coverage. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've expanded the article, which now includes a much wider range of sources, and a review of their book, and other work Lajmmoore (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment/s to address BLP1E, I think the book, and more recent coverage of them shifts the article away from "notable for one event". also, i wonder if the article name should change - rather than (pregnant man) perhaps (activist) or (author) - as he's not pregnant now! Lajmmoore (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of this resolves the BLP1E issue. He is entirely known for this one event in his life. That's it. Publishing his own book does not alleviate the fact that all the sourcing is about this one aspect of his life. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clear WP:BLP1E. Astaire (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep he had international coverage: [2]; [3]; [4]; [5]; [6]. LIrala (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"International coverage" does not save this from being a WP:BLP1E. To quote from that policy:

1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. - true, all sources are about the pregnancy.

2. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. - true, no evidence of high-profile activities outside of the pregnancy.

3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. - true, the chance that a single pregnancy is significant enough to deserve its own article is slim to none. Astaire (talk) 10:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Astaire - while most sources are related the Glamour cover feature - this one is about the book and the Manchester Evening News is a more recent interview, so not quite all Lajmmoore (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book is about the pregnancy, and the Manchester Evening News interview is also largely about the pregnancy (as well as a modeling campaign which happened because of the pregnancy). Astaire (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I do remember the famous magazine cover. There has only been one news article published about him since he gave birth. I'm not sure that's significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 15 articles from around the world linked in the article and in here. Will add from these. --Shelter3 (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would have probably voted keep but WP:BLP1E is pretty clear --FMSky (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brown is an activist and a social worker and not only had a child while a man but wrote two books. Agree with Lajmmoore, the article name should change to (activist) so WP:BLP1E will no longer be an issue: Brown continues to be active for trans rights and the queer community in a country that's slower on their rights than the U.S. even though they have universal health care. Glamour UK interviewer even said in June 2023 "In the UK, there's a lot of transphobia at the moment" --Shelter3 (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shelter3: you voted twice --FMSky (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second was a response to you really. Not sure how I would've updated my first vote. Don't assume the worst! Shelter3 (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of this comment speaks to notability as defined by Wikipedia. There are thousands of people who are activists, social workers, or authors who are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia page. To overcome the WP:BLP1E issue, we need reliable sources with significant coverage in a context beyond the pregnancy. Astaire (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment just a reminder that merge is also a possible outcome, as outlined at WP:BLP1E: "In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." Lajmmoore (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do that. Could you do that or another editor? Shelter3 (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would require identifying a target article to merge into, and proposing that as an alternative to deletion. Frankly, I cannot think of a valid merge target. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. The changes to the article since nomination has shown continued coverage through this year. Bearian (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "continued coverage" is still only about his pregnancy. That doesn't fix the BLP1E problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Illinois tornado history

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDATABASE. E_F⁵ 16:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Illinois. E_F⁵ 16:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Illinois tornadoes. This is a list, not an article on tornado history in southern Illinois. I'm interested in expanding the tornado history of Northern Illinois, which I find much more interesting, but this is better done creating standalone articles including on individual tornadoes, outbreaks, and "Tornadoes of YYYY" expansions. Departure– (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Austin City Council District 2

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual city council districts like this aren't usually notable, perhaps a merge to the main article on the Austin City Council would be suitable, a discussion on the Austin City Council District 1 ended with consensus to merge. -Samoht27 (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, United States of America, and Texas. -Samoht27 (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Austin City Council District 10

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual city council districts aren't usually notable. Feels WP:MILL. -Samoht27 (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, United States of America, and Texas. -Samoht27 (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Austin City Council, as well as the other districts, same as the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin City Council District 1. The main article can tabulate past members like Seattle City Council#Recent councilmembers rather than in individual pages for non-notable districts. Reywas92^Talk 16:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auton

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Autons don't appear to have standalone notability from the parent series. The current sources used in the article, and the bulk of SIGCOV, are from unreliable sources like Looper and Doctor Who TV. The bulk of coverage I could find via searching was primarily from reviews, which do not indicate notability individual of their parent episodes, and unreliable sources like WhatCulture. Additionally, the House of Lords statement, while relevant, is only part of their wider statement on Terror of the Autons, which is what actually caused the discussion in the first place. The Autons were only discussed as an aspect of the episode that was scary, with other aspects of the episode being discussed in equal measure. This whole statement confers notability to Terror of the Autons, not the Autons themselves, as notability is not inherited from the parent subject here.

A search through News turned up one SyFy hit, but this boiled down to a brief plot summary with a declaration of "These guys are scary", which is nowhere near significant coverage. https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/chosen-one-of-the-day-autons-in-doctor-who A search through Books and Scholar yielded nothing, though admittedly the results were muddied by concepts of autonomy and people with the name of Auton, even with specifiers like "Doctor Who." The coverage here is minimal and very little SIGCOV exists, and what info on their development we have is better covered as part of a wider article. An AtD to the "Nestene" section of List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens would suffice, as the Nestenes are the creatures who created the Autons, and the Autons serve basically as their lackeys, and are closely related enough in-universe to where they should be covered together. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milaf Cola

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is nothing to indicate that the subject is notable. This is a brazen advertisement for a 1 week-old (!) cola brand produced by the Saudi government. The sources are all garbage and they all read like sponsored content. Thenightaway (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very much PROMO. Reads like PR items, none of which are in RS. Could be a one liner in the Public Investment Fund article, perhaps... Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL quarterbacks by teams beaten

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:NLIST from my perspective, and comes across as WP:Fancruft/trivia. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and American football. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article literally copies off one source to present the information, and this is usually only a headline superlative rather than something really followed closely. Nate • (chatter) 17:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes NLIST. [7][8][9][10][11] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Twenty20

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources for any of these articles; all of them fail WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Caribbean. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, nominated the season articles. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lone Tree, Indiana

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Baker actually describes this as a post office spot which moved, which is a classic 4th class PO thing. No, it doesn't mean that everyone pulled up stakes and moved; it just means that the original postmaster stopped handling the mail, and someone somewhere else took over. As usual I'm finding scant evidence for an actual town. Mangoe (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Maldivian Engineers

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability of this association and no public information about it. Closest thing available was the "Association of Civil Engineers Maldives" Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 11:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 11:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is the closest thing to a RS I could find [12], which isn't enough. The last AfD was kept as a !keep due to mentions/profiles on two association websites, which isn't quite enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2021–22 Women's T20 Cup

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~Not enough coverage for a separate season article; should be merged back to the parent article.~~ Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources for both articles; both fail WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Zimbabwe. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nominated Women's T20 Cup also. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boyd's Eurobin Hotel

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NHIST due to lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Relies on local accounts and primary materials, with no in-depth analysis, making it non-notable per WP:RS. Primarily of regional interest without broader historical significance. Nxcrypto Message 11:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Australia. Nxcrypto Message 11:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

Thank you for reviewing the page for Boyd's Eurobin Hotel. I would like to provide additional context and justification for why this page should remain on Wikipedia. Below are several points addressing the concerns cited in the deletion proposal:

1. Historical Significance to the Region

Boyd's Eurobin Hotel is historically significant as one of the key social and logistical hubs in northeastern Victoria during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It served as:

A halfway stop for travellers between the important regional centres of Myrtleford and Bright, contributing to the region’s transportation and economic development during the coaching era.

A gathering place for political events, community meetings, and significant public addresses, as documented in multiple historical articles from the Ovens and Murray Advertiser.

While the hotel itself no longer exists, its historical role provides insights into the development of regional Victoria during a formative period, which aligns with the purpose of Wikipedia to preserve knowledge, particularly for places that have evolved significantly or no longer exist in their original form.

2. Reliable Sources and References

The article is based entirely on reliable, independent secondary sources, specifically reputable newspapers from the time such as:

The Ovens and Murray Advertiser, a well-regarded regional publication that extensively documented events, businesses, and social life in the area.

The Yackandandah Times and The Age, providing corroborating accounts of the hotel's role in the local economy and its broader community impact.

These are historical records, which, by their nature, provide the most comprehensive and legitimate sources of information about a hotel from the 19th century. Dismissing these sources as merely "local accounts" underestimates their value as the principal historical records of the time.

3. Importance of Preserving Regional History

The page contributes to the documentation of Victoria’s regional history, complementing related pages on Eurobin, St. Clement's Church Eurobin, and the Eurobin Presbyterian Church. Together, these articles create a cohesive narrative about a once-thriving hamlet. Removing this page would leave a significant gap in understanding Eurobin’s history.

Wikipedia is often the first and only resource for regional and niche history. Deleting this page would undermine the platform’s role as a repository for diverse historical content, especially for subjects that are less well-known but still meaningful to specific regions or communities.

4. Meets Wikipedia’s Notability Guidelines for History

The article satisfies WP:NHIST by:

Establishing the hotel’s role in regional historical events, such as being a venue for political campaigns, community gatherings, and a recovery site for injured travellers.

Providing multiple, independent sources that verify the hotel's importance in its historical context.

While the subject might not have broad national or global appeal, Wikipedia policies allow for regional notability. Boyd’s Eurobin Hotel represents a significant chapter in the development of northeastern Victoria, a region rich in history but underrepresented on the platform.

5. Broader Educational Value

The page serves as an example of how small, local institutions contributed to the larger social and economic fabric of Australia during the 19th century. It adds depth to the broader historical understanding of transportation, community hubs, and rural development in Victoria.

Conclusion

I respectfully request that the page be retained, as it:

Is thoroughly referenced with reliable secondary sources.

Provides significant historical value to the Eurobin area and northeastern Victoria.

Contributes to a richer understanding of Australia’s regional history.

I am happy to address any specific points of concern and welcome suggestions for improving the page further to meet Wikipedia’s standards.

Sincerely,

blackcatsx Blackcatsx (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, are any of the sources used available online and if so can you please link them? It's unclear if any of this news coverage is substantial coverage. One of the sources is "Found: A young boar pig" and another is just "Accident", so these seem to be local news briefs, not deeper substance. If the hotel is historically significant to warrant an article, I would expect retrospective histories to provide coverage, not only contemporary news articles. You say this region is "underrepresented on the platform", but it appears that's because it's underrepresented in history books, and WP:PRIMARY sources are insufficient for an article here. To be clear, being "a recovery site for injured travellers" or a venue for "community gatherings" is not a basis for notability, there are a billion such places. You say "venue for political campaigns" with plural, yet only a single event by a non-notable candidate is mentioned – There's a lot of candidates who go a lot of places but that doesn't make them notable! The owner being a secretary for a church either – not necessarily an "integral role" for even the community, much less the "region", as claimed – is irrelevant to the hotel's claim to notability, especially if only being your claim based on his archived letters rather than a historian saying so. "The property is often mentioned in the context of the town's historical significance" really couches the fact that the town generally is what's notable, not a hotel there – Eurobin#History would be a better place for this. "The establishment was a hub of activity, reflecting its importance within the Eurobin community" is not sourced. "A recurring theme in historical records" would be WP:Original research – you reviewed the records, not a historian in a published source. Besides that this section has just one source that doesn't support "recurring" or "articles", why would anyone now care that the hotel had an employee who did her job? "Its role as a community hub, coaching stop, and post office has left an indelible mark on the history of Eurobin." If it's so indelible, why aren't there any more modern sources that say so? "Today, Boyd's Eurobin Hotel exists only in historical records and memories." I think anyone with memories of it is dead now. Reywas92^Talk 15:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The equivalent of a telephone book listing [13] is about all I found for sourcing. Based on the long explanation above, this could potentially be notable, but we need sourcing with links to the documents if possible. I just don't see notability at this time. Oaktree b (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kamand Amirsoleimani

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, as no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources is available to establish notability. IMDb and MUBI are not reliable sources (WP:USERG). Nxcrypto Message 10:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, Film, and Iran. Nxcrypto Message 10:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a fairly notable actress, meeting WP:ACTRESS with multiple significant roles in notable productions; the page needs improvement and the corresponding article in Persian can help, for a start. -Mushy Yank. 12:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sahara Elite League

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources; Fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Kenya. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

East African Premier League

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources; Fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, Kenya, and Uganda. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shajaan Muaz Shaheem

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, lacks more reliable sources. I don't think greatbusinessexchange.co.uk and open.endole.co.uk are reliable sources. Plus, being a wife of an MP doesn't make the person notable. The article has only one sentence. Also, Secretary General of the organization is just a normal job and isn't a notable position. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 10:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I updated most of the cites which was cleared out from the article while someone else edited it and also found resources on Mary Robinson climate justice award and one young world too, but as its not my targeted development I haven't put any of this and just cited and it was deleted, concentrating mostly on the attacks concerning the subject during her pregnancy which related to the parliamentarian and his tenure as that develops. NormadicEditor (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://avas.mv/108984 https://ras.mv/post/13249 https://dhen.mv/94568 https://dhauru.com/post/news/1702 https://feshun.mv/128075 https://adhadhu.com/article/12638 https://dhen.mv/33092 https://ras.mv/post/17564 https://sangu.mv/33077/https://www.furathama.com/2698/https://www.furathama.com/2698/https://feshun.mv/131777 https://cnm.mv/news/19111 https://mihaaru.com/news/81675https://mihaaru.com/news/81675 https://staging.mihaaru.com/news/99461 https://adhadhu.com/article/12638 https://avas.mv/101312https://avas.mv/101312 https://dhauru.com/post/news/1702 https://dhiyares.com/30822 https://www.furathama.com/2698/https://dhauru.com/post/news/1681 https://sun.mv/158306https://sun.mv/158306 https://mihaaru.com/news/81675 https://www.psmnews.mv/87258 https://sun.mv/158320 https://cnm.mv/news/34477https://cnm.mv/news/34477 https://ramazan.mihaaru.com/ramazan/99436 https://en.sun.mv/67112 https://english.sun.mv/69969 https://en.thepress.mv/13387

So this article was actually being developed due to these, I understand the positions mentioned doesn't make the person notable,( I didn't have much information on the individual than those three positions to describe the lead) but the saga surrounding these cites was the main notability of the article, because this subjected to life threatening circumstances also due to it immense coverage and by news platforms. NormadicEditor (talk) 11:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All those citations are about the couple's marriage, "MP Haitham has married", and the couple receiving a attack. That doesn't mean the wife is notable. Notability is on what the person has done. Eg: A notable job, a profession, occupation etc.. The article could be made a redirect to her husband's article "Ahmed Haitham" instead and make a "Personal life" section. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that’s exactly what I was trying to express but wasn’t sure how to phrase it. I even considered whether Wikipedia has a personal template on another’s data page or something similar. The subject has notable positions but non was on the news articles but mostly on edu websites and academia which doesn't qualify for the wiki guidelines and the feline welfare part I concentrated due to the huge media coverage surrounding the organisation and its notable work for stray cats, Could you also help me with creating a redirect article? I’m not very familiar with the process. Thanks again for all your help! :) NormadicEditor (talk) 12:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I finally figured out how the redirect works! Wikipedia has been a bit tricky for me (clearly, I need to ditch my jour-no habits). Thanks for teaching me something new today , you’re a true Wikipedia mentor! Now, what should we do with the delete template? NormadicEditor (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Advertising, and Maldives. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Ahmed Haitham. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 14:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to the spouse's page seems fine. Most of what's used for sourcing doesn't show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

58 Seconds

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM; there's nothing from a cursory search to also substantiate notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Entertainment, and Hungary. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this sorted in Television-related AfDs? I don't think this is a TV production. -Mushy Yank. 12:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Was unable to find any online sources about this film. As it stands, it fails WP:NFILM. Though, part of me wonders if there are any offline sources considering the film was made in 1964; if there are multiple reliable sources covering this film from something like a newspaper then I would consider keeping it. Beachweak (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is the first and noted film of a notable director (https://nfi.hu/en/core-films-1/films-3/documentaries-1/58-seconds.html) (see NFIC: involves a notable person and is a major part of their career) A Redirect to Lívia Gyarmathy#Filmography, a standard alternative to deletion when the director is notable and has a page on this WP, seems warranted anyway [edited after having improved the page]. -Mushy Yank. 12:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 12:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 22:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keely Shaye Smith

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notable mainly for being Pierce Brosnan's wife. However, notability is not inherited. All reliable references to her exist because she is Pierce Brosnan's wife.

Fails notability guideline WP:JOURNALIST --LK (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --LK (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Journalism, Television, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've found a few non-trivial newspaper articles that aren't just about her link to Brosnan. The second one mentions their relationship but it's more about her and her own career work. 1, 2. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I.I.M.U.N.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Wikipedia page for IIMUN (India's International Movement to Unite Nations) does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria as outlined in the General Notability Guidelines (GNG). While the organization claims widespread activity and recognition, the sources cited are primarily self-published or lack significant, reliable secondary coverage in independent publications. The majority of the references either originate from IIMUN itself, social media posts, or promotional material, which are insufficient to establish notability. Furthermore, the achievements mentioned, such as organizing large-scale conferences and initiatives like "Find a Bed," fail to receive substantial and consistent coverage from reputable third-party sources over a significant period. Without verifiable, independent, and non-trivial coverage, the subject cannot be deemed notable under Wikipedia's policies. Therefore, the article does not merit inclusion and should be considered for deletion. Likehumansdo (talk) 09:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 09:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Education, India, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nom should have done the review just like their username Likehumansdo. This is a clear keep, it easily passes GNG, and I can't find any reason for deletion. It seems like the rationale was pulled out of thin air, almost like asking, "Generate a reason to delete this article?".--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Der Herr wird dich mit seiner Güte segnen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONG. Possibly could redirect to Helmut Schlegel. Polyamorph (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Christianity. Polyamorph (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: please inform project Classical music. - This song is published in the main section of Gotteslob, the central Catholic hymnal for all German-speaking countries, actually twice in several dioceses. It also gets sung as I can tell you from church experience (which can't be said of all songs in the book). What else do you need to be notable? It has even become part of a major published work, you can listen on YouTube. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This demanding hymn is covered by notable sources, for example by the musicologist and theologian Meinrad Walter. Grimes2 (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This hymn is part of standard hymn books. This particular hymn has received coverage in several religious websites, here, here, here, and here (quick web search). Church hymns will (almost) never satisfy the the enumerated criteria at WP:NSONG, so that's setting the the wrong bar to clear. OTOH, I think it clears WP:GNG. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw those links, none of which appear to be particularly reliable sources, especially not the blog. Although I take your point that WP:NSONG may not be the correct bar for hymns. Polyamorph (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how those websites can be characterised as unreliable. "blog" in a URL doesn't automatically disqualify that website; its author is de:Anton Stingl jun.. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martina Ononiwu

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is largely based on 4 sources about her being "awarded the US Presidential Lifetime Achievers Award (Presidential Volunteer Service Award) (PVSA) by American President Joe Biden." This is apparently only reported in Nigerian sources, not in any official source, and she isn't listed on the official list[14]. The award is apparently only intended for "U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents", so not for a Nigerian in France. If the sources have this basic fact, the premisse for the articles, wrong, then they aren't reliable sources to start with but just repeating something spoonfed by the subject or someone trying to promote them. Fram (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Awards, Economics, Nigeria, France, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've just done a deep dive into this. The President's Volunteer Service Award has various grades, and is given to numerous people every year, and is not generally notable. Only at the highest level, people receiving the the President's Call to Service Award (also called the "President's Lifetime Achievement Award"), may be notable for receiving the award. But even that is doubtful, as recipients are usually notable already in their own right. In any case, it's pretty clear that Martina Ononiwu did not receive the President's Call to Service Award, as there are no US-based notable sources testifying to this. A search for the name "Martina Ononiwu" is the news sources yields nothing except Nigerian news sources stating that she was given the President's Lifetime Achievement Award. It is highly unlikely that a person would be honored with the President's Lifetime Achievement Award, without leaving any sort of trace in the news sources. --LK (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a HOAX based on the fact that USA sources mention nothing about the awards. I don't see notability otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : The article fails to meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline WP:GNG as it solely focuses on a single event without providing significant coverage of the topic. The subject's notability is questionable, given the award by the United States, despite being based in France with Nigerian origins. There is no international media coverage, with most coverage coming from Nigerian local and national dailies. This lack of international coverage and reliance on local publications gives the impression that the article may be sponsored or promotional in nature, further undermining its notability.Royalesignature (talk). 17:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this [[15]] does not list her, nor this [[16]], so this at least appears to be false. Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noventi

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. The notability requirements for companies is much higher now. Article seems to be created by COI user. Imcdc Contact 09:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and California. Imcdc Contact 09:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Dhabi T20 Trophy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources; Fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 09:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and United Arab Emirates. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 09:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Share Insurance

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actually not meeting NCORP; I did we before however it did not help. NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armed Forces Insurance

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I did wp before, but was not able to locate reliable sources meeting NCORP. Ready to withdraw the nomination if the reliable sources are found and added NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Military, Companies, and Kansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

R&R Insurance Services

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't pass NCORP criteria NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 08:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG on WP:NORG, WP:ORGSIG and WP:ORGCRIT. No WP:RS and WP:IS other than some coverage in local media. Fail WP:V.

Louis Mangione

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I fail to see the notability of the father of the shooter in the Brian Thompson killing. Being the father alone does not grant such notability, and the enterprises Louis Mangione is head of were also created the same time and day this article was, by the same user. The known for is also a bit egregious, "known for being the heir to the Mangione family fortune". I don't think much of anyone before two days ago even knew the Mangione family fortune existed. Ré union! 08:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is irrelevant who created the article, why, or when. What matters is whether the subject is notable and whether there are reliable sources attesting to that. Based on that argument, you could have also nominated Nicholas Mangione for deletion, but you opted not to. Prior to recent events, Louis Mangione was mentioned by the Baltimore Sun here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here and by the Washington Post here, here, here, here, here, and here. He served as Vice President of Mangione Family Enterprises for decades and is now the head of the Mangione family fortune. All of that demonstrates his notability in the local business community. His son's recent actions simply shine further coverage on the family, which has been covered amply by the Baltimore and Washington, D.C. press for decades. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 09:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Maryland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bohemian Baltimore.-🐦DrWho42👻 10:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why delete information? 2600:1702:540:6BF0:4403:38E5:2AA8:F46C (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because WP:NOTEVERYTHING Geschichte (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I went through every single one of Bohemian Baltimore's sources, and not a one of them is about Mangione; they are all about real-estate controversies loosely involving a Mangione property, with one or two brief quotes from Mangione sprinkled in. As for the references in the article, references 2 and 8 are the only ones I'd consider SIGCOV, and they are only talking about this individual in the context of the shooting. The article is a hybrid WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERITED violation. Clearly this individual is not notable beyond the events of the past week. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WeirdNAnnoyed - Wikipedia:Notability says that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So he's a buisnessman with a son that says he did bad things, not proven in court yet. If this was brought up to AfD six months ago, we'd delete it. Same reasoning applies, his business enterprise is not notable, he's only being talked about because of his son. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the analysis by WeirdNAnnoyed and my own at the sources, which do not include significant coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — It is irrelevant who created the article, why, or when. I'd say when the article was created is critical here. When other editors invoke "the sum total of human knowledge" in reference to this project and I poke holes in their arguments large enough to drive a 747 through, there's a reason why it's met with denial and suppression. There's far more to "the sum total of human knowledge" than parroting the agenda of the legacy media and writing about little else. If BB's laundry list of sources going back decades really meant anything, then I shouldn't be looking at an article that's only about 12 hours old. Wikipedia repeatedly shows its lack of credibility by newly creating biographies as a reaction to the subject's death, when the real world saw the person as notable decades ago. In addition to the WP:WHATEVER invoked by WeirdNAnnoyed above, there's also WP:COATRACK. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WeirdNAnnoyed. I also did my own research on Newspapers.com to see if there were any articles from The Baltimore Sun about Mangione himself, as there were about his father, and could only find articles about his proposed real-estate developments, in which he is mentioned one or two times and not as the primary subject. Y2hyaXM (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The only reason the family or family friend has requested deletion is because they’re worried about their reputation. The public should know about anyone running a “family enterprise” …especially when their ultra-privileged offspring murders a man who came from a rural, working-class family and worked for over 20 years to make CEO with a bachelors degree from a state school. If that isn’t ironic enough, the CEO made far less money than his own parents. There is a nation-wide conversation about wealth right now, and the Mangione’s shouldn't get to opt out. 2600:1008:B218:2C3F:F0FA:33BB:D96D:23E5 (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Mangiones 2600:1008:B218:2C3F:F0FA:33BB:D96D:23E5 (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That man wasn't known a week ago, and appears to have a rather ho-hum business career, that's not quite notable for here. Oaktree b (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it funny how here I'm accused of being related to the Mangiones. I have absolutely no relation to him, nor do I know any of his family. He is simply not relevant enough to be on the site, as users WeirdNAnnoyed and RadioKAOS have articulated far better than I can. Ré union! 05:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Well, he just hired a posh, well-known NY attorney to represent his son who murdered someone. I say he’s about to be more notable than he was before. Perhaps we should give it a few weeks. 108.160.192.62 (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Bohemian Baltimore. He clearly has has significant coverage. However, there is precedent from 2007 that this article could still be deleted to protect individuals only tangentially connected with a major crime; the subject made a direct appeal to Jimbo Wales, and then not only was the article deleted and salted, but the two AfDS were memory holed. Bearian (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b. This likely fails notability. Especially as most, if not all notability, is because of Luigi - not Louis or his career. Synorem (talk) 11:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. E_F⁵ 15:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, several reliable sources cover Louis. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bohemian Baltimore, he's notable for reasons other than his son killing some big CEO. KmartEmployeeTor (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Idek mann (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was on the fence about this one, but as time goes on there are more sources being added that support his relevancy outside of his son.Thief-River-Faller (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete Yes, there are reliable sources, and what they reliably show is that he's a reasonably successful business person of no particular note except for that son of his, whose notoriety he does not inherit. And yes, the timing does matter, because two decades of lack of interest in him here is already evidence for his lack of notability. Look if the Sun or someone were to put up a profile of him that would be a stronger argument, but when you compare his article to his father's, the paucity here is really very obvious. Mangoe (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Bohemian Baltimore OsageOrange (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is a lot of voting going on here (both ways) but little actual consideration of the sources. Bohemian Baltimore gave just two sources: The Baltimore Sun (which irritatingly presents different content in Europe to what Americans see, requiring a bit of trickery to review) and the Washington Post. Multiple articles from a single source count as one towards GNG, but that is moot because, as has already been pointed out by WeirdNAnnoyed, none of these sources count towards GNG, because none have significant coverage on Mangione. I'll take just one example: The idea is to preserve the golf courses and develop a mixed-use community around it with as much green space as possible," said Louis Mangione, "[etc.]"[17]. WP:SIGCOV requires that coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail The topic here is Mangione, and this coverage does not address him as the topic at all. Sources are required to give us something to write the page from. There is literally nothing there that we can say about Mangione. That source provides us nothing at all. It is not SIGCOV. And no, we can't use his spoken words because those are primary and not independent. Bohemian Baltimore quotes the guidance that the mention does not need to be the main topic of the source material and that is true, but it must still be significant. There is nothing we can say about Mangione from these sources. They do not meet GNG. None of them. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run of the mill business person, does not meet WP:GNG, notablity is not inherited. Orange sticker (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sirfurboy’s reasoning. While Louis Mangione has popped up in many Baltimore/DC newspaper articles over the years, the articles typically only provide the bare minimum amount of information about Mangione needed for the reader to understand his relevancy to the main article topic. These are trivial mentions, not significant coverage. The only meaningfully in-depth coverage about Mangione comes from articles about his son and father (who does actually have some significant coverage pre-dating the shooting). I don’t believe that a large number of trivial mentions and some inherited notability is enough to meet GNG. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per @Bohemian Baltimore AverageWikiContributor (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I put this as a reply. AverageWikiContributor (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS* Can someone delete this? I don't know how; AverageWikiContributor (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your duplicate per your request and left this one in place as requested here [18]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the reasons put forward by Oaktree b who said: "His business enterprise is not notable. If this was brought up to AfD six months ago, we'd delete it." Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable outside of his son being a widely-known suspect in a crime. Kingturtle = (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. But at this point, I'm leaning Delete. I think those argue for Deletion have made the argument that aside from his son's alleged crimes, he is a run-of-the-mill businessman. There are only a few sources used in the article but a source assessment and whether or not they provide SIGCOV would be useful right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG. The sources provided give the illusion of notability, but upon closer inspection, none of them offer WP:SIGCOV. They're all passing mentions. This is a clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Universe 2015

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:EVENT or WP:GNG. Furthermore, this Teen Universe competition does not have its own standalone article, suggesting limited notability for the event series as a whole. - The9Man ^Talk 08:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Beauty pageants, and Guatemala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:GNG, the fact that no other article for this event except this one raises some eyebrows. Madeline1805 (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Express Media Group

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of WP:NOTABILITY (if it still exists). I've just fixed about half a dozen incoming links intended for the Pakistani organisation of the same name. I suggest moving the Pakistani org to this name, and creating a redirect from Express Media Group (Australia) to the 4WD article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I've just discovered that Express Media Group (Pakistan) is actually just a redirect, not an article. So I suggest just making Express Media Group a redirect to the same article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hougang knife attack

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Classic case of WP:NOTNEWS—it's a tragedy for sure but there's been zero demonstration of any lasting significance... KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 07:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can always be recreated if in the future it would somehow gain more enduring notability than the countless other murders happening each year. Fram (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I thought that this made the headlines quite a lot and considering it also was reported in Malaysian and Vietnamese newspapers and not just from the local one. Plus, I also felt that in view of Singapore's low crime rate, it is not common to have such spree stabbings happen in the public where more than one victim is stabbed. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And to sideline for Comment, I might need to clarify how some shocking cases can be kept in Wikipedia when they just happen, like the River Valley High School attack and mass shootings like the Charleston Church shooting, but others of such standard need to be deleted and later recreated on Wikipedia? What standards do I need to follow to ensure it can be kept? (I am pretty sure the coverage is not a problem here.) NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 09:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every incident/article has to be assessed on its own merits. You are right that there's lots of coverage for this murder but it remains to be seen how enduring the coverage will be. I strongly urge you to better exercise your discretion (or consult others if you really can't tell). Please refrain from rushing to create an article for every single murder in the country as soon as it occurs—it's just not necessary. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 03:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's remember what the purpose of Wikipedia is and why we are writing all these articles. It would be better not to rush into writing an article as soon as the incident happens. The RVHS attack is a unique case as it happened inside a school, and from this detail alone, we can see right from the beginning that the case will have lasting significance. To put it into perspective, 5 to 10 years down the road most people will still remember the RVHS attack. At the moment I do not see the same happening for this Hougang attack. While it is getting significant coverage right now, after time has passed I do not expect many people with no connection to the case to remember it. However, this could change in the future if there are new developments. Blissfulclarity (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tragic incident. But WP:SBST. BenTanXiaoMing (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per all the coverage that this has. Davidgoodheart (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to List of major crimes in Singapore (2020–present)#2024 : Based on WP:EVENTCRIT, there is a need for 1) enduring historical significance or lasting effect N 2) widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources. While passing WP:GNG for being covered in diverse sources, there is no widespread impact. N 3) Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable is not exactly applicable here so N 4) Routine kinds of news events – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance which basically ties back to point 1 so {{n}). The knife attack fails all 4 criteria so it should fails notability for event. ~ JASWE (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to redirect to keep existing article and have a summarised version of the incident in the List of major crimes in Singapore (2020–present) article to preserve history in the event this incident sparks any reforms in the future. ~ JASWE (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I don't see a consensus here yet and I think this discussion could use a bit more time. What I'm not seeing here is a source assessment which would useful in determining whether or not this incident has the notability for a standalone article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to to List of major crimes in Singapore (2020–present)#2024. This clearly meets the GNG, with several days of national news coverage and some international coverage in the region. (For this reason, the outcome of this AfD should not put in doubt the creator's autopatrolled rights.) However, this is a rare case where I agree that the lasting effect is likely to be minimal. The attacker and victims knew each other and this is not a mass stabbing. Murder is rare in Singapore, which makes any such incident shocking to the nation, but List of major crimes in Singapore (2020–present) shows that this incident is unfortunately not unique. Toadspike [Talk] 07:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kalin (Hinduism)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:V; after searching extensively, I found no reliable sources verifying the existence of 'Kalin' in the Rigveda or Hindu mythology. Likely WP:OR. Nxcrypto Message 07:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology, Religion, and Hinduism. Nxcrypto Message 07:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Achwa 3 Hydroelectric Power Station

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not a real thing. At best this is WP:TOOSOON it was planned to open in 2022 and construction has not even started. Google search results do not establish notability. It cannot be considered a place since there is nothing there, verified with google maps. Czarking0 (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Czarking0 (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG on WP:NGEO and WP:NBUILDING. No WP:RS and WP:IS for WP:V. QEnigma talk 16:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17th SAARC summit

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough for a separate article, can be redirected to List of SAARC summits. Unilandofma (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. Unilandofma (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This article lacks WP:RS and WP:IS to meet the WP:V. The current status of the organisation is unclear and largely speculative, given the absence of summits since 2014 and the cancellation of the 2016 summit and subsequent meetings. QEnigma talk 16:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory J. Blotnick

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's unclear to me why this man's fraud conviction makes him notable. There were many people who committed PPP fraud and while large, his is not the largest or most well reported. I see a smattering of reporting, of the routine kind of reporting you usually see that is rewritten SEC or DOJ press releases.

Furthermore, I don't see how he is notable for his finance activities prior to his conviction.

This article seems to promote the man in a twisted kind of way. I am concerned about the potential COI nature of this articles creation as well, because the Wikidata item for this page/person, Gregory Blotnick (Q131440997) is being actively edited by wikidata:User:Gregory J. Blotnick so shortly after creation. William Graham ^talk 05:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, and Finance. William Graham ^talk 05:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Fleischer (judge)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article is not notable enough to warrant an article. WP:JUDGE notes that local elected officials are not presumed to be notable merely by their status. WP:SUSTAINED notes that notable topics must "have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time"; the sources in this article indicate that the subject of the article is only known for one event (chastising police in reference 6 by Yasmeen) and the rest of the sources are interviews or entries in databases like the state bar. WP:BLP1E applies here as Fleischer is only known for one event. Artwhitemaster (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Law. Artwhitemaster (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the notable thing about this guy is that he's on the streaming sites and getting attention for his videos. ABC News recently did a piece on him[19]. He got other coverage in either June or October (website gives both) in the Atlanta Black Star[20]. There's very little secondary stuff out there about him that I could identify. Oblivy (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The videos are just live-streams and video clips from his court duties, which I would say are primary sources. All the news articles about him are from selected incidents of his "best moments" calling out dubious legal evidence, like the incident that generated all that media coverage in October, which feels like a WP:BLP1E moment where he has his 15 minutes of fame, generates some secondary sources, and remains low-profile. Artwhitemaster (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'm not saying he's wikipedia notable just that he has some notability and it's not merely being a humble judge as the nomination suggests. The sourcing is an issue. Oblivy (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a pretty popular judge on YouTube where several channels cover his court proceedings. He also has his own channel where he live streams his court room. In this interview with him he talks about, among other things, his part in bail reform and other judicial reform in Texas (it's linked as a reference already, but only for bits of his personal life). Towards the end, the interview also touches on that it's pretty unique for a judge to live stream court. He responds that he does it for transparency and educational purposes to let people see how the system works and what the consequences could be, and that teachers have reached out to him regarding using his streams in classrooms. Xxc3nsoredxx (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the fact that several channels simply clip and repost his courtroom stream doesn't really do much in terms of notability, since I would consider them primary sources that aren't about him. Should every judge on Court Cam have their own wiki page? Him having his own YouTube channel also doesn't matter since the source is not independent from the subject - not even mentioning that it's not a source for the article. As for the interview, IMO his opinions on judicial reform have no bearing on whether or not to delete the article. Artwhitemaster (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I thought he met the general notability criteria rather than the criteria under judge. But I agree that it's not amazing sourcing. ^SMason_Garrison 13:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 NBA In-Season Tournament championship game

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable tournament final that is lacking in serious coverage of the game itself. Could be covered sufficiently at 2023 NBA In-Season Tournament. In it's current form, the article really isn't more than a simple summary of the game. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Basketball, California, Indiana, and Nevada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2023 NBA In-Season Tournament per nomination. Alvaldi (talk) 07:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Firstly, the tournament is notable due to its extensive media coverage, high viewership, substantial incentives, and official recognition as a major event by the NBA itself. Secondly, the coverage of the final is on par with other significant championship games, such as the 2024 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship Game, 2024 NBA Finals and MLS Cup 2024. Lastly, the page offers more than just a game summary; it includes detailed information about the rosters, pre-game context, and the aftermath. H-Hurry (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't understand this pathology to create articles for individual games when the main article can cover it just fine. Most of this page is duplicative of the tournament pages, and other details like the aftermath are welcome to be added there. Reywas92^Talk 14:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Rlendog (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 853

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, Malta, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki, too obscure. Alexlatham96 (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 860

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout, beyond a couple mentions in some books. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ ~~Has enough sources, and is a well-established code page.~~ Transwiki or Merge, because this is a search term, but not notable enough to have its own article. Alexlatham96 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have done nothing to explain how this article has adequate sourcing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One new source showing date of creation: here.Alexlatham96 (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not sufficient, since it's a trivial mention according to WP: SIGCOV. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 859

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find any sources to expand the article or establish notability. BJackJS talk 15:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, too obscure. Alexlatham96 (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexlatham96, transwiki where? -- asilvering (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to the Character Encodings Wikibook. Alexlatham96 (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 857

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ ~~Has enough sources, and is a well-established code page.~~ Transwiki or Merge, because this is a search term, but not notable enough to have its own article. Alexlatham96 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have done nothing to explain how this article has adequate sourcing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One new source showing date of creation: here.Alexlatham96 (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not sufficient, since it's a trivial mention according to WP: SIGCOV. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings and delete‎. This is a bundled close for the following AfDs:

Since each page was nominated separately, there is a certain dispersion of views among the different AfDs. But I think I speak for all--and this view was expressed in several of these AfDs--when I say that ideally, all should be handled consistently. All these AFDs have been relisted twice, which garnered a grand total of one(!) additional !vote in aggregate - nothing else in twelve days on any of them. So I see no point in keeping these AfDs open any longer.

Several participants in many of the AfDs !voted to merge the content to Code_page#DOS_code_pages, which currently only indexes the various code pages, without including any of the character tables. This approach might work for one or two such tables. But merging the dozens of different code pages, each with a 128 or 256 character table, into a single page will result in a ridiculously large and unwieldy article, which would likely head straight to a discussion about splitting it, bringing us right back to where we started.

I see broad support for a transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings, where the information would fit in nicely with the various appendices. This isn't the first time this is being done. We faced a similar situation in 2020. So rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll follow the same approach taken by the now-retired closing admin there, and invite editors, ideally those with the wikibooks transwiki import permission, to carry out the move within the next 30 days (or longer if required), at the end of which I or any admin will delete the pages here. Please ping me when you're done, or if extra time is needed.

If there are similar pages that I missed, or ones that haven't been nominated, feel free to boldly carry out the transwiki move, linking to this AfD in your edit summary when tagging the page for deletion. Owen× ☎ 18:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 856

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has enough sources, and is a well-established code page. ~~I now have no decision about this one.~~ Transwiki, no sources. Alexlatham96 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have done nothing to explain how this article has adequate sourcing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:15, 18 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.

Code page 1169

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, and Asia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki No sources. Alexlatham96 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 855

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout, besides maybe one trivial mention in a book. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, Bulgaria, North Macedonia, and Serbia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ ~~Has enough sources, and is a well-established code page.~~ Transwiki or Merge, because this is a search term, but not notable enough to have its own article. Alexlatham96 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have done nothing to explain how this article has adequate sourcing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One new source showing date of creation: here.Alexlatham96 (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a trivial mention, which doesn't meet WP: SIGCOV. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings and delete‎. This is a bundled close for the following AfDs:

Since each page was nominated separately, there is a certain dispersion of views among the different AfDs. But I think I speak for all--and this view was expressed in several of these AfDs--when I say that ideally, all should be handled consistently. All these AFDs have been relisted twice, which garnered a grand total of one(!) additional !vote in aggregate - nothing else in twelve days on any of them. So I see no point in keeping these AfDs open any longer.

Several participants in many of the AfDs !voted to merge the content to Code_page#DOS_code_pages, which currently only indexes the various code pages, without including any of the character tables. This approach might work for one or two such tables. But merging the dozens of different code pages, each with a 128 or 256 character table, into a single page will result in a ridiculously large and unwieldy article, which would likely head straight to a discussion about splitting it, bringing us right back to where we started.

I see broad support for a transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings, where the information would fit in nicely with the various appendices. This isn't the first time this is being done. We faced a similar situation in 2020. So rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll follow the same approach taken by the now-retired closing admin there, and invite editors, ideally those with the wikibooks transwiki import permission, to carry out the move within the next 30 days (or longer if required), at the end of which I or any admin will delete the pages here. Please ping me when you're done, or if extra time is needed.

If there are similar pages that I missed, or ones that haven't been nominated, feel free to boldly carry out the transwiki move, linking to this AfD in your edit summary when tagging the page for deletion. Owen× ☎ 18:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 852

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ ~~Has enough sources, and is a well-established code page.~~ Transwiki or Merge, because this is a search term, but does not appear to be notable enough to have its own article. Alexlatham96 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have done nothing to explain how this article has adequate sourcing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found 2 sources showing date of creation: here and here. Do these solve the problem?Alexlatham96 (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. We generally don't consider blogs to be authoritative sources, and the other page looks like a bunch of documentation that defines the contents of code pages but provides little information beyond that. Neither source establishes notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:15, 18 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.

Code page 851

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout, including the six currently in the article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki Alexlatham96 (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings and delete‎. This is a bundled close for the following AfDs:

Since each page was nominated separately, there is a certain dispersion of views among the different AfDs. But I think I speak for all--and this view was expressed in several of these AfDs--when I say that ideally, all should be handled consistently. All these AFDs have been relisted twice, which garnered a grand total of one(!) additional !vote in aggregate - nothing else in twelve days on any of them. So I see no point in keeping these AfDs open any longer.

Several participants in many of the AfDs !voted to merge the content to Code_page#DOS_code_pages, which currently only indexes the various code pages, without including any of the character tables. This approach might work for one or two such tables. But merging the dozens of different code pages, each with a 128 or 256 character table, into a single page will result in a ridiculously large and unwieldy article, which would likely head straight to a discussion about splitting it, bringing us right back to where we started.

I see broad support for a transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings, where the information would fit in nicely with the various appendices. This isn't the first time this is being done. We faced a similar situation in 2020. So rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll follow the same approach taken by the now-retired closing admin there, and invite editors, ideally those with the wikibooks transwiki import permission, to carry out the move within the next 30 days (or longer if required), at the end of which I or any admin will delete the pages here. Please ping me when you're done, or if extra time is needed.

If there are similar pages that I missed, or ones that haven't been nominated, feel free to boldly carry out the transwiki move, linking to this AfD in your edit summary when tagging the page for deletion. Owen× ☎ 18:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 720

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout, including the six currently in the article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Twinkle could not notify the article creator because they're indefinitely banned. If there's any users I should notify about this AfD, please let me know. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although a redirect to Code page#DOS code pages could work in theory, I seriously doubt the article has enough views to warrant an optimal redirect. Conyo14 (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:14, 18 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.

Code page 708

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 668

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Transwiki per @Davemc0.– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 778

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki this and the related LST 1590-4. Alexlatham96 (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings and delete‎. This is a bundled close for the following AfDs:

Since each page was nominated separately, there is a certain dispersion of views among the different AfDs. But I think I speak for all--and this view was expressed in several of these AfDs--when I say that ideally, all should be handled consistently. All these AFDs have been relisted twice, which garnered a grand total of one(!) additional !vote in aggregate - nothing else in twelve days on any of them. So I see no point in keeping these AfDs open any longer.

Several participants in many of the AfDs !voted to merge the content to Code_page#DOS_code_pages, which currently only indexes the various code pages, without including any of the character tables. This approach might work for one or two such tables. But merging the dozens of different code pages, each with a 128 or 256 character table, into a single page will result in a ridiculously large and unwieldy article, which would likely head straight to a discussion about splitting it, bringing us right back to where we started.

I see broad support for a transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings, where the information would fit in nicely with the various appendices. This isn't the first time this is being done. We faced a similar situation in 2020. So rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll follow the same approach taken by the now-retired closing admin there, and invite editors, ideally those with the wikibooks transwiki import permission, to carry out the move within the next 30 days (or longer if required), at the end of which I or any admin will delete the pages here. Please ping me when you're done, or if extra time is needed.

If there are similar pages that I missed, or ones that haven't been nominated, feel free to boldly carry out the transwiki move, linking to this AfD in your edit summary when tagging the page for deletion. Owen× ☎ 18:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 775

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. Most of the sources describe what the code page layout is but don't provide any information beyond that. The remaining source(s) don't look reliable or don't give us significant information about the code page with which we could use to build an article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ ~~Has enough sources, and is a well-established code page.~~ Transwiki or Merge, because this is a search term, but does not appear to be notable enough to have its own article. Alexlatham96 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have done nothing to explain how this article has adequate sourcing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:14, 18 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.

Code page 777

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki Alexlatham96 (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 776

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki Alexlatham96 (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings and delete‎. This is a bundled close for the following AfDs:

Since each page was nominated separately, there is a certain dispersion of views among the different AfDs. But I think I speak for all--and this view was expressed in several of these AfDs--when I say that ideally, all should be handled consistently. All these AFDs have been relisted twice, which garnered a grand total of one(!) additional !vote in aggregate - nothing else in twelve days on any of them. So I see no point in keeping these AfDs open any longer.

Several participants in many of the AfDs !voted to merge the content to Code_page#DOS_code_pages, which currently only indexes the various code pages, without including any of the character tables. This approach might work for one or two such tables. But merging the dozens of different code pages, each with a 128 or 256 character table, into a single page will result in a ridiculously large and unwieldy article, which would likely head straight to a discussion about splitting it, bringing us right back to where we started.

I see broad support for a transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings, where the information would fit in nicely with the various appendices. This isn't the first time this is being done. We faced a similar situation in 2020. So rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll follow the same approach taken by the now-retired closing admin there, and invite editors, ideally those with the wikibooks transwiki import permission, to carry out the move within the next 30 days (or longer if required), at the end of which I or any admin will delete the pages here. Please ping me when you're done, or if extra time is needed.

If there are similar pages that I missed, or ones that haven't been nominated, feel free to boldly carry out the transwiki move, linking to this AfD in your edit summary when tagging the page for deletion. Owen× ☎ 18:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 773

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki Alexlatham96 (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:13, 18 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 transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings and delete‎. This is a bundled close for the following AfDs:

Since each page was nominated separately, there is a certain dispersion of views among the different AfDs. But I think I speak for all--and this view was expressed in several of these AfDs--when I say that ideally, all should be handled consistently. All these AFDs have been relisted twice, which garnered a grand total of one(!) additional !vote in aggregate - nothing else in twelve days on any of them. So I see no point in keeping these AfDs open any longer.

Several participants in many of the AfDs !voted to merge the content to Code_page#DOS_code_pages, which currently only indexes the various code pages, without including any of the character tables. This approach might work for one or two such tables. But merging the dozens of different code pages, each with a 128 or 256 character table, into a single page will result in a ridiculously large and unwieldy article, which would likely head straight to a discussion about splitting it, bringing us right back to where we started.

I see broad support for a transwiki to wikibooks:Character_Encodings, where the information would fit in nicely with the various appendices. This isn't the first time this is being done. We faced a similar situation in 2020. So rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll follow the same approach taken by the now-retired closing admin there, and invite editors, ideally those with the wikibooks transwiki import permission, to carry out the move within the next 30 days (or longer if required), at the end of which I or any admin will delete the pages here. Please ping me when you're done, or if extra time is needed.

If there are similar pages that I missed, or ones that haven't been nominated, feel free to boldly carry out the transwiki move, linking to this AfD in your edit summary when tagging the page for deletion. Owen× ☎ 18:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 770

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. The creator of the article added one source that provides a trivial mention of the subject, then dePRODed the article. Without sufficient sourcing improvements, this article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good idea to dump this. Possibly the article listing code page numbers could add a word saying what language the page is designed for.

Please also try to get rid of the cruft added to actual influential code pages, such as code page 850 which have been padded with a number of obscure code pages that are "similar". Spitzak (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some of this.Alexlatham96 (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend to merge the deletion discussions and transwiki all, but ~~keep~~ redirect to the DOS code pages article the more well-known code pages (775, 852, 855, 857, and 860) ~~especially only if sources are found.~~ and link to the tables for now (but at some point start a discussion on which tables can be added in the DOS code pages article). ~~I want to keep 851 as well, but sourcing may be inadequate.~~ Others facing deletion are: Code page 708, Code page 720, Code page 773, Code page 775, Code page 776, Code page 777, Code page 778, Code page 851, Code page 852, Code page 853, Code page 855, Code page 856, Code page 857, Code page 3846, Code page 859, Code page 860, Code page 1169. Alexlatham96 (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTMANUAL, is there any reason to keep any of these CP articles as free-standing articles (rather than merely sections of a broad concept article, code page)? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this material to another wiki is functionally the same as a delete vote to me, because it indicates that the material does not belong on Wikipedia. I don't care what you do with any of this material after it's deleted as long as it's off Wikipedia. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having them in a central article about code pages is my preferred solution. DRMcCreedy (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how one article with many tables is any better than many articles with one table... HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having them default to collapsed would be at least a start. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think only the more well-known code pages should be listed in the article. The rest can transwiki. Of these, only code page 852 has more than 4 articles in other languages. What makes it unique? Alexlatham96 (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily disagree, but I'm primarily concerned with whether this content is appropriate to host on Wikipedia in the first place. At the end of the day, these pages just contain a massive amount of documentation, and we are not a website for hosting documentation. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see one article with many tables as better because a table is not a separate entity that is tracked, discussed, considered for deletion, etc. We're seeing a case of it right here. There are 20 AfD discussions going on because these are separate articles. One article could be dealt with much more efficiently in all ways. Many people might perceive the separate articles with a sense of cruft. Davemc0 (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These were nominated as separate articles because I have never done a bulk nomination. If I could go back in time and bulk nominate them, I would. There are some other code page articles that I have yet to nominate. Those will likely be done in bulk, because I do find managing this many nominations to be a bit of a mess. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we do not keep articles because we hope that there are good sources out there or because you claim they are "well-known". Hope does not establish notability: tangible, high-quality sources do. If a subject is as well known as you claim, you should have no issue finding such sources. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a source for Code page 852 here and a source here for DOS code pages, but I don't know if they pass guidelines. Maybe it is best to transwiki all of them, or at least the ones with no sources.Alexlatham96 (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Neither passes the guidelines -- we generally don't consider blogs to be authoritative sources, and the other page looks like a bunch of documentation that defines the contents of code pages but provides little information beyond that. I don't know how much time you spend in AfD, but the policy you're looking for is WP: SIGCOV. In the future, you should make sure that whatever sources you find meet all of the criteria there. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This content fits very nicely with the wikibook. I have not looked into which code pages are notable, but it seems to me that those that are not should be transwikied there. I'm more concerned that they are on some wiki rather than which wiki. I also think that these are all plausible search terms, and they should ideally redirect to something more specific than the lede of Code page. McYeee (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems like a nice solution to me. Davemc0 (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should be merged with other articles. Not deleted outright. GalaxyDoge72 (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above.Davemc0 (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Transwiki

More discussion regarding whether to have a central article about code pages on Wikipedia, or to transwiki it to some subpage of wikibooks:Character_Encodings would be helpful here.

...how about both?

Would make sense, at least, to me, to have all of these pages merged into one big "DOS Code pages" article, but also include them in the wikibooks article aswell. Madeline1805 (talk) 14:18, 18 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.

Deterministic simulation testing

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This term seems to only be used by a fairly small group of companies, I'm not sure the methodology is currently notable enough to warrant an article. WP:BEFORE search turns up a fair amount of results, but they mostly seem to be primary sources or unreliable blogs. I think we need more reliable secondary sources covering this topic before it can be an article.

Considering the article in its current state, I don't think it provides much value as a stub. Every current reference is only indirectly relevant, none speaks directly to the topic or includes the phrase "deterministic simulation testing". There are 2 external links, and only one uses the phrase. StereoFolic (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. StereoFolic (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are many Internet forums that can explain this better, even on Reddit, it is explained well at the moment, not here. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The Delete "vote" is from a blocked editor so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article fails to establish general notability as per WP:GNG and requires improvement in formatting. Furthermore, the content appears to be more suitable for a blog or website rather than a Wikipedia article, as it can be commonly found on such platforms. As such, it does not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion seeDev ClassThanks for your contributions to the sum of all knowledge. Royalesignature (talk). 02:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
_{Sorry, that last sentence kinda gave off a bit of snark, at the very least to me.}

This article would make sense to merge into a greater article, but I'm not sure which, so I'll hold my vote until then. Madeline1805 (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mangral

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is entirely unsourced and poorly written. The underlying purpose of the article seems to be to glorify the community rather than write an encyclopaedic article. The books detailed at the bottom of the article don't seem particularly reliable either and no page numbers are provided. Ixudi (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan and India. Ixudi (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jammu and Kashmir-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think deleting is right answer because this is a real people group. This book seems to indicate the mangral are a clan of the Dogra people. Here is some content on the people group. I'm not an expert on the people groups of Pakistan but this should either be stubified or redirected or merged under WP:ATD at the very least. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I only saw this late at night. To help out, I only had time to add the above book reference given above by

4meter4. Hope other editors also chip in because it's a lengthy article that somehow ended up without any References....Ngrewal1 (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: For now its not ready for main space. If people want to contribute than they can do so in Draft space. Wikibear47 (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there support for draftifying this article rather than simply deleting it?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why outsiders having zero knowledge about the tribe and it's people are so worried about "references" when those are already mentioned, not to mention someone entionedua reference classifying us s Dogras (whofare also Rajputs) rom a book published in 2008 kek RajaAtiqMangral (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why outsiders having zero knowledge about the tribe and it's people are so worried about "references" when those are already mentioned, not to mention someone gave a reference classifying us as Dogras (who are also Rajputs mind you) from a book published in 2008 kek* RajaAtiqMangral (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No comments on draftifying; anyone?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This has been tagged since 2011 with no changes to the sourcing, delete it and be done with it. These articles with no sourcing don't help build trust in Wikipedia projects. Draftifying this when it's been tagged since 2011 won't help it. Oaktree b (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I've seen articles tagged 2008, 2006, and earlier. I don't see how your point stands. Madeline1805 (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, I see no consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arms trade

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Before people go nuts about this, I am AfDing the disambiguation page at this location and not the concept of "arms trade". It seems like the clear and obvious primary topic for a redirect is arms industry as arms trafficking/weapon smuggling is usually called... well, that. Alternatively, if the page is independently notable, WP:REDLINK applies and it should be opened up to article creation. Either way, a DAB page does not belong here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Technology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should redirect Arms trade->Arms industry, Arms industry is clearly the primary topic. according to pageviews I think putting Small arms trade and arms trafficking in the hat notes for arms industry would suffice, although moving the existing page to Arms trade (disambiguation), and having that in the hatnotes would be fine too. I'm not sure this even needs an AFD, you could probably just withdraw the AFD and make the change! JeffUK 09:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I am not sure this needs to exist at all. Small arms trade falls under WP:PTM. Arms trafficking can be in a hatnote. That's why I went for AfD rather than moving the page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Progressives

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No inherent notability, has little notice from independent sources. No electoral success and has been de-registered by the Australian Electoral Commission for 2 years Flat Out (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Flat Out (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I note that this is the third nomination and that the last nomination failed to reach consensus, however the article is largely unsourced and has mostly only passing mentions in independent sources. Flat Out (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find one secondary source (already in use in the article), which is reliable and which covers the party in depth. I've just read the arguments from previous AFDs and it seems that some participants in those thought that our notability guidelines should be relaxed when it comes to minor political parties. That argument has no basis in WP:PAG. TarnishedPath^talk 08:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Dearth of reliable sources, political parties are not inherently notable. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of historical political parties in Australia#Parties without representation. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The party is not in that list. Redirection is not an alternative to deletion in such circumstance. TarnishedPath^talk 02:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. It is now. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete _{or possibly Rescope, though you could argue WP:TNT in this case}, I think that if the article has been nominated three times, but never got deleted, that speaks to me that this article doesn't meet quality guidelines. Madeline1805 (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]