Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 08 January 10 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feri Lawid

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

No demonstration of notability. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kristal Kola

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

Not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gazozlu (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arshiya Das

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

PROD was contested so bringing here. Does not appear to meet WP:NCHESS or WP:GNG. The Pradhan Mantri Rashtriya Bal Puraskar does not appear to automatically confer notability Melcous (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


The result was delete. BD2412 T 17:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alois Toldt

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

I could find no reference to him beyond works for sale on auction sites and similar: fails WP:NARTIST Ingratis (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen nothing in Getty ULAN, nothing in JStor; Gbooks and GScholar brings up anatomy works but I think it's a different person that illustrated them. Oaktree b (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Carl Toldt, Alois Dalla Rosa" - Ingratis (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A search online reveals nothing other than the works at auction. We know he existed because his work exists, but auction sites are for selling art, they are not reliable sources for establishing notability. One would think if he were important in his time or currently, he would be in one of the National Dictionaries of Artists, yet nothing was found in English, German and French. Netherzone (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Imran Mahmudul. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2023) 03:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Eshona

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

Song fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. The sole source lists it among most-viewed Bengali-language songs on YouTube for 2016. YouTube views are widely offered for sale, so that metric is questionable. Even if the count reliably indicated popularity on YouTube, the list would be a single-network chart, which Wikipedia:Record charts says "are generally unsuitable for inclusion in articles". Searches in English and Bengali found no significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources.

Redirect to singer Imran Mahmudul is possible, but beyond the basic credits there's no reliably sourced encyclopedic content to merge. Worldbruce (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Hopefully this will give people time to look for some more sources offline, and if the article proves inexpandable it can be nominated again. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manush Patrika

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

Can't find any independent and significant coverage about the newspaper in internet. Fails WP:GNG. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 18:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - the article already says its not notable: "circulation is mainly limited to Tripura,..." Even assuming it is claimed to be notable, I don't see significant evidence. Bearian (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tripura has a population of 4 million, that's not an insignficiant population. In January 1982 the Press Council ruled in favour of the paper regarding the withdrawal of state government advertising due to articles critial of the government.[1][2] In 2010 it was the fourth highest selling daily newspaper in the state.[3] It's more than reasonable to assume that there would be much more available in Bengali and in offline sources.

References

  1. ^ Loghani, Usha (1986). Violation of Freedom of the Press: A Compendium of Adjudications Rendered by the Press Council of India. N.M. Tripathi. p. 69.
  2. ^ "A brief diary of attacks on the press". web.archive.org.
  3. ^ "Mass Communication - NEDFi Databank". web.archive.org. 3 April 2010.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist to give editors time to respond to Goldsztajn's argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: squeaks by WP:GNG, but probably more sources closer to home area. Tripura's 4 million would make it larger than half of the US states (26) and all of the territories.  // Timothy :: talk  21:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The result was keep. Basically a WP:SNOW close, as there is no reasonable possibility that a result other than a consensus to keep will emerge at this juncture. BD2412 T 17:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2026 United States attorney general elections

[edit]
2026 United States attorney general elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

3 years in the future, theres also barely any refrences either. It is WP:TOOSOON to become a article, maybe make it a draft for best outcome `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 20:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep while it would be too soon for individual articles, i don't think WP:TOOSOON would apply to a general article for all 2026 AG elections. References will also begin to appear as current AG's and potential candidates announce if they are running in 2026. -- Epluribusunumyall (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. It's of course agreed that rivalries are not presumed notable, but to the extent there is debate about significant coverage and reliable sourcing, there is a rough consensus that, for this particular rivalry, enough coverage exists for retaining the article. In particular, there isn't much of a direct rebuttal to the sourcing that explicitly discusses the rivalry. I feel a redirect to the List of tennis rivalries would constitute a !supervote given the weight of the arguments here, as viewed through the lens of policy. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Medvedev–Tsitsipas rivalry

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

Per tennis project and Wikipedia guidelines, this is not a legitimate article-worthy rivalry. If it's a rivalry : According to WP:NRIVALRY, rivalries are not inherently notable. "We can only have articles about tennis rivalries if there is significant media coverage about the rivalry. For example, great rivalries like Agassi–Sampras or Federer–Nadal warrant an article, but articles about rivalries like Agassi–Rafter and Federer–Hewitt have been deleted by the community. Tennis is a sport where closely ranked players wind up playing a lot... it's inherent. This is not a rivalry that the press talks endlessly about like Federer vs Nadal or Laver vs Rosewall. If in doubt, consult Wikiproject Tennis before creating a new rivalry article." Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There does seem to be significant coverage from multiple reliable sources about this rivalry which are already in the article. Specifically these sources - [1], [2], [3], [4] - all describe this as a rivalry and discuss it in some depth (i.e., go beyond listing stats/match results). There is also [5] which I can't access because of a paywall but looks promising. WJ94 (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hi, creator of the article here. I wrote to the nominator earlier today on the talk page, explaining with sources how the article meets GNG, and I had hoped to continue any discussion there, though I could've been clearer about that. [I won't suggest a merge myself – I think the article stands alone well – but considering that option is to me much preferable to nominating for deletion (!).] Anyway, want to mention I'm not under the illusion that Medvedev–Tsitsipas is at all as "great" (nominator's word) as Federer–Nadal, but that's a really high bar. And there is of course a lot of routine coverage of Med–Stef matches, but (as WJ94 noted) there's also more than that. Here are a couple more sources not currently cited that show the importance/uniqueness of Med–Tsitsipas: [6] ("closest thing we have to a blood feud"), [7], [8] (Med: "Every match against Stefanos is kind of special"). Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And as I pointed out, rivalries/head-to-heads are inherent in the sport. That doesn't mean we create a rivalry page for every two players. We try to create rivalry articles for truly great massive press reported rivalries. Evert-Navratilova for one. Graf-Seles is another. Otherwise a section on the players articles in question is most always the best option. Most created rivalry articles get deleted once the general wikipedia populous looks closely at the situation. Most head-to-head confrontations don't even warrant a mention on an individual player's article... a few head-to-heads (like Hewett-Federer) get a paragraph on the player's article showing it is more significant than their other head-to-heads... and a very few turn out to be rivalries that highlight the sport in question and deserve a stand-alone rivalry article. You can always bring an Rfc to the Tennis Project and WP:NRIVALRY to change the Tennis Project guidelines on rivalries. Maybe this one is a really unique professional tennis head-to-head, but I'm not convinced. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fyunck(click) - No one is suggesting that this rivalry has inherited its notability; the argument is that the rivalry has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. We don't need an RfC on this because what is being discussed is the general notability guideline, and no Wikiproject can overturn a a generally accepted guideline like GNG (WP:CONLEVEL). In any case, the guidance you link to refers back to WP:NRIVALRY which just refers back to the WP:GNG - and the point being made here is that this rivalry does meet the GNG. You say that we only create articles for truly great massive press reported rivalries, but how do we deice which rivalries are truly great? The only way Wikipedia has to decide this is through an evaluation of reliable sources (i.e., the GNG). Sufficient reliable sources which give significant coverage to this rivalry have been provided. If you still think the article should be deleted, please explain why you believe the sources provided in the article and by Hameltion do not constitute significant coverage. WJ94 (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a big difference between talking about a rivalry between a couple players where it is notable enough to add to an individual's article. We may know Serena Williams show size and have it sourced multiple times but we don't add it to her article. Likewise we may see some sources that mention a rivalry but again that doesn't mean it always gets added to an individual article... we may have undue weight to deal with. If we do find enough then adding to the individual article where it is more likely to be kept updated is the best place to put that notable info. It is a huge step to say it's notable compared with jumping on an individual stand-alone article. What has been created is better served on these individual player bios... probably with a collapsible head-to-head. This is not worthy of an individual article at this time. The small amount of sourced data at best should be merged and at worst removed imho. We'll see what other think in the next few weeks of interest. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Burmese people in China

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

Unsourced WP:OR since its creation. The page has been changed to a redirect on multiple occasions (to Chinese people in Myanmar, a destination that has been argued is not appropriate) but the entirely unsourced article has repeatedly been restored. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that I'd oppose salting this at the moment. This page has not been repeatedly recreated (since it's not yet been deleted); rather, there has been an edit war concerning the redirection or not of the page, resulting in the article being taken to AfD. If this page is repeatedly recreated after being deleted at AfD then it should be salted, but not as a pre-emptive measure. I can plausibly see a new/uninvolved editor creating an article with this title using sources that no one has found yet (perhaps in Chinese or Burmese, as Mccapra says); ideally such an editor should be able to create such an article without any difficulties. WJ94 (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(from ANI) It is possible to write a policy-compliant article about Burmese refugees and other Burmese people living in China, similar to Burmese people in Japan, Burmese community in India (and of course, Chinese people in Myanmar); see generally Category:Burmese diaspora and {{Burmese diaspora}}. E.g., The bulk of these Burmese expatriate communities (both forced and voluntary) are found in Thailand (probably approximately 2 million), with significant groups in Bangladesh, Malaysia and Pakistan, smaller communities in India, China and Singapore [9]; Border cities in Yunnan, China, have become attractive destinations among Myanmar migrants [10], also [11] (this article examines Myanmar’s internally displaced persons (IDPs) at the border between Myanmar and China and how they cross the border for new livelihood opportunities), [12] (...7,000-10,000 have sought refuge across the border in Yunnan Province in southwestern China.), [13] (Up to 10,000 Kachins have sought refuge in the southwestern Chinese province of Yunnan), [14] (Before the coronavirus outbreak, about 50,000 people crossed the border every day, including Myanmar people who work or have residency in China), [15], [16]. So, this article could be kept and tagged {{unsourced}}, or redirected to Burmese diaspora and tagged {{r with possibilities}}, but definitely not delete and salt. Levivich (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • TNT Salting this article is definitely the wrong move. It would be fair to delete. I'm inclined to WP:TNT and rewrite the article from scratch using reliable sources later. From a quick Google Scholar search, I found a reliable articles about Burmese people in China easily (e.g Border Control, Culture in Taiwan, Human Trafficking and Brides and Borderland peoples). If this article has been a target for disruptive edits, it may be better to expand Burmese diaspora and redirect this page to a new section there.
EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be very keen to see what you make of it - it does look like there are reliable sources to write a good article. I agree with you on WP:TNT - there's nothing to salvage in the article as it presently exists, so deleting or redirecting seems reasonable unless someone makes some radical changes before the AfD closes. WJ94 (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aminhossein Rad

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

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains(talk) 19:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's a crypto person that dreamed of going to the USA? That's hardly notable... Lots of coverage found in the "United Business Journal", which seems to have more coverage on Netflix shows and James Cordon as well, so it's not a RS. More crypto fluff it seems. Oaktree b (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Nicaragua Supranational

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

Not a notable pageant, none of the three sources in the article mention Nicaragua, and the current holder gets hardly any Google hits, most from blogs, facebook, ... Fram (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 16:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moran Mano

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

The article was previously deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moran Mano and was re-created recently. It was nominated for speed under WP:G4 but the current state showed changes from its original state. I removed the speedy but still beleive it should be deleted and would like some further discussion. To me, the article fails WP:GNG and appears also to be promotional in nature, violating the policy WP:PROMOTION. Paul McDonald (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The consular position doesn't seem notable. The article seems to hang its hat on his father, I don't see much notability for this person. Routine business mentions. The socks from last time are a red flag as well. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There’s no claim of notability in the article. The subject comes from a wealthy family, went to university and works in the family business. Nothing to see here. Mccapra (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 16:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guvvala Kennedy

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

Virtually unreferenced, and promotional. Has been moved back and forth, so draftifying isn't an option. (Previous AfD was interrupted by creator moving this back to drafts, but doesn't want to keep it there.) Sources cited are nowhere near enough for WP:GNG notability, and a search finds nothing better. There's also no indication, let alone evidence, that this would satisfy WP:ARTIST either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I'm usually very open to ATD but I don't see much here to Merge with an article on the city. Liz Read! Talk! 16:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Taichung Voice

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

Little to no information can be found on Google. The only source in the article lacks significant mentions Cbliu (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Complex/Rational 14:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Srushti Jayant Deshmukh

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

Per WP:BLP1E, not notable for anything beyond a single event. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Complex/Rational 14:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Strack

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

Strack seems to be a WP:ROTM evangelist, displaying nothing sufficiently notable to pass WP:BIO. He's been appointed by various presidents to do various things, but nothing stands out as notable. Of the references I have checked (about half) the majority show Strack exists, or are interviews with him, or are things he has said, lending to the feeling that this is WP:ADMASQ 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm not seeing GNG. I tried looking for critical reviews of his books for AUTHOR, I can only find sites selling the books; other links are confirmation of where he works and various interviews or a website offering his services as a speaker for your event. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The nominator beat me to it. Here's a table with my assessment of the sources. None contribute to WP:GNG. I haven't Googled for others.
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Curb Safe Charmer
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Student Leadership University No From the organisation he founded ✘ No
Charleston Southern University No ✘ No
Houston Christian University No Strack talking about himself ✘ No
Charleston Southern University No Press release Yes ✘ No
Southern Baptist Evangelists No Organisation he was a key figure in ✘ No
Pat Williams No Co-authored book with him ✘ No
New York Times Yes WP:NYTIMES No Eight word quotation ✘ No
Baptist Press No WP:PRIMARY coverage of what Strack said at an event, according to someone who was there ✘ No
Palm Beach Atlantic University No No Press release announcing that Strack would speak at the university's event ✘ No
Baptist Press Yes Balanced piece, just reporting what was said No All about what Strack said, but it is WP:PRIMARY coverage with no analysis or commentary, and primary coverage doesn't help establish notability ✘ No
Student Leadership University No From the organisation he founded No Lists him as a speaker at one of their events ✘ No
Baptist Press No Strack talking about himself ✘ No
Christianity Today Yes This piece seems independently written ? Four paragraphs summarising Strack's background ? Unknown
Baptist Press No One sentence, verifying the statement the ref follows ✘ No
Reagan Library Yes Yes No Confirms that there's a copy of a book by Strack in a box in the library ✘ No
Washington Post Yes No Just a mention confirming that he was part of the group ✘ No
The News Press No Mostly based on quotes from Strack Yes ✘ No
Washington Examiner Yes Per Wikipedia:Perennial sources No Just a mention in a list of advisers ✘ No
The American Presidency Project No Trump campaign press release No Just a mention in a list of advisers ✘ No
Fox News No ? I couldn't get the video to play ✘ No
Golden Lab Bookshop No Dead link, but if it worked, it would just confirm that he was the editor of a particular book ✘ No
Tampa Bay Times Yes No No mention of Strack ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 16:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Fox (diplomat)

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

When I created these articles, I mistakenly assumed that ambassadors would be notable just by holding the office. Having learned that isn't the case, I guess the coverage here is just routine, and they should be deleted.

I am nominating the following related articles, all created by me:

Josephine Gauld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bryony Mathew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Daniel Pruce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Matthew Hedges (diplomat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Duncan Norman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Laure Beaufils (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

JohnmgKing (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

changing !vote to delete all. LibStar (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Irish rebel song#List of notable songs. Liz Read! Talk! 16:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Join the British Army

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. Whilst it's not an obscure rebel song as it's been covered by The Dubliners and many other people, I haven't been able to find any significant coverage that would support the article's inclusion on wikipedia. I've also tried to find some sources by using the song's alternative title "Fuck the British Army" but still found nothing. Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Obviously needs referencing and something to show GNG is met. If this doesn't happen, sadly, this needs to go as poorly referenced (or, well, unreferenced) historical trivia. My BEFORE failed at finding anything useful; the generic name of the song doesn't help. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Complex/Rational 14:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infamous Assassinations

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

The article has no sources and doesn't appear to have any significant coverage at all (WP:NTV). Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 09:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Filipinos in Honduras

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

Very small group (might be smaller even than the article suggests), which doesn't appear to have been the subject of significant coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: Founded sources for the article: [18] [19] [20] SeanJ 2007 (talk) 10:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]

  • The first two of those are about diplomatic relations between the Philippines and Honduras, not about Filipinos in Honduras. The third one mentions Filipinos in Honduras but offers no depth of coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Sxplay

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

Last time I nominated this article for deletion, I withdrew my nomination because a similar title I nominated shortly after apparently had hidden sources. No edits have been made to demonstrate that this topic warrants its own article. I just did a search again with a different search engine and while I am getting sources, the question now is if mentions of these sources are significant enough for the topic to warrant an article. I can't assess foreign language sources but I can say that, ignoring the contents and just looking at the listed sources, this article does not demonstrate that it meets notability guidelines. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 08:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. There are Weak Keeps here but they are a consensus to Keep nevertheless. I expect if this article isn't further improved, it might return for a second visit to AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Richard May

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

A businessman who attained a senior role, but otherwise not presented nor referenced as passing WP:BIO 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Australia. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This article should not be deleted as it is still in the planning and editing phases. To remove this article would be premature and inappropriate. Also, to except people who were exceptional in a particular area of expertise is not foreign for Wikipedia but rather common. Including this page on James Richard May is part of giving further information to the general public on matters that concern them and are interested in the most. I do hope that this deletion intent will be withdrawn. Carey3146 (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I though the Centenary Medal might help with notability but it doesn’t seem so. Otherwise a distinguished career but nothing that makes him notable in our terms.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs)
  • Weak keep There is little claim to wiki-notability in the article yet, but the citations for the honorary degrees and Centenary Medal hint that there ought to be something. Unfortunately, most of his career was between Trove and modern internet references, and it's hard to find material that might be about him not James May. He might meet WP:NACADEMIC criterion 2 or 3, but it's not clear. --Scott Davis Talk 14:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Scott Davis - happy to give this one the benefit of the doubt, seems to have had a significant career in metallurgy (see for example, also won the 1992 Eureka Prize which is one of Australia's most prestigious science awards) - but also needs a cleanup. Deus et lex (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it possible to rename ‘James Richard May’ to ‘Jim May (businessman)’ instead? Carey3146 (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Scott Davis. Seems to have played a significant role in his field, even if that field is somewhat niche. The creator of the article, and anyone else wanting to expand, should absolutely get a chance to do so to prove notability. Kaffe42 (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Carey3146 (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vega flight VV02

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Vega flight VV02 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Following this AfD discussion on articles about Ariane launches, I am nominating this series of articles about Vega launches as they similarly fail the general notability guideline as simple, routine satellite launches. I have exempted Vega flight VV01 as the maiden flight of the Vega family, Vega flight VV15 as a high-profile launch failure involving another country's military satellite and a historically large insurance payout, Vega flight VV16 as the maiden flight of Arianespace's Small Spacecraft Mission Service (SSMS), and Vega flight VV22 as a notable launch failure of a brand new rocket.

Vega flight VV03 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vega flight VV04 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vega flight VV05 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vega flight VV06 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vega flight VV07 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vega flight VV08 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vega flight VV09 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vega flight VV10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vega flight VV11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vega flight VV12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vega flight VV13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vega flight VV14 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vega flight VV17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vega flight VV18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vega flight VV19 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vega flight VV20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

— Molly Brown (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to List of Vega launches besides the ones you listed above, the merge will cover them for general purposes.
Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD should have some deletion sorting so that editors interested in this subject are alerted to this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While I understand the overall sentiment especially as other launch vehicle missions (Atlas, Ariane, etc) did not generate articles for individual launches, there is a clear tendency on the CRS (ISS cargo) missions to generate a unique article for each. For commercial crew, I understand desire for an article (crew interest, etc) but if these Vega missions were deleted, is there a view that the CRS mission pages would also be subject to deletion by the same notability criteria? If there is an editor that wants to generate the material and properly reference it, I am not opposed to it staying. That said, I am not a "hard keep" but would recommend consistency relative to missions like CRS. SpaceHist65 (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel that the comparison should instead be that there are no seperate articles for the Falcon 9 flights that launches the CRS missions, and that the launches are adequately covered in the articles of the missions themselves. In a similar vein, an article like Vega flight VV04 does not need to exist when the launch can be adequately covered in Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle. It would not be a consistency problem at all, in my opinion. — Molly Brown (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Everything we need to know can be in a list not separate articles Chidgk1 (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I admit I didn't look at all of them but the ones I did look at are lacking third-party sources. It looks to me like the tables in Vega (rocket) cover nearly all of what is in these articles, and if more is needed other columns could be added there. Lamona (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GreenPan

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

Cookware company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - lacks sufficient sources meeting the WP:CORPDEPTH thresholds. The company's Thermalon coating might be notable, so a rename could be an appropriate WP:ATD. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of superclusters#Distant superclusters. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caelum Supercluster

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

Almost no significant studies pertaining to this supercluster exists; the only real paper detailing this was the discovery paper and even then it was not the main subject; just one entry among others. The only notable thing about this is its supposed size and the figure of 910 million light-years cannot be traced to any source and might just be pulled out of thin air. SkyFlubbler (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. SkyFlubbler (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of superclusters, where it is already posted. It has insufficient publications at this point to be notable, although that may change. Praemonitus (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no discussion in sources, just a tag in a catalog. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of superclusters#Distant superclusters (at least), as mentionned above. Not enough publications and reliable references for this supercluster, thus probably fails at WP:NASTRO and not warrant to have its own article. Not to mention it is very likely the article was full of bogus information to begin with. To start of, I would argue that "910 million light-years" diameter was most likely more of just an entirely made-up size from some YouTube size comparison video, and was then errorously put in Wikipedia. As such, I will probably remove this value in the List of superclusters and I was considering doing the same in the List of largest cosmic structures. Meanwhile this source (which existed long before this page) considered this supercluster to be large and "probably" exist. Despite that, it was not put into the map as only one of its Abell clusters was known to have an estimated redshift listed in Struble and Rood's compilation of cluster redshifts, leaving Horologium-Reticulum Supercluster to be the largest supercluster in the map. For that matter, the highest end quoted distance (safe for the "lowest end" one) and the number of galaxies (and galaxies groups) were misleading too. This 1996 paper stated that SCI 059 has at least 11 rich galaxy cluster members, although another was stated to be a member too in this source. While that paper gives a lower distance of 298 Mpc or 971 Gly, I went to NED back in August, where it gives different redshift and distance estimates for Abell galaxy cluster members, with closest one being Abell 3289 at z = 0.076633 (336.6 Mpc or 1.10 Gly away)[1] and farthest one being Abell 3307 at z = 0.15404 (678.5 Mpc or 2.21 Gly away).[2] Assuming that both of these clusters were part of SCI 059, I thought this would give SCI 059 a diameter of 1.12 Gly, slightly larger than the 910 Mly bogus diameter. Though, I'm not sure if it should be used as it might be too much WP:OR, even if I do leave a note about where it came from. I also found a 2022 paper which consider SCI 059 as disk-shaped and give it a mass 4×1047 (2×1017 M☉) and a radius of 4.3×1024 m (4.54×109 ly), translating a diamater of 8.6×1024 m (9.08×109 ly). However as both of those values are (nearly) too similar to the ones used in Wikipedia and uncited for years, I'm not convinced that those values were calculated by a study and were just copy-pasted from Wikipedia instead, hence shouldn't be used. Lastly unfortunately about the bolometric luminosity in the infobox I can't find it in the quoted paper. Overall, it would be likely safe to say that this article deserves to be at best a redirect. There's currently no enough publications and information for this supercluster to have its own article. ZaperaWiki44(✉/Contribs) 17:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/objsearch?objname=Abell+3289&extend=no&hconst=67.74&omegam=0.3089&omegav=0.6911&corr_z=1&out_csys=Equatorial&out_equinox=J2000.0&obj_sort=RA+or+Longitude&of=pre_text&zv_breaker=30000.0&list_limit=5&img_stamp=YES
  2. ^ https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/objsearch?objname=Abell+3307&extend=no&hconst=67.74&omegam=0.3089&omegav=0.6911&corr_z=1&out_csys=Equatorial&out_equinox=J2000.0&obj_sort=RA+or+Longitude&of=pre_text&zv_breaker=30000.0&list_limit=5&img_stamp=YES
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wish You Were Dead

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable to pass WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Golconda diamonds. Clear consensus against keeping, but split between merge and delete, the disagreement being whether there remains anything to merge. That is now for editors to figure out through the editorial process. Sandstein 19:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Golconda diamonds

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

List of Golconda diamonds has become an unsourced WP:CONTENTFORK of Golconda diamonds#Notable diamonds and List of diamonds. Originally a simple bulleted and unsourced list on 22 September 2021 in the Golconda diamonds article, it was modified that day into a table in the same format as List of diamonds was on that day. Then on 10 November 2021, images were added to the table. Finally, on 2 August 2022, the list was removed from Golconda diamonds and used to create the new article List of Golconda diamonds, which is basically an unsourced subset of the current List of diamonds. Since then, the section Golconda diamonds#Notable diamonds has regrown again (by the same editor who split out the content to create List of Golconda diamonds) to include the entire list again, and has acquired a collection of citations which weren't there before and which weren't also added to List of Golconda diamonds). Also, this list article is basically an orphan, so it's an unused content fork. Grorp (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: A merge is unnecessary since the content is/was already in both articles. And someone just made that more obvious by formatting the section Golconda diamonds#Notable diamonds back to a bulleted list (from prose format). Grorp (talk) 09:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the prospect of a Merge is being contested by the nominator as unnecessary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect. There is nothing to merge as has already been pointed out, and we don't need to keep the editing history of unsourced content forks. That only encourages recreation. SpinningSpark 16:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @Liz: There is nothing to merge, as another editor has also pointed out. The fork is a pure fork. There is nothing in the fork that isn't already in the main article, therefore nothing to be merged. Are you considering "votes" instead of "reasoning arguments"? Or for me to concede in lieu of getting more votes? Notice that no one has said "Keep". Okay, then I concede to "merge and delete", and please note that the 'merge' has already been done. Grorp (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Grorp, it's just my preferences as an AFD closer but I like to see a potential closure decision recommended by more than one editor. I think this discussion will be closed soon given your statement tonight. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested. Maybe I'm overlooking something here, but as far as I can see this list contains details that are not present in the main article, and might well be integrated again without swelling the size too much - that is, weight and color. So that's a merge, not a plain redirect. Agree that the standalone list is not needed, however. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Kain

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

The sourcing in the article is lacking in significant mentions. A google search returns more of the same. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 02:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is my first time fully creating a page and I don't know what I'm doing so hopefully I'm responding to you. correctly. Can you explain what you mean by lacking in significant mentions? Funnyladyjk20 (talk) 02:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Funnyladyjk20 Most of the sources you found only have one or two sentences about Kain; we require at least a paragraph in an independent and reliable source to prove notability. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 17:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 00:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baxley (Musical Artist)

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

Does not currently meet the requirements of WP:GNG. A Google search finds nothing beyond Spotify and the like. He may become notable somewhere in the near future but currently, there's just not enough significant, third-partry coverage about him to build a properly referenced article. Pichpich (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are indeed the same person. For a long time he was a member of various bands under his full name, and recently started a solo career as simply "Baxley". ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kirk's solo page is now nominated for deletion too, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirk Baxley. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_January_9&oldid=1134179499"