Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 22: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 06:56, 22 June 2024

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 21	June 23 >

Guide to deletion

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 merge‎ to List of Assassin's Creed characters. I wish more participants had spoken up since the last relisting but they didn't and I'm going to close this as a Merge. As several participants stated, they would prefer this to be a generous Merge rather than a superficial one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haytham Kenway

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

GAR isn't the right place to judge notability, according to most people. So, starting with WP:BEFORE, the character doesn't have any WP:SIGCOV. We're going to do source analysis now, which is in the reception section. First we got a PC gamer source with zero mention of character/game review, G4t7 dead source, [1] [2] Zero mentions about Haytham, GamesRadar+ has a short trivia content, IGN listicle with trivia content, another IGN's listicle, listicle with a short content, dualshockers' listicle with trivia content, Gamepro's listicle, Gamerevolution's listicle with short content, just a short interview, Comicbook source isn't reception at all, Heavy source contains only trivia quote content, while the last popmatters source is a bit useful, but with short content about the character. Overall, the article still fails WP:GNG; and has no SIGCOV at all. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. The article was nominated for deletion on similar grounds a few years ago, which was dismissed. Nothing has changed since then. Also, the argument that there is no significant coverage is baseless. The article has over 40 sources, you choose to focus on the reception section, ignoring all the others. Also, I don’t see how listicles indicate a lack of notability.

DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we're gonna include everything; not sure how these 3 sources with very short content, interview and another trivia-like content at dev info would help WP:GNG. This is not like other fictional characters; when there are a lot of reliable sources, it does not mean they are automatically notable, unless the character was really discussed by multiple reliable sources. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DasallmächtigeJ Could you link us to that AfD? It's not on Kenway's talk page for some reason. In any case, consensus can change, so a renomination is valid. Additionally, Reception tends to be the biggest bulk of proving an article's notability. Usually, listicles tend to provide very little to Reception. While there are plenty of exceptions, the ones here seem to be very weak overall, from a glance. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why I couldn’t find it and after some digging I remembered it wasn’t even nominated for deletion. A user simply turned it into a redirect without seeking consensus first. The issue was resolved on my talk page, where the discussion can still be found here. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'keep - I think this just about meets the criteria. I'd agree there isn't three articles that only talk about the subject, but there's an awful lot that at least talk about them. this game radar article talks about how the character feels a bit like a red herring, this Kotaku article talks about them in terms of a game they aren't in and realistically, this interview is about as in-depth as you can get about a character. I think given them, and the other articles cited, the article does a good job showing that this minor character is indeed notable. The GA status, or lack of it, has nothing to do with this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The interview counts as a primary source, and thus does not count towards GNG nor SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well, if it was an interview with the game's publisher, I'd probably agree. I don't agree that a voice actor being specifically interviewed by a third party would be primary. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I'd argue it's primary since it's an interview with a person directly affiliated with the development of the game and the character in question. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters. Every source here is trivial to some degree, and there's a distinct lack of strong sourcing to anchor the article around. Ping me if more sources come up but I'm not seeing anything that's close to meeting the threshold needed to split off here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters - his standalone notability is dubious and there's a clear and obvious WP:ATD to target him to. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a lot of the reception is trivial, and while one could argue it helps re-examine the series antagonists it doesn't have much substance beyond that and even then it's shaky. Importance outside the parent work just isn't indicated.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More specific commentary on the sourcing situation would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters - Discounting the primary sources and sources that are just trivial coverage, the sources currently in the article are largely reviews or coverage of Assassin's Creed 3 or the series as a whole, that just discuss Haytham as part of that larger review/discussion. These kinds of sources lend themselves much better for the subject to be discussed in a broader topic, in this case the character list, than spun out into a separate article. Searches are bringing up more of the same - smaller amounts of coverage as part of the broader discussion of the game and its plot as a whole. Rorshacma (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Rorshacma. These are mostly WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs about the character when discussing the game. That reflects how this should be covered on Wikipedia, by mentioning the character in the main game article. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Lee Vilenski. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 23:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This looks likely to merge, but even if it does merge, it should be a "generous" merge that keeps most of the content. This is for sure a borderline case but the GamesRadar article linked above, while not having tons of content on Haytham, establishes him as an important character as far as AC3 is concerned, and AC3 sold a zillion copies. Yes, yes, WP:NOTINHERITED, I saved the link, but I think that it's better to err on the side of inclusiveness in a case like this where we know this character is a big deal and the game is a big deal and the bigness of the deals are linked. SnowFire (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this argument is very much arguing that notability is inherited from AC3. Just because Kenway's important to AC3 doesn't mean he's important overall. An equivalent argument to this would be arguing that something like Zamazenta is instantly notable because it's an important part of Pokemon Shield, which sold a lot of copies, despite the fact Zamazenta has absolutely no claim to notability. I do agree that this should be a decently large merge, given most of the relevant content in this article isn't at the list entry. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is evenly divided between those editors advocating Keep and those arguing for a Merge. I find the Merge argument stronger but maybe those who believe it should be Kept can make a better argument about the sources being adequate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. This reflects opinions outside of AI generated comments which are word salad. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luno (band)

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

Does not meet WP:BAND criteria. Not notable in any way. FromCzech (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After careful consideration of the article on Luno (band), the appropriate action according to Wikipedia's guidelines is deletion. The subject does not meet the notability criteria outlined in the General Notability Guideline (GNG) or the Music Notability Guideline (MUSIC). Despite a detailed history and discography, the band lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish its lasting impact or significance in the music industry. The sources cited primarily consist of routine coverage such as local newspapers and self-published content, failing to demonstrate the widespread recognition required for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Therefore, deletion is recommended to maintain Wikipedia's standards of verifiability, neutrality, and notability. This decision aligns with ensuring the integrity and quality of content available to Wikipedia's readership. Yakov-kobi (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AI-generated comment FromCzech (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If I were closing, I would ignore the AI-generated delete !vote.However, that leaves this with no discussion yet and therefore relist becomes necessary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although the Ceska televize source seems good, there is nothing else reliable here, and the article itself seems to be mainly a rewording of the band members' names again and again. Fails notability criteria. C 679 12:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with above, Bduke (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

I would usually consider an opinion to Draftify an article but with no one offering to work on this article, I think it would just be G13'd down the road. As a Soft Delete, it can be restored to main or Draft space should an editor be interested in developing it further. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Turnbull

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

Can't seem to find any WP:SIGCOV on this player beyond basic coverage either from the clubs, his college, or transfer notes. It appears as though he never actually played a professional match, which might be a failure of WP:SPORTBASIC. The only thing of basic substance I found was this, which is local and behind a paywall. Anwegmann (talk) 04:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 04:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, England, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Transfermrkt has him playing in one professional match in the EFL Trophy for Portsmouth vs Peterborough (source). Same matched that was referenced in the paywalled article. Tpd13 (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Transfermarkt is not a reliable source, but one EFL Cup match still doesn't make up for the lack of WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman and Anwegmann: Some coverage: Shaw Network, Daily Herald (2), Portsmouth News (2). Thoughts? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting these. I saw the first three when I was initially nominating the article. The problem with these is that they are focused almost entirely on his signing a professional contract and are very much local coverage—his hometown newspaper(s). This is hardly sustained coverage or, in my view at least, significant, meaningful coverage. The fact that the event these article cover happened, but then he went on to have a very brief career with no league appearances and no coverage at all makes me feel like it doesn’t/shouldn’t suffice for WP:SIGCOV. That said, I’m certainly open to other opinions on this. Thanks, again. Anwegmann (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No issues with 'local' news per se - but to analyse the sources: Shaw Network is paywalled but what is available is a bit routine; DH 1 looks OK; DH2 is routine; Portsmouth News 1 and 2 routine. It's essentially all 'look at this American who signed for an English soccer team'. Giant Snowman 17:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Since article isn't a WP:STUB, and isn't completely lacking sources, I suggest turning the article into a draft, so that it can be updated, and later apply to be published again. -Mjks28 (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Calvo (baseball)

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

This does not meet the criteria for notability. A Google search yields no results outside of Baseball-Reference. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and Mexico. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Found some brief mentions on newspapers.com such as [[3]] and [[4]], but not enough there to meet the GNG. I'd guess there is probably enough coverage in Mexico to meet the notability guidelines, though. Let'srun (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 and no indication of any forthcoming input Star Mississippi 16:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardo Calvo

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

This article does not meet the notability criteria. There are simply no references to him on the internet other than compendiums of baseball stats which include his name. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and Mexico. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Found some routine coverage on newspapers.com such as [[5]] and [[6]], but nothing that is GNG worthy. However, it is quite possible that there are Mexican sources that could help this subject meet the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catalina Larranaga

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

Fails WP:NBIO; non-notable actress who mostly appeared in adult films. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Sexuality and gender, and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as its current state does not meet WP:BIO; its sole source does not seem reliable and does not establish notability. SunTunnels (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find book reviews, nor any sourcing the acting career. Plenty of sites selling the books though... Not passing ACTOR or AUTHOR notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTRESS, and WP:AUTHOR. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Editors disagree with ambiguous deletion rationale. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kobeigane Divisional Secretariat

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

unsourced tautology Elinruby (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a tautology. Satisfies WP:NORG, as the third tier of public administration in Sri Lanka, Divisional Secreteriats are notable. Independent reliable secondary sources provided. Dan arndt (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nomination lacks any trace of effort, not even containing a capital letter or a full stop, and does not invoke any Wikipedia policy. Geschichte (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Namibia national rugby union players. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quintin Esterhuizen

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

Redirect to List of Namibia national rugby union players as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, Africa, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Namibia national rugby union players There is some coverage out there on this player, but I don't think any of it reaches what's needed for a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No coverage to support GNG in a PQ search of The Namibian and AllAfrica. JoelleJay (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Neither "keep" !votes adequately addressed the WP:SIGCOV issue, nor how playing at the highest level abides by relevant notability guidelines. ✗plicit 14:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raquel Anderson

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a New Zealand women's rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG. A possible redirect target is New Zealand women's national rugby league team. JTtheOG (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Rugby league, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I can't find any sigcov. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 07:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep Some sources to indicate notability, but only just. Mn1548 (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has played at the highest level, having represented New Zealand including at a World Cup. Paora (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Paora: Participation-based criteria for athletes were deprecated in 2022. BLPs require strong sourcing. JTtheOG (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to identify which sources establish notability, by current Wikipedia standards, rather than just making a claim.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Literally zero independent sources in the article--everything is from league press releases or directly from a governing body--and even then there's still zero SIGCOV. A search on PQ (including for Raquel Pitman) returned exclusively namedrops in squad list press releases and a couple trivial mentions in match reports. JoelleJay (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find the needed WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 01:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clipgenerator

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

Atrociously sourced, highly advertorial that appears to fail WP:NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, Software, and Germany. Graywalls (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: While I agree that the article is terribly sourced and reads like an advert, it can be improved by adding better secondary sources that verify the app meets WP:N. If this doesn't happen, I will advocate for delete. —Mjks28 (talk) 10:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Mjks28:, What evidence do you have suggesting this product meets WP:NCORP? I've done the WP:BEFORE search and came up with none. The most in-depth piece I came upon was https://www.pressetext.com/news/na-20080110015.html but this is of course nothing, because it's a press release.

Graywalls (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a search and can't find any sources either that prove the subject of the article is WP:N, so I change my argument to delete. Mjks28 (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: reads like an advertisement. . .Mean as custard (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see more opinions here from experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Wabash football, 1884–1889. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1884 Wabash football team

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

No indication this team, which only played a single game, meets the WP:NSEASONS or WP:GNG. The only source in the article gives this team merely a brief mention, and a cursory search didn't come up with anything better. Let'srun (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Indiana. Let'srun (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article was created as a sub-stub almost 10 years ago with a single sentence -- "The 1884 Wabash Little Giants football team represented Wabash College during the 1884 college football season." The only addition since then has been a notation that the "Little Giants" nickname wasn't adopted until 20 years ago. Nothing of encyclopedic value is lost by deleting this. Cbl62 (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the article having been a WP:STUB for 9 years, and only having one citation. Mjks28 (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These are not reasons for deletion. For that reason, the person closing the discussion will unfortunately not take your stated opinion into regard, so please feel free to revise - and please read WP:DISCUSSAFD first. Geschichte (talk) 07:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think only having one citation qualifies as a reason, no? Let'srun (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the single citation had sufficient depth, it might be OK, but the source presented here lacks the needed depth. Cbl62 (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All material is included in the Wabash College article. Leaving a redirect would be a painless courtesy. Carrite (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's true that being a Stub article is not a reason to delete an article. We have thousands and thousands of stub articles. Relisting to see if there is support for Rediretion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The actual and valid reasons for deletion here are set forth in the nom: The article lacks anything remotely resembling WP:SIGCOV and thus plainly fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. As for redirecting, that would undermine the utility of red link in our comprehensive system of team templates. E.g., Template:Wabash Little Giants football navbox. A redlink tells us that a season article does not exist. We could theoretically fill in all of those redlinks with redirects, but then the utility of the templates is massively undercut and we end up with team templates that are a useless loop redirecting to the main team article. (A minor program like Wabash (Division III!) has very few notable seasons, and the blue links in the template allow the viewer to zero in on those seasons.) Please do not redirect. Cbl62 (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wabash football, 1884–1889. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A merge can't be closed to a target which doesn't currently exist. Also, would that target meet the notability guidelines (GNG and NSEASONS)? Let'srun (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let'srun, my assumption is that yes, that target would meet notability guidelines. It would be more productive for you to examine such possibilities before creating an AfD like this. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

my assumption is that yes, that target would meet notability guidelines We would need more than an assumption. Can you provide a couple sources? Cbl62 (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62, you how to answer this question for yourself. See: 1889 Indiana Hoosiers football team. There's lots of other stuff on Newspapers.com. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone wants to take the time to create a well-sourced redirect target, redirect is not an available or permissible option here. For that reason, I remain in the "delete" camp. Cbl62 (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need an existing target article, not a hypothetical one that could be created in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wabash football, 1884–1889 has been created. More coverage can be found, but search at Newspapers.com via Wikipedia Library is currently down. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the proposed decade target on the assumption Wabash is a football team we care about the seasons for. There's not enough available for this season to have a stand-alone article, there's not even that much to merge, but it's better to maintain a complete set of the information somewhere using the guidance at WP:NSEASONS which allows multiple seasons to be smushed into one. SportingFlyer T·C 17:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What info still needs to be merged? I think if anything a redirect would suffice. Let'srun (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The single game result can be included somewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 20:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It already is under 1884, no? Let'srun (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As with the other AfD, I didn't notice the merge had already happened. SportingFlyer T·C 21:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wabash football, 1884–1889 (there's nothing to merge, it's already there). Thanks to User:Jweiss11 for creating a suitable target article. Cbl62 (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wabash football, 1884–1889 since the season article does not appear to be notable enough for standalone inclusion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Science Bulletin

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

Not seeing how this journal meets WP:GNG or more specialized WP:Notability (academic journals). Does not seem indexed in anything significant: [7] (Engineering Source (EBSCO), MEDLINE (United States National Library of Medicine), zbMATH). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and China. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article had the old ISSN and e-ISSN for Chinese Science Bulletin, which I have now replaced with the correct ones for Science Bulletin. https://miar.ub.edu/issn/2095-9273 shows that the journal is indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded (Clarivate) and Scopus (ELSEVIER) as well as Academic Search Ultimate (EBSCO), Natural Science Collection (ProQuest). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain It may be that Science Bulletin is notable, but which information in the article are about it and not about the Chinese Science Bulletin? What should be removed from the article - it has only one footnote to a press release currently. Zh wiki seems to have more, but right now our entry is asking for a WP:TNT, given the confusion. PS. Our article claims the publication was estabilished in 1956, zh wiki gives they year 1950, and there are many inconsistencies between en and zh. Language - for us, English, for zh, Chinese English (?). What is the publication relation to "Chinese Science Bulletin"? Zh wiki claims it is a former name, but miar has two different pages for it? It's a mess. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus If it helps, there is an article in Science Bulletin itself about the change of name: [8]. So, Science Bulletin was known as Chinese Science Bulletin until 2014. Regarding miar having two pages... if you're referring to the fact miar.ub.edu has a separate page for the title "Chinese Science Bulletin" (https://miar.ub.edu/issn/1001-6538), that would be because it has a different ISSN to the "Science Bulletin" title. So far as I'm aware, when serials are renamed they also get a new ISSN, so this seems pretty normal as far as I can tell.

The reason for the language confusion may be because there is also a Chinese-language version of the journal (科学通报 or "Kexue tongbao") with its own ISSN (which is documented on zh.wiki but not en.wiki). Chinese Science Bulletin aka Science Bulletin is the English-language version so far as I can tell. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Monster Iestyn Thank you for looking into this. I was concerned that there may be another publication with the same name, not notable, that got merged into this article. If this is not the case, then I hope someone will try to untangle this and reference this - I agree the topic may be notable, but the current execution is terrible. Sure, WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, but WP:TNT is a thing too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus No problem, glad to help! Monster Iestyn (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Huang, Yanhong 黄延红; Yan, Bin 彭斌; Peng, Bing 彭斌; Zhu, Zuoyan 朱作言 (2019). "我国科技期刊改革实践与思考 ——以《中国科学》系列和《科学通报》期刊为例" [Reform practice and discussion of scientific journals in China: taking the Journals of Science China Series and Science Bulletin as examples]. 编辑学报 [Acta Editologica] (in Chinese). 31 (6): 638–640. doi:10.16811/j.cnki.1001-4314.2019.06.013. Archived from the original on 2024-06-25. Retrieved 2024-06-25.
  The abstract notes: "It is an important topic to speed up the construction of world-leading scientific journals. This paper explores a variety of publishing practices based on the journals of Science China Series and Science Bulletin, such as optimizing the content orientations, strengthening the sponsor’s policy support of Chinese Academy of Sciences, promoting the initiative of the scientisfs, and improving the academic quality. We also propose some successful suggestions on the construction of journal clustering, international cooperation and exchanges, the professional publishing team, and the digital development of media integration."
2. Fu, Li 付利 (2013-11-15). "专题策划提升科技期刊的品牌影响力— — 以《科学通报》（化学学科）为例" [Special topic planning to enhance the brand influence of scientific journals - taking "Science Bulletin" (chemistry discipline) as an example]. 出版科学 [Journal of Scientific Publication] (in Chinese). 21 (6): 32–35. doi:10.13363/j.publishingjournal.2013.06.015. Archived from the original on 2024-06-25. Retrieved 2024-06-25.
  The abstract notes: "By analyzing a number of special issues on chemistry published in Chinese Science Bulletin, this paper discussed the strategies and approaches of organizing special issues for scientific journals, including the following four aspects: 1) How to choose the topics? 2) What is the most effective editing procedure? 3) How to advertise and promote the special issues? 4) How to make more associated experts involved? Examples indicate that special issues play an important role in improving the academic quality and enhancing the influence of scientific journals."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Science Bulletin (simplified Chinese: 科学通报; traditional Chinese: 科學通報) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one of the older and most important/well read Chinese science journals in the West. Indexed in Scopus, easy pass of WP:NJOURNALS. We also cite it nearly 400 times on Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that the confusion has been clarified and the articles disentangled. Notability is clear. Star Mississippi 16:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 00:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1896 South Bend Commercial-Athletic Club football team

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

After a review of the sources in this article, I'm not convinced this team meets the WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS. In order of appearance in the article, the first source is merely informing readers of a blub meeting, the second is about the athletic club, not the team, the third is all of two short sentences, white the remaining sources are brief and routine game recaps. A check of newspaper archives didn't come up with much better. Let'srun (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and Indiana. Let'srun (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a creation of User:Murphanian777. Back in 2000, they created articles on every team that played a game against Notre Dame in its early years. Many of those opponents were local patsies who Notre Dame defeated easily. That also appears to be the case here as ND outscored this club, 46–0. While well intentioned, I have serious doubts about the notability of stand-alone articles on ND's patsies. Similar articles on ND patsies have been deleted as well. The rationales in the prior AfDs apply here as well. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1900 South Bend Howard Park Club football team, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1905 Bennett Medical football team, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1904 Toledo Athletic Association football team. Cbl62 (talk) 03:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and History. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 04:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not every team is notable enough for an article, and the sources are rather sparse. Whizkin (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cbl62's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 00:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northeastern Centre for High School Research

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

Not a notable organization. Created by undergraduate students last year; no substantial coverage that is independent from the group. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do agree with the conclusions for this article @Walsh90210 Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources and per nom, page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the above. Bduke (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. ✗plicit 00:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inquisiq R3

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

The company's website now redirects to another LMS, which does not have an article. I'm not sure if it was just renamed (the software was also renamed Inquisiq R4 years ago), or if this is a different program. This LMS has had a notability tag since 2021, and neither Inquisiq nor Hireroad having pages, I find it strange that a specific piece of software from them has a page. Searching for Inquisiq returns mostly SEO spam, or this article, which fulfills none of WP:GNG SekoiaTree (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Internet, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haytham Kenway}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luno (band)}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duncan Turnbull}}<!--Relisted-->