Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

14 August 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 13	August 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Dooby Duck's Disco Bus

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG.

Opening an AfD instead of PROD or a redirect since it did run for a few years I felt it wouldn't be an uncontroversial delete/redirect.

However, if a satisfactory redirect could be found I would be comfortable with that. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Toys, and United Kingdom. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of BBC children's television programmes is a good place to redirect Dooby Duck's Disco Bus. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Otávio Jordão da Silva

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

Fails WP:LASTING. I can't find anything really substantial about this murder after the few days of coverage in 2013. Lettlre (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Football, and Brazil. Lettlre (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a bit of coverage in a 2023 German book, which is probably sigcov, but that's only one thing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, my vote is delete. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although tabloid, [1], that is lasting! Sources are fine in the article, covers the events, you have multiple different YouTube videos which show lasting like this one [2], there are posts on Facebook and TikTok about this, Twitter [3], etc. Those few bits years later, So ye, Keep for me, thanks. Govvy (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tabloid doesn't help, the YouTube videos don't help, social media posts definitely do not help. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should never use social media sources per WP:LINKSTOAVOID #10. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant incident with fair coverage Ecpiandy (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the sources date back to 2013, when the incident took place. WP:LASTING states that "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." This murder was not a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance. And it has definitely been long enough to determine whether or not this event is lasting. Therefore, it is not notable enough to warrant its own article. Plus, the article fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE because the only significant coverage of the murder happened while it was still breaking news (5–8 July). The article was also created on 7 July, while much of the news was still coming out about the event, which makes me think that the creation of the article was a little rushed. Govvy's links to social media websites, Youtube, and the tabloid definitely do not help establish notability. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 23:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Relativity: I never said the links I provided show notability, that's already been established in the article, what I provided shows lasting, is it still being talked about years later, what I showed is yes it is. Govvy (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how lasting is established. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:GNG. Significant coverage with third party sources.BabbaQ (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article might pass the GNG but doesn't pass the SNG. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 19:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability - NOTNEWS. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This is not a football context, but rather a brutal/macabre murder that had repercussions in Brazil years ago. Svartner (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What repercussions? PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 12:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very clearly notable, highly unusual and passes WP:GNG in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Capital

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

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, none of the included sources meet the criteria. They are a mixture of sources that rely entirely on interviews/information provided by the company/execs or regurgitated PR, none include in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and expand. It looks like there are some articles from NYT, WSJ, and Forbes about the company or its products. So, I'd say there are reliable secondary sources that are exclusively about the company. But, I agree they are not in-depth, so I could see an argument for deletion on those grounds. Niashervin (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alfonso de Ceballos-Escalera y Gila

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The presently used references are either primary or unreliable sources. The article was deleted on Spanish Wikipedia in 2018; that discussion also points out the issues with this article. toweli (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, History, Law, Military, Royalty and nobility, and Spain. toweli (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of LAM Mozambique Airlines destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, plain logic

Logic is failed because this is supposed to be a list of place LAM flew to in February 2021, but instead is largely a list of places that LAM wasn't flying to in February 2021, as is indicated by the majority of them being listed as "terminated". Without these the list would be quite short and redundant given the coverage already on the LAM Mozambique Airlines page. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own historical research about where an airline used to fly to.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations ever flown to, however briefly, are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO. The listing also includes original research since services are claimed to have been terminated or still operated in February 2021 without any source explicitly saying so, based on comparison of decades-old timetables.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources. This article is sourced entirely to the company website, press releases, old LAM timetables, the Aeroroutes.com blog, and old copies of Flight International's world airline directory. The website and other company publications are clearly not independent of the topic, nor is the directory since it was written entirely using material from the airline. Additionally the directory simply listed the details of every airline regardless of notability making it an indiscriminate source, the equivalent of a Yellow Pages listing. Finally Flight International is trade-press coverage and the listing of destinations provided in it is not significant coverage since it is a single-paragraph bare listing without commentary. Sources that clearly pass WP:ORGIND are needed, but none are present FOARP (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Africa. FOARP (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruse of Fools

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a band, deleted in 2007 at AfD but recreated. I can’t see any sources that would make it pass WP:NMUSIC. Mccapra (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Pennsylvania. Mccapra (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing's changed since the previous deletion. I've checked Rock's Back Pages via Wikipedia library for sources and found nothing. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In agreement with the nominator and previous voter. The band got a video played but attracted little media coverage in their time, and now they are only visible in various retail and streaming services. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The East Is Blue

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

This is an article on an essay in a book which itself does not have an article. In all fairness the book itself is notable but no one bothered to write an article on it where I would typically suggest something like this be merged. The essay has a few newspaper articles taking note of it (still mostly in the context of the book, and largely before the book released, but outside of the times piece they mostly read as press release adjacent and are very short. I think the times piece is fine but it's the only thing), and nothing else except passing non-sigcov mentions, not enough for gng. Redirect to Salman Rushdie? Unless someone wants to write an article on the book? I probably would if this was about any other topic. I'm not particularly strong on delete but I feel this is a strange situation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Asia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Sexuality and gender, Asia, Pakistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Salman Rushdie#Essays and nonfiction, where the vast majority of his essays don't have articles. fa:شرق_غمگین_است doesn't demonstrate notability either. It's been 20 years since article creation. It's not like WP is losing anything by removing this two-sentence this-essay-exists stub. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: https://www.rediff.com/news/2004/aug/09porn.htm (https://www.news24.com/news24/rushdie-praises-porn-20040808) https://reason.com/2004/08/10/the-salacious-verses/ ; mentioned in https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-ed-porn01sep01-story.html, https://wwd.com/feature/exposing-the-exposed-701043-1930810/ ; at the very least redirect to Salman_Rushdie#Essays_and_nonfiction -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources provide SIGCOV of the essay itself. Rediff, News24, Reason, and LA Times have a quote from the essay and some information about Rushdie and/or the book. WWD only provides a sentence about the essay. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW there was a source on... newspapers.com I think, that I thought looked like sigcov, so that would make two, but this is an essay in a book and not the actual book so I don't think NBOOK rules apply. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, there's really nothing to say in this article besides the fact it exists, which is not useful to anyone. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hadjnix 12:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan grave necrophilia hoax

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

Not every hoax requires its own standalone WP page. To qualify, it must meet the NEVENT, which states that the events including hoaxes should have WP:PERSISTENCE / significant coverage and demonstrate lasting significance or impact, which is not the case here. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of hoaxes.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The hoax pretty much spread like wildfire, and has PERSISTENTLY BEEN reported in many articles, including reputable ones like Dawn.

Here are some sources that falsely report this rumour:

Firstpost (which you argued for its reliability once) - https://www.firstpost.com/world/parents-are-locking-their-daughters-graves-in-pakistan-but-why-12516002.html/amp

Associated News International - https://www.aninews.in/news/world/asia/pakistani-parents-lock-daughters-graves-to-avoid-rape20230429124712

Times of India - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/spotlight/web-stories/why-are-people-locking-up-womens-graves-in-pakistan/photostory/99838682.cms

News sources that report the case being debunked and false:

The Express Tribune - https://tribune.com.pk/story/2414436/indian-media-spreads-fake-padlocked-grave-image-to-discredit-pakistan?amp=1

Dawn- https://www.dawn.com/news/amp/1750493

NDTV- https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/story-on-pictures-of-padlock-in-pakistan-incorrect-grave-from-hyderabad-3990281/amp/1

WION- https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/why-are-parents-locking-their-daughters-graves-in-pakistan-587324/amp

ALT News- https://www.altnews.in/media-misreport-viral-photo-of-grave-with-iron-grille-is-from-hyderabad-not-pakistan/

India TV News- https://www.indiatvnews.com/amp/news/india/the-truth-behind-graveyard-with-padlock-story-pakistan-hyderabad-video-photos-waris-pathan-latest-updates-2023-05-01-868273 VirtualVagabond (talk) 08:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VirtualVagabond, OK but you're still missing the point. As mentioned earlier, this coverage does not meet WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Also Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability and WP:WIDESPREAD states Don't create an article on a news story covered in 109 newspapers. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been picked up by reputable sources, so I’d say it pretty much is notable. Not to mention that this topic is brought up quite a bit, even warranting an article that was made about it only a few weeks ago:

https://www.boomlive.in/amp/fast-check/viral-picture-grave-locked-pakistan-parents-necrophilia-daughter-claim-online-25859 VirtualVagabond (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. This event fails WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NSUSTAINED. Random fact-check websites are not significant coverage of this event, and most of the sources here are either unreliable or questionable per CiteHighlighter. Do not merge to List of hoaxes because the scope of that list is notable entries (i.e., each entry links to a notable event). voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of hoaxes and Fake news in India. Muneebll (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ogeechee, Georgia

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NPLACE. No sources. PROD tag removed without concerns being addressed. AusLondonder (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vivienne Tang

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

Fails WPANYBIO and GNG; among sources are blogs, not reliable media and podcasts. BoraVoro (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources 3 and 4 are about her favorite restaurants and what clothes she wears, not really what's needed for notability. I don't find much else for RS coverage; [4] is about skin creams. I don't see coverage we can use to establish notability. Oaktree b (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Victorian police in the Eureka Rebellion

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

Excessive detail, list of people who for the most part played only a very minor role in the Rebellion and which doesn't add understanding or necessary background. First entry "Atkins was with the foot police at the Eureka Stockade". Second entry "he was a police orderly at the Eureka Stockade." So what? Fram (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Police, and Australia. Fram (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would just note that The Eureka Encyclopedia has a stand-alone entry for "Policing in Ballarat" where some of the information comes from. Robbiegibbons (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It gets worse: "Calvin ... May have been at the Eureka Stockade. Athel cb (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goki Eda

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

Notability issue. Xegma(talk) 09:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Japan, Singapore, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am concerned that this editor (Bulklana is just copying and pasting uncritically from university websites, on this and other articles.) In this specific case, I don't believe the subject meets WP:NACADEMIC. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acceleration Team China

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

I am also nominating these as they have the same issues as mentioned below.

Unnecessary WP:CFORK per WP:FANCRUFT. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 10 years ago.

Also fail WP:NTEAM and WP:SIGCOV as sources primarily consists of WP:PRIMARY and the tidbits of social media posts. Fails WP:GNG. The same issues applies to all the articles nominated as they have the same issues in common. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nominator's rationale. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All articles were created in April 2014 by the same user. As it turned out – FA1 lasted one year, coverage was sparse and they were never updated again. They've survived the passage of time with little to no encyclopaedic value; the only useful piece of info is which outfit ran each of the teams, which I've just added to the 2014 season article. MSport1005 (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Bryson

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

Not sufficiently notable per WP:MUSICBIO or WP:ARTIST for a separate article, with no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources outside of her involvement with her first band. Her recent work as an artist did get some secondary coverage in this Sunday Post article, but the rest that I could find in a WP:BEFORE search is either interviews or passing mentions in connection with the band. Created twice by single-purpose accounts, and redirected to the band article twice in 2014, it's essentially an autobiography [5], [6], full of unsourced claims and WP:OR. Rather than redirect it a third time, it seemed best to take it to an AFD discussion: see also at the talk page a discussion about this with the editor who last redirected it. Wikishovel (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, Women, and Scotland. Wikishovel (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for raising your concerns about the notability of this article. However, I believe that the article meets the criteria for notability under WP:

Why I think this reason:

I have been speaking personally to Jill Bryson for help on the construction of this page. She has assisted a lot to the making of this, and has given me verifiable evidence about her date of birth.

If you do not believe this reason then you can see for yourself here:

https://www.facebook.com/jill.bryson.52

She is my friend, search my name on there at Tom Sullivan

Instead of deleting the article, it would be more constructive for us to improve it by helping to add reliable sources and removing any unsourced claims I chose. My approach is trying to align with Wikipedia’s goal of providing comprehensive and verifiable information. I do know that the article has been redirected in the past, but it’s important to recognize that notability can evolve over time. Her contributions to both music and art continue to be relevant, warranting a standalone article.

T/R\S T/R\S (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Strawberry Switchblade. It's possible that someone (herself and/or friend) thinks she merits a separate article because her former bandmate Rose McDowall has one, but McDowall received some notice for her solo works. This article on Bryson simply copies a personal biography of interest only to friends and associates (having agoraphobia and hanging out in the local punk scene do not make someone notable) and it appears to be an attempted resume for her current art career. Her activities outside of her former band do not have the coverage necessary for an individual article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Strawberry Switchblade. This is almost entirely unsourced claims, not based on WP:SIGCOV significant coverage published in reliable secondary sources. Elspea756 (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Roushan

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

This subject cannot pass WP:GNG. Many of the cited sources are actually Godi media sources which are no longer taken seriously especially when it comes to establishing WP:N. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, Conservatism, Entertainment, Bihar, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Production Car Series

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

There is nothing new about sports series that have burst out in a blaze of publicity then vanished without trace like this one. Having checked WP:BEFORE, independent coverages are extremely thin bar the of press releases, using Tesla to make a buzz for publicity. Numerous of these sources are WP:PRIMARY. WP:SIGCOV is very lacking as sources do not assert notability.

Some what is written are uncited without a single source such as it 'was cancelled due to a lack of a lead investor', indicating that it died without ceremony like it happen to most failed start-up businesses. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Sources in article probably already indicate significant coverage, even if they didn't there are sufficient sources available to expand. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations for the 2003 invasion of Iraq

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

WP:POVFORK of 2003 invasion of Iraq, where this content is already covered (and in a less POV way). Redirect to 2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Preparations_for_war. Longhornsg (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Terrorism, Iraq, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is indeed a problem but I don't think redirect is a good idea, let alone a solution. This article was created back in 2003 as a very reasonable fork, in my view sensibly. The main article was, as is, far too long. For most of these 21 years there has been no adequate link from the main article to this one and so this spin-off has languished. Material from 2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Preparations_for_war should be moved here leaving behind only a brief summary. This would improve both articles. Thincat (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Namdhari Movement

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

User Charhat Singh unilaterally split the main Namdhari article into two separate articles: Namdhari Movement and Kuka Samparda without any consensus nor justification. I propose the Kuka Samparda article be deleted as well. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sikhism and Punjab. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Kooka myself and the information seems fine, Namdhari Movement should be renamed as Kooka Movement/Lehar because that is the official or more apt name. Kooka Samparda is legitimate, just one statement needs editing as it seems to be misinformation/British propaganda. Many forget that Namdhari is the individual/group and the religion is Namdhari Sikhism or the Kooka Samparda. Mianpur (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mianpur Seems suspicious that a new account is voting on this. Also, it is very likely these pages were created by a confirmed sock puppet (I’ve already presented evidence at the sock puppet investigation board). MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mianpur The point raised by @MaplesyrupSushi is valid. I do not know which reference provides the words 'Namdhari Sikhism' when the word 'Sikhism' itself at present is being deemed by scholars as the colonial manifestation of the Sikh religion, which should be termed 'Sikhi', with no substitute word in English, at least for the time being. Similarly, 'Kooka Samprada' seems odd enough. The hard core differentiation of the Sikh sects is majorly a twentieth century phenomenon. Although distinctions exist, but all trace their origins to Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Hence, in my humble opinion, unless we are scholarly providing references, we should not devise terms, suiting political agendas, but should stick to broad, unbiased academic discourse on the subject. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the assertions made by @MaplesyrupSushi that these article pages were created by splitting Namdhari article page. Undoubtedly, the Namdhari page needs improvement and users are already active in it. However, creating two separate articles form it and copy-pasting most of the content is not at all desirable. Namdhari Movement definitely needs a major overhaul otherwise, and at present, I fully support its deletion, with endeavors to correct the information on similar pre-existing pages. Bharatavarsh.1947 (talk) 01:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Bayonet Lightning

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

Also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

One of many individual articles created 20 years ago in the wake of the Iraq War that would not meet WP:GNG today. Articles cover WP:ROUTINE and non-notable military operations, of which there were tens (if not hundreds) of thousands during the war. None of these are significant like Operation Red Dawn is. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, any coverage around these operations is in the context of the war and don't warrant a standalone page. Merge selectively into List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War, which provides better context, then redirect. Longhornsg (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Iraq, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Politics. Curbon7 (talk) 09:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War. Limited sourcing and individual notability, no need for standalone articles. Reywas92^Talk 13:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cadabam's Hospitals

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

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Existing sourcing simply regurgitates announcements and PR and has no in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Medicine, and India. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catchment area (disambiguation)

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

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use. De-prodded (correctly) by @GB fan: with edit summary "remove PROD, was previously PRODed 20:13, 10 June 2014‎‎‎ and later removed, must go to WP:AFD". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Disambiguations. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Kumar (producer)

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 06:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Bihar, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is a lot of news story talking about the guy on Google News Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we don't go by Google hits but by reliable secondary sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. No SIGCOV or any notability guideline met. Has a promotional tone too. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. Article standing on nothing and there is nothing to support its existence here. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:22, 14 August 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 withdrawn‎. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness debate

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

I'm taking a look at some of my earlier work these days, and while this article survived AfD once, I'm thinking now that it probably shouldn't have. Part of what made that AfD so difficult is that it did receive a lot of coverage when it was happening, and some small amount of commentary after the fact. That makes for a borderline WP:PERSISTENCE pass, and more broadly, you could make the case that the article passes WP:DEPTH and WP:DIVERSE as well. All of that, however, doesn't really matter, because while those requirements are necessary for notability, they aren't sufficient.

But one necessary requirement the article fails is WP:GEOSCOPE: Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. This event is basically talked about because it doesn't matter. It has no impact on basically anyone outside of Wikipedia. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. Since that coverage is pretty much the sole basis for this article, I believe that the article fails WP:NEVENT. In addition, the article fails WP:EVENTCRIT#1 and #2 – that's not dispositive, but it is a clue along the same lines. ~~This should be redirected to List of Wikipedia controversies, where I already added content in anticipation of a merge.~~ theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Internet. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, I'm getting some déjà vu here... in any case, keep. As I previously said at an unsuccessful merge request, List of Wikipedia controversies is an inappropriate merge target as that page is about controversies regarding Wikipedia, not editing disputes on Wikipedia. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point; I've scrapped the text from that article, and I'm fine with it just being deleted – would be happy to restore the text/sources for anyone who wants to add it to a different list, if one is created after. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG clearly, with multiple reliable and independent sources presenting significant coverage about the subject. Skyshiftertalk 07:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but that's not ... all right, nevermind, withdrawn. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:31, 14 August 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.

Ota Kohoutek

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

Does not meet WP:GNG criteria. Lack of sources, no significant coverage. Insignificant footballer with only 12 starts in professional football, last being in May 2022, more than 2 years ago. Maybe one day he will restart his career, but WP:NOTJUSTYET. FromCzech (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were added references and sources to prove media coverage. At the end of the article there is statement about WP:STUB, which is perfectly sufficient and says that anyone can improve the site by expanding it. Pospeak (talk) 06:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability still not proven, sources still unsufficient. FromCzech (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Czech Republic. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jogeshwari Misal

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

This is a contested draftification. The subject fails to meet the notability guideline for companies; the cited sources are not reliable, and I have not found any promising sources after a quick search. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, India, and Maharashtra. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @TechnoSquirrel69 actually, I reviewed this article, as it is from the same region I belong to, I found information mentioned in article is valid. I saw notice above this article and want to contribute in this article if it is helpful. Krishna Nimbalkar (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Krishna Nimbalkar: Feel free to contribute to the article if it interests you, but I want to note that this is not an issue of the information's validity but of the subject's notability. We need multiple reliable sources that have significant coverage of the subject in order to determine that it is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 13:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Chang-kyo

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I saw his name on 7th Supreme People's Assembly but am not sure if this footballer is/was the same man as the member of parliament. Unless we can prove their relation, I'm leaning towards Delete. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: likely fails wp:GNG, but deemed notable by essay wp:FOOTYN. Represented North Korea in 4 FIFA matches in Hong Kong, Indonesia, and Japan. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTY has been superseded by WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia Morph

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

Concept design for a mobile phone which was never manufacturable (it relied on fantasy tech) and which, in retrospect, had little to no meaningful influence on the industry. Some limited news coverage when it was announced in 2008, but nothing substantial since then. Omphalographer (talk) 04:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, and Computing. Omphalographer (talk) 04:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Deir ez-Zor ambush

AfDs for this article:

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

Redirect to Timeline_of_the_Syrian_civil_war_(2020)#December, where this event is already included and covered better contextually. Unfortunately WP:ROUTINE military operation as part of the Syrian Civil War that is not WP:LASTING. Longhornsg (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Syria. Longhornsg (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Writesonic

AfDs for this article:

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

Renomination: It does not meet WP:NCORP. Most sources here are native advertisement with only a few exceptions, which are passing mentions and not in-depth coverage. StrongDeterrence (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Mullarkey

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

This article fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and is based on primary sources. Google books search comes up with 4 hits, but they don't appear to be indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and England. LibStar (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep double national champion per #4 of WP:NMOTORSPORT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time War (Doctor Who)

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

Wikipedia is not the TARDIS data core. This article is a nonsense. It is written as though describing a real conflict. Most, if not all, of the references are primary sources/the actual episodes of the show where this war is mentioned, including the BBC (the show's production company), Big Finish Productions (the production company for the audio adaptation), BBC Books (the publisher for book adaptations), and Doctor Who fan sites. From my research, all sources related to this fictional-war originate either those primary sources, or from standard run-of-the-mill coverage to promote an episode, with only passing mention of the fictional-war, and no analysis of it. ~~Delete!~~ Per Pokelego999's comment, I'm amending to Merge with Doctor Who (mainly the non-primary-sourced material). Svampesky (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC), amended 02:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Svampesky (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage is a bit buried in the depths of promo material, but a brief search yielded some results. Reviews of The Day of the Doctor (The 50th Anniversary special which got a lot more in-depth coverage than most episodes) tend to yield bits (Such as this AV Club source). I found a Gizmodo source discussing the War in its entirety, though its coverage is smattered throughout the article. This book has a whole chapter on the War, while this book seems to discuss it in association with The Doctor's character a fair bit. A brief glance at this book and this book yields promise, as do a few hits for books in regards to Psychology about the Doctor in association with the War, but admittedly these I can't fully access enough to judge. Given the Time War's large role in the narrative of Doctor Who and its effect on the Doctor's character, I'd warrant there's probably more discussing its role within the context of the show, but I only did a brief search, so I'd be happy for other editors to also do searches to see what else I didn't see. Either way, the Time War definitely seems to have coverage, if scattered, that shows its notability, though as the nom said the article definitely needs a rewrite at some point in the future. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research. I've amended my nomination to merge. [T]he Time War's large role in the narrative of Doctor Who and its effect on the Doctor's character, yes; but outside of the Doctor Who fictional-universe, I still don't think it passes any of the points of WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV for it to have a stand-alone article. Svampesky (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know that's a non sequitur, right? Nothing is notable inside or outside of any fictional universe; they're either notable, or they are not. We don't have to have documentation of time war reenactors in order to keep the article... we just need independent reliable sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. In point of fact, "real world" manifestations such as toys are often ignored entirely as non-independent (the same people are making money off of them...) when assessing the notability of fictional topics that CAN be so manifested. Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note. One of the books you cited The Scientific Secrets of Doctor Who (ISBN: 9781849909389) is published by BBC Books, which is a subsidiary of the production company of the show. Svampesky (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I'm unaware of the circumstances with the BBC (Since its publishing is largely unrelated to the original show) so I'm not sure if it has a use case or not. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although commentary is needed in the article, that can be done with the sources suggested above, even if discounting the BBC book, and therefore notability is established. Daranios (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either History of the Time Lords#The Time War (sketchy notability itself) or Time Lord (where it is mentioned throughout). I am having difficulty imagining how this article would even look if written with an encyclopedic out-of universe approach (MOS:REALWORLD): Plot doesn't have production design or casting. In short: I believe this topic is unfixable as a standalone article, even with the sources provided above. I wouldn't mind selective merging. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Time War was a mostly off-screen event, so casting information is irrelevant. Either way, I'd propose an organization of:

-Developmental information (I know it exists as I've seen bits of it floating around before and I'm aware of a few sources I'd need to double check, but I'd need to do a more thorough search than what I've done above)

-Basic summary of the event, which could probably condense the information in the article to a readable state.

-Reception and Analysis of the War's role in the show's narrative.

I'm confused what you mean by the article being entirely unfixable. It needs a massive rewrite, but it's not undoable with more in-depth rewrites and research. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My nomination still stands as 'Merge with Doctor Who', but I am willing to collaborate on a Draft: of this article if the outcome of this AfD is 'Draftify' and explore additional secondary sources with other editors who are interested in contributing. Please, drop a message on my talk page to notify me if this happens. Svampesky (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The Time War is literally synonymous with the plot of Doctor Who. It is what the entire series is about. We already have Doctor Who, History of Doctor Who, History of the Time Lords, Time Lord, and Whoniverse to deal with this information. Several of those also have major gaps in sourcing. Do we really need multiple poorly written articles about the same thing? Please let's start with one article with independent reliable sources. Jontesta (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't true; the Time War is a relatively small part of the overall story of Doctor Who. Toughpigs (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rule out Doctor Who and History of Doctor Who, as those are primarily out of universe production information. In the case of the Time War, analysis of its role wouldn't be fitting to place in an article like one of those. Whoniverse additionally is more focused on the actual umbrella brand these days. I'm partial to one of the Time Lord articles should it come down to that, but I'd have to take a closer look to see which is better (I'd honestly AfD History of the Time Lords as well- that article is in a very bad state and can easily be condensed to the original Time Lord article) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete checking through the article shows there is nothing there to assert WP:SIGCOV. Sources are nothing but mainly of BBC and affliated sources, per WP:PRIMARY. It maybe notable to the Who fanbase but is it notable for Wikipedia. Articles like this needs to be put out of its misery, fans should be reminded that Wikipedia is not Fandom. WP:ATD will be a redirect SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts on the sources listed above? Given your rationale is mostly focused on the current state, I'm curious about the above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Books is WP:PRIMARY. gizmodo is fine, that's one in. As with The Scientific Secrets of Doctor Who, I don't know how much is it about the subject to save it from deletion. As with Religion and Doctor Who, I feel there is a small amount is given to the subject. I feel there is not enough to save itself from a merger, which I think is the best outcome. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can't do further research on the subject later, given my search was rather light. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for the time being; WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The article has been tagged as needing attention, so a good-faith attempt to fix the article should be the first step. If, after removing everything that doesn't meet the required standards, the article still doesn't meet WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV, then we can return to the question of deleting or merging it. I don't think we can discuss merging now as the article is far too long for a simple merge. So I come back, again, to - fix the article first. (ETA: forgot to say, WP:TARDIS is an essay, not a guideline; for a convincing deletion argument, I would like to see actual WP guidelines referenced as well, to clearly demonstrate the official standards not met).

JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JustAnotherCompanion: The notices have been on the page for over two years. As I said above, my nomination remains; but I'm willing to collaborate with editors if this AfD closes as draftify and we restart it from scratch in the Draft: space and work with secondary sources. Svampesky (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment found some more sources including this one. This one has some scattered bits on how it affected the Doctor's psychology, this one has some brief bits on its production history, this seems to be promising but I can't scan it entirely. The main problem I'm having with my search is that there are a lot of hits but I can't gauge coverage due to the amount of paywalls blocking me (Especially with Scholar, where there a lot of promising hits on things like war and psychology). It seems highly promising nonetheless given what I can preview though, but if anyone can gauge any of the Scholar sources I'd greatly appreciate it. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an AfD outcome per the above additional sourcing. No objection to further merging as a consensus discussion (but not forced by AfD) outcome. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is a small consensus to Keep this article but even supporters of this position agree that the article needs an overhaul. But I doubt it can be rewritten during the period of this AFD though. Please review sources brought up in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Time Lord, per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:PRESERVE. The sources heavily cover this as part of their coverage of the Time Lords, and I don't see separate WP:SIGCOV for different articles covering basically the same thing.
Most !votes consent to a merge/redirect. SpacedFarmer and the AFD nominator are delete !votes who have suggested a redirect. Pokelego999 and JClemens are keep !votes who are considering merge targets. JustAnotherCompanion would accept a potential merge, but they have concerns about doing it too quickly or clumsily. The easiest way to reach a consensus is to close this as a merge, and allow the tag to sit there as long as needed to import anything that isn't already covered at Time Lord. The amount of content to WP:PRESERVE can be determined through editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above, Merge/Redirect to Time Lord. MohReddy (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: My previous relisting comment stands. I do not see a consensus to Merge or Redirect and I don't see those arguing to Keep as suggesting it as their choice, at best, Merge/Redirect is preferable to Deletion but I see very limited support for Deletion. Even the nominator is suggesting Merge over Deletion. Right now, there is No consensus but I'd still like to see a review of sources brought up in this discussion. Of course, closers work independently and another closer might see this situation differently but this is what I see from reviewing this discussion a second time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge Wife

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

Fails WP:BIO. Schierbecker (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Schierbecker (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015 Qalamoun incident

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

Redirect to Qalamoun offensive (May–June 2015), where it makes more sense and already covered in more context. This incident fails WP:LASTING on its own. One of thousands of routine military operations during the Syrian Civil War. Longhornsg (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Israel, and Syria. Longhornsg (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested, per ATD and CHEAP. I double checked that this is fairly covered at the target and that no merge is needed. gidonb (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As per nom, this fails WP:LASTING. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bowie Jane

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Television. Joeykai (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, Australia, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG per these sources [7][8][9][10] which give fairly significant coverage to the subject. There are also other sources available that when combined further their notability for an article. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Socialism (Chile)

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

Non-notable organisation; lack of reliable sources. Wellington Bay (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no Reliable Sources at all Untamed1910 (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Chile. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd have suggested merging with the Revolutionary Workers Party article if there was one Bedivere (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Festival de Guitarra de Barcelona

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

Marked for notability concerns since Feb 2024. Nothing in google news search, and 1 line mentions in google books search. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, and Spain. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]